The relative nature of energy; (Theories of the Hydroxy reaction).



I do find it necessary to respond to your inquires on Hydroxy, or "Browns Gas"



I have some difficulty deciding where to start,  as I will be describing a type of reaction that has no parallel to my knowledge.  The inherent struggle then is posed, as how to intelligently describe an unusual state of mater and energy relationships, that are present and observable in this reaction, to you or those who have never seen this phenomenon.  To this end, I would ask that you and your readers engage in an academic exercise with me.  Do not suspend your current beliefs in the conventional understandings of physics,  but do walk with me on an academic journey of exploration.  To do this I will be forced to ask that you consider the existence of  "The Hydroxy" reaction to be an assumed reality, only for the purposes of this discussion.



Lets examine a few of the known characteristics of energy as expressed in observable phenomenon.  Light, Electro-magnetism, Inertia, Gravity, and Heat.  



I have often referred to the Hydroxy reaction as not manifesting as a thing or substance, but rather an understanding.  My focus on this reaction is, as if I were looking at the universe through another window of explanation.  The predictable and demonstrable manners in which this plasma like state reacts with other substances, offers a new view of physical relationships of matter and energy.  All of what we know in Science is forwarded by this type of critical differentiation of  observable reactions of  "mater" and "energy states".



As we might apply a magnet to differing materials, we then begin to observe a range of experiences.  To some materials it is attracted, to others magnetism has no effect.  We then begin to divide materials into categories based on there reactivity to magnetic forces, i.e.  magnetic, non-magnetic.  Investigating further we find that some materials may retain a residual effect of being subjected to a magnetic field.  i.e. Retentivity, or the ability to hold a magnetic charge.  Still further we find materials that will conduct electricity and others that resist this flow of electrical energy.  Confusing us a bit further is the consideration that materials that are not magnetically reactive are often the best conductors of electrical current.  i.e. Copper, Silver, Gold, Aluminum.  The coiling of these materials in the form a thin wire we are able to generate magnetic fields that surpass highly retentive materials like Ferrous Magnetite.  Thus the work of examination of energy and matter yields ever increasing insights to the nature of the universe.



Light is presumed to travel in a straight line, until you factor in accelerating inertia.  Relative to a body in a change of motion, light mathematically begins to bend,  no longer traveling in a strait line whit reference to an observer in acceleration..  Light was thought for a long time to be pure energy.  In resent years,  the Photon,  has been shown to exhibit mass,  an estimated 4 pounds of which strikes the earth every second.  Light also contains "Radiant Energy" or heat.  The argument for this theory is the fact that light passes through a vacuum, (space), to impact and warm the surface the earth.  The transmission of radiant heat through a vacuum would require a carrier, (the Photon), to poses mass to retain this heat.  Examination of any thermos bottle, can easily show that vacuum resists the convection of radiant energy.  This seeming inconsistency of behavior lead Scientists to look for mass in the Photon.  It is often the inconsistencies that drive scientific investigation.



These examinations of physical properties and behaviors lead us to a current yet changing understanding of all things, and their manipulation drives the Practical Sciences.  Fundamental to applying these properties and characteristics,  is our ever deepening knowledge of the interplay between energy and mater.



As we have learned all that we know about the universe by comparing materials and their behaviors with reference to energy.  I find it incomprehensible that their is such a great reluctance to examine the properties of a reaction that demonstrates new attributes.  I might add, not one or two unusual properties, but a whole raft of unique characteristics.



Einstein, examined nature and postulated most of his theories upon simple observations.  His analogy of the train whistle's' pitch changing as it passes, with reference to a stationary observer, is a fine example.  Lets substitute the ticking of a clock in the cab of the train for the whistle.  To the engineer in the train, the clock ticks at a regular and metered pace;  "Tick... tock,... tick... tock,... tick... tock".  To a person, standing by the side of the rail, who might be able to hear this clock as the train rapidly approaches,  would perceive the clocks' beat to appear to speed up;  "Tick..tick..tick..tick".  As the train passed, the stationary observer would here the period of the beat of the clock, seem to slow down;  "Tock........tock........tock........tock".  This is an easy to understand example of the "Doppler Effect" of  frequencies in relative motion.  But, here is the next question.  Has the energy of the sound changed?



