Is this deliberate miss-information or just ignorant skeptics postulating/posturing?
I’ve seen several hexavalent chromium (aka chromium 6) comments online and personally feel that this is a good example of Vested Interest suppression.
Here’s an example of a ‘tester’ video. The ‘tester’ assumed that just because the fluid changed color, that hex chromium is present… Ignoring the observed fact that the color was totally in the wrong spectrum. The test was showing presence of something,
but not necessarily hex chromium.
At the very least, a proper scientific test would start by testing the WATER used to make up the electrolytic solution, since most water in the USA is ALREADY contaminated by Hex Chromium.
Then test the electrolyte solution BEFORE it is introduced to the stainless steel electrodes, to eliminate the possibility of Hex Chromium being in the substance being used as the catalyst AND to see if the test is even valid for electrolyte solutions (high acid or alkaline). I would also think that most tests like this one would require a neutral pH to be accurate. Electrolyzer fluid is typically 13 pH and that would certainly affect the test.
Next, any testing protocol that assumes that some other electrode material (like titanium) would NOT produce the indicated reaction should PROVE it by testing the solution from those electrodes too (to see that you don’t get a positive for hex chromium)!
The above test indicated hexavalent chromium but was not done properly.
1.
There was no test to verify that hexavalent chromium wasn’t already in the water BEFORE putting it into the electrolyzer.
2.
There was no verification of pH or temperature (both of which affect the quality of the test).
3.
There was no verification that there wasn’t something else in the solution that would react similar to hexavalent chromium
4.
There was no control (testing from an electrolyzer that had nickel or titanium electrodes).
So the test was invalid.
I have yet to see a proper test that truly indicates hexavalent chromium presence.
I have recently had the Brown’s Gas itself (from the AquaCure AC50) AND Brown’s Gas bubbled water tested by a LABORATORY and Lab Verified that there is NO hexavalent chromium!
Vested Interest is VERY good at starting rumors that prevent the public from taking advantage of technologies that would lose them billions of dollars.
In this case, they simply go on a few forums and mention that perhaps because stainless steel has chromium in it, that people should be concerned that there may be hexavalent chromium formed in the electrolyzers that use stainless steel for electrodes.
Or maybe some armchair skeptic just wondered if it’d be possible, and come up with weird theories and/or justifications of how it’d be possible, again with NO SCIENTIFIC testing… In this case, we again have an example of Vested Interest suppression by route of talking heads and/or ‘useful idiots, ignorant of actual facts.
Vested Interest has often gone to considerable lengths to miss-educate ‘educated’ people in public personas and these become the talking heads that the public believes.
Here’s an example of the many lies propagated by Vested Interest miss-education, in this case for automobile mechanics (click).
To continue;
the planted nudge now becomes a rumor or myth that can’t be shaken because people have watched Erin Brockovich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich
and know that hexavalent chromium is very bad for health (click) (click) (click).
The Vested Interest knows that they don’t need to prove the rumor false. The onus to prove the rumor false falls on the shoulders of ‘fringe science’ that is easy to discredit. I know this issue intimately because, as an inventor, I CONSTANTLY work on the fringe.
My point is that just because you’ve read or heard some theory (even from scientists) doesn’t make it true.
Let’s walk through some actual facts and my experiences/opinions.
1. I haven’t seen any scientific proof that hexavalent chromium is formed in electrolyzers that use stainless steel plates.
Here is one article that might be relevant, except that (as it points out) the quantities would be minute; and would (as I point out below) stay in the electrolyzer and would be buffered by the lye solution.
For this to happen, even this minutely, the stainless steel would have to corrode, which does not happen in our electrolyzers (designed to last for decades). I’m still using an electrolyzer I built in 1986.
2. Some people have attempted to test for hexavalent chromium but their tests were inconclusive because they really didn’t know how to do the tests properly. Frankly, neither do I; but there are lots of independent labs that do know how and NONE of them have submitted reports of hex chromium in electrolyzer electrolytes that have been used since Michael Faraday ‘invented’ electrolysis ~ 1830.
3. Stainless steel is a ‘food grade’ material, used everywhere in industry and is totally compatible with fluids containing lye (NaOH). In fact, NaOH is RECOMMENDED as a solution to clean stainless steel in food grade applications.
