Talk:Brown's gas

This article was nominated for deletion recently. The result of the discussion was keep.

Amongst the discussion below, there is some acknowledgement of earlier or alternate "discoveries" or documentation. I propose that "Yull Brown" is not the first discoverer of the properties or uniqueness of the material. Please refer to the URL: http://www.keelynet.com/energy/oxyhyd2.htm

A much older patent, "Apparatus For The Electrolytic Production of Hydrogen And Oxygen For The Safe Consumption" patent # 3,262,872 issued July 26, 1966, and registered to William A. Rhodes, a physicist, discusses some of these characteristics. Granting credit to a secondary inventor or discoverer is always unwise. I propose at the very least an alternate subject title of "Brown's (or Rhodes') gas". Otherwise, leaving this article as is, is a disservice and unethical.

198.174.192.100 20:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC) sign me as cheute79[reply]

Availability

I do not understand how the existance of a material like Browns gas (made in a specified way) can be disputed for long. If the substance can be made in that way, any chemist who can and wants to make it will make it. Otherwise, it cannot be made and it will be discredited (like polywater did). If it does exist, are samples of it available, or is there a method available for how to produce it? Polonium 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polonium, it does exist, but samples are not available as it cannot be tanked. Brown's Gas becomes hazardously unstable when put under the kind of pressure needed for tank storage. That is why it is typically manufactured "on demand" at relatively low pressures. Check the links at the bottom of the wiki article to Eagle Research. They sell Brown's Gas torches directly through their watertorch.com website or you can purchase plans to build the electrolyzer from the Eagle Research site. Their electrolyzer design is one of the most effecient around. Fastlerner 18:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently received this video in an e-mail. It shows Dennis Klein demonstrating his cold flame torch and also running a car on the stuff. How is that possible if HHO Gas can't be tanked? JDspeeder1 07:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that it is a scam but the people running it are sensible enough to keep the stuff well away from chemists.11:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

CNN is running it, I'm not saying it isn't a scam but it certainly looks real to me! Blacknail 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't tell what something is by looking at a video.Geni 21:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, I need you in court for my photo-radar ticket! Like I said and you said, it may be a hoax but it looks good on video.Blacknail 23:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok to narrow that down a bit. Identifying chemicals visualy is pretty much imposible. In the case of a flame we can narrow things down a bit but there could still be any of a dozen differnt gasses being burned there.Geni 09:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation of energy

How is energy conserved in this process? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.224.71 (talk • contribs) .

Gooood question. —Keenan Pepper 00:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy is always conserved, except when it is wasted and dissapated as heat. Conversion from chemical to mechanical energy and back is typically 40% efficent or worse at each stage. Converting directly eliminates a step and increases efficency. The fuel cell method of hydrogen/oxygen splitting and recombination (it is a reversible process) is about 98% efficent, but is also typically too slow to use for something like this. --ssd 19:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other names

I've also seen this called Aquygen, HHO Gas, and Klein Gas. I think some redirects need to be added to point to Brown's Gas. I'd do it, but I don't know how yet. hytechapps.com/technology/index.html and www.atsnn.com/story/158213.html seems to give some really bogus information about this stuff and people are getting suckered. —svanloon 00:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just create a new page with "#redirect [[Brown's gas]]" as the only text. —Keenan Pepper 02:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected HHO Gas to this page and merged the previous content that was on that page. Note the capital "G" in gas. More redirects are probably in order (I don't have a user account). 02:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

References

These are some useful references I found (apart from the ones in the article at the moment):

Some background on Brown's gas (SVPRIL), watertorch.com (Eagle), Aquygen Gas Generator (HyTech) [1], Very enthusiastic site about Brown's gas, Overview of Rhode's gas (Free Energy News), Dr. Rhodes' paper Common Duct Electrolytic Oxy-Hydrogen incl. details of experiments (Free Energy News) 05:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I found an interesting article on this whole HHO matter. Paper on HHO Gas (Word Document) My take on it is that they've discovered a way seperating water into H and OH, polarizing it, and then having it recombine such that you have a HxH-O bond, x being a "new magnecular bond." Then, because the two H's have opposite charges, they crash into each other forming HHO. What I don't understand is how they can seperate water, which is polar, into a non-polar molecule and an atom. 16:84, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

They can't. H-H-O is imposible becuase you end up with stupid HOMOs and LUMOs.

   Geni 17:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't read the publication by Santilli. It has some interesting chemistry and measurements made at numerous labs around the country. All the labs are real labs with good reps. Contrary to some of the things said on this page you CAN get a sample of Klein's gas from the company. Santilli never makes a claim that this is an efficient way to power cars. He only says that it may be a clean fuel. As far as I can tell all he did was analyze the gas. He also explained how the mass spectrographs of the gas are related to these "magnecular" bonds. It has to do with a disruption of the quantum magnetic moments of the atomic orbitals. It all seems very plausible. However, just because you can make a flammable gas out of water, it doesn't mean that we should all run out and invest in Klein's company. There is probably a niche for their "electrolysis" technique. For example, if electric power is cheap and water is plentiful and you need a combustible fuel then maybe this is reasonable. However I can't see us burning fossil fuels at a power plant, turning it into electricity, sending it out across the grid, producing Klein's gas in your basement or charging you car battery and producing Klein's gas in your car, and then burning it in a car.