As this train approaches is the ticking of the clock "louder" to the observer?  This is the question of relative effects of a type of energy called "Kinetic Energy".  Like most other forms of energy,  "Kinetic"  has two main components,  mass and velocity, or weight and speed.  The laws governing Kinetic energy are easy to understand.  If something moves faster it is seen to have more energy if it strikes a still object.   The baseball tossed lightly to a three year child, has much less impact than the same baseball thrown by a pitcher, in a major league ball game.  Same ball, differing speeds.  The energy contained in the ball has changed,  but what effect did this change in energy have on the ball?  Most other forms of energy change materials that it may come into contact with.  Electro-magnetism may cause a change in the excitation of molecules.  Heat energy may cause materials to expand.  This Kinetic energy, does not exhibit these types of influences on materials.  Does the baseball get heavier, fatter, longer?  Or is it that we have not developed the instruments to measure this change, if it exists.  We can say, with some certainty, that this type of energy does in fact exist, because we can observe, test and measure it.  



Just a side note;  Einstein reconciled his mathematical difficulties with regard to matter accelerated to near the speed of light, deducing that matter would simply shrink.  Further, he posed that matter at the speed of light would simply cease to exist, as it mathematically be reduced to nothingness.  He therefore, places the speed of light as an absolute barrier for matter.



With regard to Hydroxy,  the existence of a different type of energy may well be like the dilemmas surrounding Kinetic energy.  We can see its effects, study its relationships, but find it hard to define using our known understandings.  Does that mean that it does not exist?  I would rather put forward that we now have a new tool of investigation, to apply to expanding our understanding of the universe.  A new reference to examine the interplay of matter and energy.  No small statement, as this type of discovery only seems to come along about once a century.



Sometimes it is a good practice to describe something new by looking at what it is not.  Examination by differentiation, is well used by Science, and is a very fruitful method of looking at things.  A practical example may be Density.  We know that some things float and some things sink in water.  If you would have a box of ball bearings mixed with corks, you could easily separate them by dumping them into a pan of water.  Skim off the corks, and pour the water of the ball bearings, and the task of separating them would be easily solved.  The segregation of Scientific Knowledge is much like this simple example.  



Now, lets see what sinks and what floats.



A NEW FORM OF ENERGY.  As I have said, no small statement!  Who would offer such a bold statement.  My only answer is simply, those who have seen it!  This discovery started simply, enough from a few normal observations about a molecule, (Water), and its' constituent materials, (Hydrogen and Oxygen).  A third grader will tell you of his experimenting with a candle in a jar.  If you close the lid on the jar the candle will go out.  His teacher will explain that the candle has consumed all the Oxygen in the closed jar, and can now longer burn.  Our third grader then gets the point.  Oxygen is essential to combustion.  He may also learn of the "Triangle of Fire"  namely, fuel, heat, and air.  Heat, expands the materials in the fuel, and they react with the air and then they can burn.  Later in school our student may learn that everything that can burn contains Hydrogen.  In the case of a tallow candle, a carbo-hydrate.  In the case of a Paraffin candle, a hydra-carbon, all none the less containing Hydrogen.



Fire,  so familiar  us all, but do we really understand this complex reaction?  Our student may find, in his studies of Science, that water contains two of these essentials of combustion.  How strange is that?  The very materials that are needed to make fire are also found in the molecule of a substance that not only does not burn, but is the primary material of fighting or putting out fires of all kinds.  Further study, also points out that the ratio of elements found in water is the perfect ratio to sustain a pure burn of maximum heat release; 2:1; H to O.  Later in his studies he may come across the work of  Michele Faraday 1833, who discovered that water can be broken down into its' constituent elements using electricity.  This process is know as "Electrolyses".  So!  The reason that water puts out fire is that it is lacking something that it gains when subjected to electricity!  Now the liberated elements can burn.  It seems that the excitation of the atoms has now allowed for combustion.  Does the addition of electricity replace the "heat" element in the triangle of fire?  Well it does allow the resultant materials to burn!  So, water can burn?  Is water a fuel?



Looking around, our student may see how important fuel is to our world.  Everything needs fuel to make it go.  Our cars, our homes, factories, boats, planes, all need fuel to run.  This would mean that our oceans are filled with fuel, how wonderful!  Separating the fuel from water is an easy task and has been known about for more than one hundred years! Wow.  Separating these elements of Hydrogen and Oxygen from water must be the answer?  This couldn't come about at a better time, as many countries have begun to talk of war, if fuel is not made available to those who have little.