4. Lye (NaOH) is used in many applications of the food industry and comes in a ‘food grade’.
5. Lye solution is a common cleaning fluid for stainless steel pipes.
6. If simple association of lye with stainless steel would cause formation of hexavalent chromium, you can be quite certain we’d have heard about it long before now.
7. In all the OSHA and similar reports I’ve looked at, there is no reference to hexavalent chromium formation in any conditions similar to what exist in a Brown’s Gas electrolyzer, examples: (click) (click) (click).
8. The chromium in stainless steel is NOT hexavalent.
9. It takes very high temperatures (like melting of the steel) to assist the stainless steel chromium to become hexavalent.
10. Stainless steel plates are ‘neutral’ and unreactive (they do NOT normally oxidize or degrade) during ‘normal’ electrolysis (with electrolytes like lye (NaOH).
The above statement is assuming people are not ‘over-driving’ the electrolysis by having a high amperage density on the electrodes. If amperage density causes the electrolysis cell to go above the electro-deposition voltage of the cell, then actual metal can be pulled from the positive electrode (oxidizing anode) and is then (usual electrolysis) deposited on the negative electrode (cathode).
Even so, I haven’t seen any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that electro-deposition (essentially electroplating) causes hex chromium to form.
11. An ‘oxide layer’ on the anode is normal and is NOT considered to be ‘oxidation’ of the anode. Electrolysis of water NORMALLY creates oxygen on the anode so oxidation of some anode materials is inherent and the oxidized material usually stays ‘attached’ to the anode (does not go out into solution). Nickel and chromium do NOT usually oxidize during normal water electrolysis. Chromium would be an excellent anode material, if it wasn’t so expensive!
12. High pH solutions acts as buffers to absorb and neutralize hexavalent chromium. 25% lye (NaOH) solution has a very high pH. This would automatically render most tests for hex chromium invalid, inadequate and inconclusive.
13. Even if hexavalent chromium is somehow formed, the pH of the electrolyte would act as a buffer to absorb it; thus neutralize/mitigate its health issues. Here are a sampling of the many reports on mitigating/neutralizing hexavalent chromium (click) (click) (click) (click) (click) (click). Reports like this are easy to find by anyone who actually looks.
14. Electrolyzers split water into hydrogen and oxygen (and in our case also make BG). Assuming you are using pure lye and pure water, those gasses are the only ones that form in and leave the electrolyzer. They are non-toxic.
Hex Chromium is NOT a gas and would not come out with the Brown’s Gas, even if it were in the electrolyte.
15. I have several spectrographic analysis reports of Brown’s Gas and NONE of them show anything that could even remotely be construed as hexavalent chromium.
16. Solids/impurities that were in the water or which are formed in the electrolyzer STAY in the electrolyzer. So even if some sort of poison was to form, it’s very unlikely that any solid or liquid impurity in the electrolyzer would present a health risk.
17. Brown’s Gas (aka BG or HHO) that is formed in an electrolyzer has (according to reports from my customers) been curing cancer (and many other maladies).
18. I’m thinking that if BG contained something that caused cancer that I wouldn’t be hearing reports of how Brown’s Gas CURED cancer in virtually every case it’s been tried.
19. I’ve been drinking BG bubbled water since June of 2005. I used to catch colds in the winter and now that only happens when I stop drinking the BG bubbled water.
I’ve been breathing BG gas directly (for at least 4 hours and up to 8 hours every day) since March of 2016 and have noted ONLY positive health effects.
20. ObamaCare, for example, is a program that uses government influence to set up a perfect money making environment for big Pharma and the medical establishment, who have a VESTED INTEREST in keeping you sick and suppressing any kind of actual cures for disease. Health isn’t profitable.
21. These Vested Interest WANT YOU SICK (click) because they make money when you are sick. The longer they can keep you sick, the more money they make. Our ‘health-care’ system has effectively been perverted into a ‘sick-profit’ system that is DESIGNED to mitigate symptoms instead of cure disease. Mitigating the symptoms causes people to think they are well, as the disease continues to progress until it kills them.
22. There are MANY inexpensive and effective cures for most diseases that are actively and often viciously suppressed by the medical community.
People are just becoming aware of the health benefits of BG (HHO) and we are now seeing the Vested Interest doing their suppression of this technology. The hex chromium myth is one of the rumors designed to cause people to shy away from BG(HHO).