The real question is, how much energy goes into making Klein's gas compared with how much energy you can get out of it by burning it? As far as I can tell, no one has answered that question yet. For a mere $7000 you can buy one of Klein's machines. Then you can figure out how much electrical energy is being used to produce a given amount of the gas by simply measuring the voltage, current and time used by the machine. Then you burn the gas and measure the recovered energy. My bet is that it is a net loss. If it's not, then they have discovered something new. They have a patent on the "electrolysis" machine. There is no reason that they should not publish the results unless there is a net loss and they are trying to hide it. Still, there may be applications where the cost in lost energy is worth it. Maybe in the long term running one of Hydrogen Technology Applications' electrolysis machines is cheaper than buying acetylene. Or maybe the added safety of running a locally non-toxic fuel is worth the extra cost. I don't know and as far as I can tell neither does anyone else who is willing to talk about it. Phil 6/7/06

Of COURSE there would be a net loss, basic physics can tell you that! However, if this as-yet unconfirmed substance could be used to fuel vehicles then you can factor in the greater efficiency of larger power plants. Heck, nuclear power could replace all the fossil fuels on the planet if we could find a way to store that energy in a safe/volume-efficient/non-pollutting way which can be used in cars. (As well as do something about the NIMBYs, but that's neither here nor there.)Fdgfds 19:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the energy non-conservation in all this?

As long as there is a reduction of m in E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² .. then there must be some way to release energy from matter. Finding the better sources of internal energy is like finding better ways to tap into the atom. If this phenomenon is real, it does not in anyway make fission, fusion, and chemical reactions impossible. Nor would it violate any physical laws, but it does violate some ideas of nature.

If you can create 8.98755179*10^16 joules out of 1 kg of matter (1 kg * c^2), what you did was to convert 1 kg matter into its massless "enlightened" equivalent. That is no perpetual motion machine, for resistance and waste heat will eventually drive out the usefulness of those 8.98755179*10^16 joules.

It is impossible to get an infinite amount of energy from a finite mass.Kmarinas86 02:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need some rather high energy levels to turn matter into energy. You can't do it with electricity in any reasonable amount and you can't do it by burning stuff. In any case people would object to cars kicking out large amounts of radition.Geni 10:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass

Statements that mass is not conserved in special relativity (which are seen in some presentations of the subject) require one or both of the following conditions to be true:

1) The system is not closed, which means that mass or energy has been allowed to enter or escape. For example, mass is not conserved in a chemical or nuclear reaction if heat or radiation is allowed to escape from the system between measurements, but otherwise mass continues to be conserved (according to single observers, or an unchanged inertial frame).

Kmarinas86 22:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The secret is that the H_2 -> 2H take 412 J/mol and 2H -> H_2 release 436 KJ/mol. See the book "Occult ether physics" by william Lyne. Yes, most physics learned in universities are very limited. If you would like to learn real physics you should make many experiments and study vibrational physics, aether theory and quaternionic electrodynamics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Equanimous2 (talk • contribs) .

Excuse me? The disassociation of H₂ takes 436 kJ/mol, exactly the same amount of energy that the formation of H₂ releases. They must be the same to satisfy energy conservation. I don't know where you got that 412 J/mol figure from. —Keenan Pepper 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste merge repair

On 27 June 2006, Pjacobi replaced this article with a redirect to Yull Brown and merged the contents into the latter. This was a perfectly well done merge, execpt for the fact that the target article was a very short stub, and the result was thus an unbalanced article that mostly discussed something other than its stated topic. In effect, it was almost, but not quite, a cut-and-paste move. Since, a month after the merge, there has been no sign of improvements in this regard, I've moved the merged page back to Brown's gas so that the name of the article matches its main subject. I've also fixed the page histories so that the edits made to Yull Brown after the merge are now at Brown's gas, where they properly belong. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning that up. Yull Brown isn't notable for anything other than the gas, is he? —Keenan Pepper 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

The AfD, in my opinion, highlights current deficencies in the article. Whilst these should not be enough to require a delete, I felt it prudent to try and rewrite the article to improve the neutral point of view and add sources. I've already found one rather good new source - a scientific paper, no less! Currently the page at User:LinaMishima\Brown's gas is meerly a collection of references, but once these have been compliled I will be attempting to work them into a new version of the article. LinaMishima 14:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous

Can we move on to document the history, applications, and scientific information of Brown's Gas and list the manufacturers of BG generators? This article requires an URGENT update.

This article looks ridiculous (again).

The worst thing, it can't make up its mind, whether we are talking about standard electrolysis and a mixture of standard hydrogen and oxygen here, or about total WP:BOLLOCKS claims.

The links are pure satire, e.g.

9) The flame can fuse plastic to titantium.

from http://www.brownsgas.com/page/page/3353674.htm

Any idea how to proceed?

AfD?
Speedy deletion per Template:Db-spam?
de-spam the link section?

Pjacobi 21:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think calling it Bad Science and categorizing it as pseudoscience is a sufficient expression of skepticism. I think the quote really means The flame can fuse anything from plastic to titanium, not The flame can change plastic into titanium. In any case I am against deletion. The world needs to be able to look up this article and see Brown's gas labeled as bad science. --Paul Studier 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree on throwing out:

possible mixups with standard electrolys and standard oxyhydrogen gas, obeying the laws of nature
spam weblinks

Pjacobi 09:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

efficency

from http://www.brownsgas.com/page/page/3353697.htm

But the Rothman Technologies invention involves an electrolysis unit that increases the Brown's gas production by an order of magnitude. (For the scientists among our audience, you read that correctly: The Rothman Technologies system literally creates ten times more Brown's gas than normal electrolysis systems do.)

As normal electrolysis has an efficency of 25-40%, Rothman Technologies has achieved 250-400%, which is enough to build a perpetuum mobile.

OTOH the stuff on http://www.brownsgas.com/ is so comletely WP:BOLLOCKS, we can also remove all their claims and the links to this site.

Pjacobi 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]