Now to the machine.  Diagrams of hundreds of electrolyzers are easily found in the patents of others who have studied this process, but they all seem to separate the gases.  If Hydrogen and Oxygen are all that are needed to burn, why separate them.  Examination of any Physics book will give you the answer.  In those that have pictures, which are the ones that I personally like, you will see a photo of the Hindenburg Disaster in 1937 at Lakehurst New Jersey.  Under the photo you will always see the caption,  EXPLOSION OF THE HINDENBURG.   Oh Gosh!  Hydrogen explodes.  This fuel, must certainly be very dangerous.  Then to further compound the dangerous nature of the gas, is to suggest to mix the elements, Hydrogen and Oxygen.  No wonder all of the examples found,  show that the electrolyses machines separate the gases carefully.



It is often that Scientists are simply too stupid to know that something is impossible.  If it were not for this "Ignorance Factor" much of what we now know,  would have never come to be.  Christopher Columbus's' failure to find the East Indies, resulted in the discovery of the Americas.  I am glad he was so dumb.



The mixing of gases seemed to be the most dangerous but simple solution.  Could this be somehow done safely?  The fact is that conventional welding does mix the gases of combustion in the handle of the torch, prior to forcing them through the tip where the flame will burn.  The calculations of the speed at which a flame can burn, or (Flame Front Propagation) and the speed of the gas passing through the orifice of the tip, controls the problem of the flame burning back and igniting the source gas.  This is accomplished by the skill of the person using the torch.  The worst that may happen is that the small amount of mixed gas in the handle would explode resulting in a "pop".  When this happens, the person welding just adjusts the gas flow a bit faster, to over-compensate for this "Flash Back" effect.  The inclusion of a positive flashback suppresser seemed to be a way to insure against this disaster.  The other main consideration for safety seemed to be, to make the gas only as it was needed, thus eliminating the need for a large reserve that would be subject to explosion.  Finally the containment of the entire process need be of strong enough construction to sustain its integrity even if a flash back of the total volume of stored gas would occur.



Ignorance is bliss, and blissfully savored was the success of constructing such a machine.  Browns' success lies not in what he did, as much as that he was willing to attempt what so many others would have thought too foolhardy to try.  The principles and systems in his engineering were sound, and safety was key in all of his efforts.  The gas made directly from water worked.  Water was burning!  The efficiency of the process proved to be about 25% the cost of conventional bottled gases.  The convenience was much greater.  All that you would need to replenish the unit is a trip to your local water tap.  One liter of water contained many volumes of gas, allowing for long hours of use. 

 Considering that the ideal source of DC current was found to be, the rectified output if a AC/DC Arc Welder, the inclusion of taps through the face of the unit, meant that the machine could also provide Arc Welding and Gas Welding in the same compact space.



A new form of energy?  Maybe a good industrial tool, but nothing outside the ordinary.



Nothing that is until unique results became evident in the way materials reacted to the flame.  The first thing that is readily evident is that the flame has no radiant heat.  To place your hand near the flame you only feel a slight warmth.  Come into contact with the flame and you are quickly burned.  Additional work pointed to the fact that many lighter materials such as Aluminum, have minor reactions to heating under the gas.  Dense materials like stones, bricks, or concrete became instantaneously white hot.  Melting very quickly when subjected to the flame.  In later years, Thermalgraphic testing if the flame would reveal that the flame contains very little heat at all, scarcely approaching temperatures above the boiling point of water.  The most dramatic results were seen in the exposure of Tungsten to the flame.  It was immediately heated to a boiling point issuing up its oxide.  The sublimation point of Tungsten being about 5620 Deg. C.



The critical test of this seemingly combusting gas, was to come when the dynamic expansion was tested.  Using a piston and long cylinder, a known volume of the gas was forced into the cylinder head.  Incrimentation on a rod attached to the piston, would be able to be read as it was forced down the course of the cylinder.  The unusual happenstance was that the piston went the opposite way, crushing the electrode of the spark.  Understandably, this result set all back on their heals.  How could this be?  No loud bang!  No heat! Later it was to be found no light.  Most assuredly energy was in the gas,  the thermal reaction of at least some of the materials, demonstrated higher than expected heating.  Yet no heat was apparent in this test.  It was as though the gas volume and energy went away to nothing.  Where did the energy go, let alone the volume of the gas?  One worker suggested the discovery of a here to unknown "Energy Vortex".  A place where mater and energy would cross over to another dimension,  leaving only a vacuum in their stead.