23. Note that while Doctors are usually well intentioned people, they have a Vested Interest sponsored education, which trains them to be drug pushers. They are specifically NOT trained to cure disease and can actually lose their license to practice if they DO start curing diseases.
24. Lye solution (the electrolyzer’s electrolyte) is totally environmentally compatible. Lye is made from wood ashes, which form during forest fires. When a rain comes after a forest fire, tons of lye are washed into streams and lakes. Nature absorbs and uses the lye to propagate itself.
25. Lye has also traditionally (for hundreds of years) been used as a household drain cleaner and to make soap. There is NO issue about pouring the lye solutions down the drain. Many people consume lye on a daily basis without even knowing it.
In conclusion: I believe the hexavalent chromium rumor to be a myth-information presented by ‘Vested Interest’ and propagated by ‘useful idiots’; now that BG (HHO) has become a potential threat to their billions of dollars in ‘health’ income.
FAQ: Have been doing some more research and found out about hexavalent chromium produced? from electrolysis of stainless steel https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/59305/production-of-hexavalent-chromium-during-electrolysis-using-a-stainless-steel-as What are your thoughts on this?
Hexavalent chromium cannot be produced with our electrolyzers, because the necessary voltage doesn’t exist. If anyone anywhere says that hexavalent chromium is produced with alkaline electrolysis, they are likely mistaken.
https://eagle-research.com/is-there-hexavalent-chromium-in-browns-gas/
| And one of the comments said that dumping lye (NaOH) down the drain is illegal. That’s not entirely true. Small amounts of lye are not only allowed but encouraged because MOST drain cleaners are mostly lye AND the alkaline helps neutralize the acids in the sewage. Further, NaOH is TOTALLY NATURAL to the environment. One of the major ways lye is ‘made’ is to rinse water through wood ashes, then evaporate off the water, leaving the lye behind. In other words, when there is a forest fire, TONS of lye is created, which flows (using rain) into the soils and waterways. Lye is NEEDED by all living things. Small amounts of Lye is not considered toxic waste. | |
Debate with Jim Wilson… I appreciate your study submission and thus see the reasoning that you use to nickel plate your electrodes, particularly the anode, where electrode-corrosion occurs. I did not think it was possible to create Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6+) using electrolysis… And frankly still remain skeptical but open to learning. It’s my current understanding that the conditions required to FORM Hexavalent Chromium don’t exist in an electrolyzer. Even with relatively pure and finely ground Chromium and using a catalyst, the use of over 600°F (up to 700°F) is required. Electrolyzers do not exceed 212°F because at that point water boils and ‘cools’ the electrolyzer. https://www.freepatentsonline.com/1926758.pdf As for the implication that there is Hexavalent Chromium in the Brown’s Gas (HHO) of an electrolyzer without nickel coated electrodes I have three responses: 1. I have spectrographic analysis of Brown’s Gas that show ZERO Hexavalent Chromium<a href=”https://eagle-research.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Browns-Gas-Spectroscopy.pdf” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>Browns’s Gas Spectroscopy</a> 2. If this cancer causing ingredient was in the gas, all the scientific studies and case studies that show Brown’s Gas mitigates cancer would be false. You cannot ‘cure’ cancer with a cancer causing ingredient, thus it isn’t there… 3. I’ve been handling electrolyzer lye solution (skin contact) since 1986, drinking the Brown’s Gas bubbled water since 2005 and inhaling the Brown’s Gas from my electrolyzers for a MINIMUM of 4 hours a day (up to 10 hours) since March of 2016. And I’m MUCH healthier than I was… So is everyone around me and thousands of my customers… So I’m thinking thisHexavalent Chromium ‘potential’ is more fear mongering. I’m not saying this against your research, just that I’ve known of this ‘rumor’ for more than a decade and don’t yet see ANY legitimate reason to be concerned. That said, I acknowledge that it’s possible to ‘make’ it be there, if you use inappropriate experiments, designs or procedures that ‘create’ it or concentrate it from other sources. AND, I have no objection to nickel coating electrodes, particularly the anode, because it IS a good idea when you are over-driving (too much amperage density) your electrodes… But if you are going for the BEST anode material, why aren’t you using Platinum? Using nickel seems to be a cost cutting compromise that undermines your stated philosophy. Let’s examine the study you submitted… Which I see was copyrighted by YOU (Hydrogen Technologies)… <a href=”https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319920301403″ target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319920301403</a> So I note there is a conflict of interest. Also note that I paid $35 to see this study, so I’m assuming that posting it in public view would contravene copyright intentions. And, based on my decades of electrolyzer research, development and optimization, the study parameters show some important deficiencies leading to (perhaps) inappropriate conclusions. The study has some flaws that (in my opinion) skew it’s conclusions into inappropriateness… I think the Elsevier editors needed to choose better peer-reviewers. Virtually ALL water now contains some Hexavalent Chromium, even deionized water. I see that you did not use distilled water in this study… You also did not test (or show that you tested) theCr6+ in the water BEFORE adding it to the electrolyzers. If there is Hexavalent Chromium in the water put into the electrolyzer, it tends to STAY in the electrolyzer, because the Oxygen and Hydrogen output is pure. All impurities will, over time, concentrate in the electrolyzer. I note that it is possible for ANY impurity to exit the electrolyzer, riding out in water moisture droplets. Which you appropriately address in your electrolyzers by keeping the electrolyzer temperature LOW (less water moisture in the gas)… BUT, lower temperatures would ALSO mitigate Hexavalent Chromium ‘production’… You also do not detail how much water was consumed in the process of the experiment, or the efficiency of the test electrolyzer, thus no way to estimate how much Hexavalent Chromium may have been ‘concentrated’ (from the water charge). I’m also ASSUMING that your power supply was somehow amperage limited, but this is also not described in your study; and it’s vital to describe how you address amperage-runaway (the propensity of the electrolyte to lose resistance as it heats up) because that affects amperage flow and thus gas production, electro-deposition, etc. As for your Hexavalent Chromium testing technique… There is also no evaluation of the effect NaOH has on the titration of Cr6 to Cr3, or the effect that dissolved oxygen has on the titration; thus I cannot (yet) accept the ’test’ results as accurate. For such titration I’d like to see the NaOH removed first or some sort of study showing that the existence of NaOH in the solution has no effect on the titration test. That said, I acknowledge that the test should at least compare the relative volumes of Cr. And I don’t see an evaluation of ‘which’ Cr ions exist in the solution… Because whileHexavalent Chromium is cancer causing,… Other forms of Cr are not. And you keep referring to Cr6+ as if it is ALL Cr6, without defining how much Cr is Cr6. But stipulating that the test is at least ‘comparative’, your “Table 1 – Cr6+ concentrations in the samples” is impressive. If true, you’ve demonstrated that if you seriously over-drive an electrolyzer that has stainless steel electrodes, you can get a 23x higher concentration of Cr6+ … But you also demonstrated that even your nickel plated electrodes cause a Cr6+ concentration that exceeds carcinogenic standards, just not as much… And this is after only 70 hours. My electrolyzers have run hundreds of thousands of hours in therapeutic application WITHOUT causing any cancer in anyone, ever. In fact, just the opposite. Cancer is mitigated every single time… And this is with ordinary stainless steel electrodes… But they are NOT ‘over-driven’. Next… Amperage (not voltage) causes electrolysis (splitting of water). If using higher amperage (thus higher amperage density) more water is ‘electrolyzed’ and thus more of the Hexavalent Chromium would naturally concentrate. This natural concentration of ambient Hexavalent Chromium would lead to the inappropriate conclusions that 1.Hexavalent Chromium can be made using electrolysis and 2. higher voltage potential (actually higher amperage) creates MOREHexavalent Chromium. Further… You do not seem to understand (from this study) that while ‘over-potential’ above the electro-deposition voltage of the electrode material is a factor of electrode-corrosion, the LARGER factor is amperage density! This factor was not addressed. I’ve discovered, with stainless steel, if you keep the amperage density lower than 0.5 amps per square inch, electro-corrosion doesn’t happen, thus no ‘potential’ forHexavalent Chromium from the anode material. If the amperage density is kept low enough, even iron works for electrodes, no need for stainless steel to prevent electrode-corrosion. For example, in one of our ER1200 WaterTorch (Brown’s Gas electrolyzer) using 304 stainless steel, our electrodes weigh 19 lbs. After 4 years of operation, a minimum of 8 hours a day, using the SAME electrolyte solution, the electrodes STILL weighed 19 lbs. ZERO electro-corrosion. This is not theory, this is ‘real life’. While your study doesn’t detail the