I DON'T THINK SO!



It was none the less, curious that this reaction did somehow create a static vacuum of pure quality.  The construction of a sealed container, quickly demonstrated that the gas was reducing to its original volume as a liquid.  That liquid was water.  Humm????    From water, to gas, water?  A closed loop energy system!  Actually that hypothesis only accounted for the MATTER in this energy system, not the apparent disappearance of the energy.  The construction of these demonstration cylinders, along with a long tube connected to a clear container that was filled with water at a lower elevation, became a understandable tool for the exhibiting of the vacuum generating capability of the gas.  Imploding a volume of the gas in the heavy steel chamber, then opening a valve to the lower container filled with water, any observer could watch the water rush to fill the vacuums.



FUN EXPERIMENT!



Fore those of your readers who are deeply interested in math, you may want to do some calculations.  In other pages you will find the electrical demands to generate Browns' gas.  A pure vacuum will lift water to about 29 feet elevation.  Sea water, which is a slight bit heavier,  has an atmospheric equivalency of about 33 feet.  If you run the calculation, you will see that more potential energy exists in the water lifted to elevation than the electrical demand to create this volume of Browns' gas that can lift this same volume.



Now, do not jump to a conclusion that you have proof of "over unity", or run out and try to obtain a patent.



All you have done is determine that this gas can trigger a anomaly that releases what was always there, the potential of the earth's atmosphere.  Still you might say, this proves that you get more out than you put in.  I would still caution you, it is one thing to say that the math works,  and yet another to design a pump that wizzes and sucks, day after day, to make this a practical reality.  It is fun to dream though!



The key still remained to discover where the energy goes.  I am of the old school, when it comes to the immutable nature of energy.  I might also add that it was the implementation of the "Ignorance Factor" that once again proved to offer the break-through in the understanding of this gas.  Having performed the demonstration of the implosion of this gas many times, I became over confident.  At one demonstration a member of the audience pointed out that we were just lifting water to the height of an average work bench.  About 36 inches.  Without thinking, (Ignorance Factor), I retrieved a aluminum ladder from the corner of the shop, in which we were conducting the experiments.  Aluminum is a very good conductor of electricity, (Knowledge Factor).  I filled the implosion chamber to the top with water and climbed the ladder with the container.  Some of you may see where this is going,  I wish you were there that day to warn me.  Placing the voided and gas filed container on my shoulder, I struck the spark igniter.



Condensation is what is submitted many to explain where the energy goes.  Reading about Brown's gas you will hear this mentioned as a simple and trite explanation to this question.  I know where this energy goes, I received a substantial, pragmatic, and lasting answer to this question.  The electrical charge that suspends the gas is instantaneously released to any conductor.  The saving grace for me is that it is much like a lightening bolt, operating with the electrical phenomenon of  "skin effect",  rather than coursing through my body, the charge traveled over my skin dissipating into the earthen grounded potential.  The riddled had been solved.



Now what had we learned?  



Electricity + water =  Browns' Gas.   <>   Browns' Gas + ignition = Electricity + Water.



Looks like a very neat equation to me!  You might also say that I have served as a conduit to closing the loop of this energy system.



Remember I mentioned a man named Faraday?  Well, he conducted a nice little experiment, some 160 years ago.  He placed a beaker of  ice water just a short distance above a tallow flame, a candle.  He noticed the rapid accumulation of water on the beaker.  From this he deduced that the primary product of any flame is water.  This you can see demonstrated on any cold morning when you start your car,  the expended gasses rapidly condense on the cool exhaust system and are spit out on the ground.  Idling a care, can result in a fair sized puddle prior to the pipes and muffler heating up to the point that they boil off this condensation.



Fore those of you who are Plumbers, how many times have you been called to a home in winter, with a customer complaining of a leak in their gas  water-heater.  The "hiss" of water droplets, can clearly be heard striking the hot pan or burner below.  Your customer might also say that this comes and goes, only after they have used a lot of hot water, thus filling the water-heater with incoming cold water.  The vapors are simply condensing on the flew tube and draining down onto the pan.  Home owners,  you might also want to keep this in mind when your Plumber tries to sell you a new water-heater.