electrode sizes, your voltage charts show that you are SERIOUSLY over-driving’ your electrodes (in this experiment) using amperage densities far exceeding 0.5 amp per square inch. As far as the electrolyte showing a ‘yellowish color’ after being used for hours in an electrolyzer, and your statement of “The electrolyte showed a yellowish color”, which you attributed to the generation of hexavalent chromium (Cr6+)… Jim… You ARE aware that the color of NaOH is yellow when burned? It’s its natural spectrometric color. It’s very unlikely that the change from transparent (fresh) electrolyte to yellow (conditioned) electrolyte has anything to do with Hexavalent Chromium. Just think… BOTH your experiments had the electrolyte turn yellow… And NEITHER contained enoughHexavalent Chromium to cause a yellow tint that cannot be more simply explained. I also note that your pictures were not appropriate, not directly comparable, should have been side by side in the same containers and with the same background. If it is Chromium that is causing the electrolyte to be yellow, why does it also turn yellow even when electrodes that contain NO Chromium (like iron or titanium) are used? Why, once it is thoroughly conditioned, does the electrolyte not continue to get ‘yellower’? I’m still using electrolyte that I mixed in 1986, and it’s the same yellow as a newly conditioned electrolyte mixture. Further… Even if we stipulate that Chromium ions are pulled from the anode, it is an ion that would immediately try to deposit itself (electroplate) on the cathode, not remain in solution. For Chromium to remain stable in solution, it would need to be electrically neutral and your study does not address how that could happen. I feel that your study is also seriously deficient by not addressing the design of electrolyzers (like mine) that have stainless steel plates and use LOW amperage density to prevent electro-corrosion. Further, I DO acknowledge that there are metallic elements in the electrolyte solution, that are the same as the elements of the electrodes, this ’sludge’ builds up in the electrolyzer and needs periodic cleaning… BUT… In a properly designed, operated and maintained Brown’s Gas electrolyzer, the sludge doesn’t come from electrode-corrosion. The electrodes remain intact! Here we’d skew into a ’transmutation’ conversation. And I don’t see you mentioning Electrically Expanded Water (ExW) at all… And I see you making a AquaCure lookalike that is based on SPE/PEM technology (cannot make Brown’s Gas thus no ExW). So I conclude that you do not understand ExW and it’s therapeutic potential, or you’d never bother with pure hydrogen… Currently, ongoing studies are showing Brown’s Gas (containing ExW) to be 30% more therapeutically efficacious over pure hydrogen (without ExW). In the end, while your study is a good start, there are many holes that would need to be filled before I’d consider it’s conclusions to be accurate. At most it’s a good step in the right direction, but it also is biased against (doesn’t address) appropriate use of uncoated stainless steel as electrodes. And, since you are implying that uncoated stainless steel electrodes are ‘bad’ for health… You’d need to somehow address the amazing heath benefits that electrolyzers using uncoated stainless steel electrodes are having, without any indication of negative effects of Hexavalent Chromium. Jim, I acknowledge that you are an excellent engineer, knowledgeable and well intentioned. You build beautiful machines.But none of us know ‘everything’ and I feel we’d do well to cooperate. I’m pretty sure I know things that you do not, from my decades of R&D, and subsequent preliminary evaluations of your designs and literature. For a lot of what’s ‘out there’, I’ve been there, done that and LEARNED things beyond the ‘state of art’. For example, MY designs of electrolyzers can produce Brown’s Gas at 0.9 watt-hour per SATP liter of gas produced. Few can do that. Likely you know things that I do not. A technical collaboration would likely assist us both. I WANT you to succeed, I consider you to be a peer, not competition. I would like to help you create the world’s BEST Brown’s Gas technology. The world needs this technology and I want to HELP the manufacturers that are producing SAFE quality (preferably also therapeutically efficacious) machines. There are too many cheap ‘me too’ manufacturers out there, providing unsafe options that unsuspecting and sometimes desperate people will buy, not knowing the difference. I acknowledge that your machines are built with every quality measure you think appropriate and I applaud that. But they are NOT (in my opinion) as efficient, safe, functional or therapeutically efficacious as they could be. I also think I have practical experience that would benefit you. I propose a collaboration. I can be reached via my website contact page https://eagle-research.com/contact May the blessings be George | |
| A | |