New energy.?  Zero Point Energy? Over unity?  I think not!  But interesting?  Most definitely.



I have studied Hydrogen since the mid 60s,  I personally have produced steels from ore, using water as the source of  fuel.  I have developed burners that cost only a few cents to adapt stoves, heaters, and other gas appliances for the use of Hydrogen.  I have managed to blow up two shops, and one garage, and nothing I have worked with to date holds as much promise as this Gas.



Hydroxy because of its contractive nature, burns in a vacuum without degrading the vacuum.  Does this one feature of this gas, suggest pollution free incineration of solid waste?  No smoke stack required?



I have worked with Brown and researched this gas since the early 80s,  I have seen very little to compare the potential of advancing our knowledge of energy and mater than the study of this gas.  We have conducted hundreds of experiments to advance the applications of this gas.  From non-rusting steel to the removal of toxic pollutants from aggregate.  Vacuum distillation of sea water at room temperature or the reduction of ores through oxidation directly from the ore.  The liberation of Hydrogen and Oxygen, the raw materials of life itself, directly from rock!  



When you examine that solar power, through solar voltaic cells, is a excellent source of low voltage DC current, exactly what is needed to make this gas. This reaction can liberate water, (Hydrogen and Oxygen) directly from rock, is it such a giant leap to envision a solar powered water generating plant on the Moon or Mars?  If I were to dream of traveling to Mars,  It would be nice to think that I could fuel up on the Moon, where the fuel energy necessary to escape the gravity of my loner refueling depot would be infinitely less than on Earth.  What about the people who run my fuel depot on the moon, wouldn't it be nice if they could mine for the air they need to breath,  right under their feet?  Not to mention, the sustaining water to irrigate their greenhouses and grow food. 



Hard to believe?  As one who also studies Geology and Volcanism, I may point out that every drop of water that exists on the Planet Earth came from the rocks.  Here is a technology that offers that you can accomplish that with only the power of the Sun, of which the last time I checked, was free.



As fore the discharge of the Electrical Potential contained in the gas after it is produced.  Those of you who are doing the math in that experiment of lifting water to elevation.  Add this to the equation,  you can easily recover 70% of the original electrical demand to form this gas.   Remember calculations of perpetual motion can get you into trouble.  It is impossible and illegal.   Like I say it exists mathematically, but can you design the machine to make it go in real life?



Here are some other things this gas can do!



Seal porous concrete and other materials without the material exploding from the disparency of expansion.



Alloy Steel to and silica, fusing the two materials at the chemical level.



Change the crystalline structures of known materials.



Add to or destroy the electrical conductivity of mettles.



Eliminate oxidation of ferrous materials heated by this flame.



Discriminate materials thermally.



Weld aluminum with no shielding gas.



Burn in a vacuum without degrading that vacuum.  By the way,  It burns in the shape of a ball.



Create static Vacuum of any volume, instantaneously.



Weld under water.



Harden materials, providing for saw blades cutting surfaces of extraordinary strength.



Create no. 9 hardness stones from a normal house brick.



Does not stratify in a contained column, but rather remains homogeneous.



Demonstrates detonation rates three times that that was expected.



Glaze ceramic materials as you hold them in your hand, with heat 1.5  times the power of the Sun.



The list goes on and on,  behind any one, there are a thousand industrial applications.



The unfortunate thing is the wild claims about this gas.  What I am talking about here, are nuts and bolts type of applications.  Cook my food,  heat my home, make me new dishes, patch the hole in my refrigerator coils,  those type of things.  There may be great potential for the dealing with Nuclear Waste, but that will certainly require the involvement of Governments to develop properly.  Claims that we have reduced the half life, of cretin materials are true,  but at what personal risk.  I would like a lead lined suite the next time I try these experiments.  



My hope is to offer insights and understanding to those who will help in unlocking yet one more mystery of Nature.  This journey of exploration is more exciting than any E-ticket ride I have ever been on.



I will do my best to fallow this with more explanations as to our best guess scenarios to this technology.



My Thanks,  Also to Eric Krieg, for providing this forum to examine these new technologies.



Good Work!  Eric.  Keep it up.



TR Knudtson