Difference between Rhodes Gas & Browns Gas - KeelyNet 04/11/02

The following item was printed in the February 1998 PACE (Planetary Association for Clean Energy) newsletter and is followed by a response from Dr. William A. Rhodes, Yull Brown is now deceased;

'An inventor who has been referenced before issuance of the Yull Brown patents is now making claims on the Internet for precedence for generation and single-ducted use of mixed atomic hydrogen and oxygen. William A. Rhodes of the Arizona State University, refers to his US patents 3,262,872 issued July 26, 1966 and 3,310,483 of March 21, 1977, about 5 years before Yull Brown discovered his process in a small Sydney, Australia lab in 1971. Over 20 examiners, from Australia to the United Kingdom, did not agree when they granted some 30 patents to Yull Brown in the mid-1970s.

The mixed gas produced by the Rhodes system is different and does not have the unique - and for most conventional scientists - 'anomalous' physical properties of Brown's gas. Essentially, Brown's gas comes already mixed and compressed at determinable levels, straight out of the electrolysis, while the Rhodes' system is mixed in a 2:1 ratio after electolysis prior to membranes and onto conduits and then to the torch.

Browns's gas burns in a vacuum, is subject to implosion - as a single reaction - when sparked or heated, has a variable flame temperature of about 138 C to over 6,000 C at which tungsten sublimates and allows transmutation.

The Rhodes system allows for a production in 20, 75, 150 and 300 litres of mixed gas per hour. While 340 litres of Browns Gas are generated per 1kwh, only 167 litres of the Rhodes mixed gas are. The Rhodes system can use an 'outboard' alcohol booster tank that increases BTU output while decreasing the flame temperature of the standard 3,315 C to about 1,930 C.

The Rhodes system is manufactured by Arizona HydroGen Manufacturing, 4225 East Madison Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034. It has applications in welding, soldering, polishing and annealing in industrial electronics, jewelry manufacturing, dental laboratories, glass, ceramic and plastics industries. Details: Dennis McMurray at 602-275-4126, FAX 267-8787.'

Subject: SUBJECT BETTER ORGANIZED
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 20:21:00 -0700 (MST)
From: WILLIAM A. RHODES
To: Jerry Decker

TO: Planetary Association for Clean Energy

I am William Rhodes who your following newsletter was aimed at.

Since my research documentation covering my invention of the Single Ducted oxy-hydrogen system was complete on Keelynet (see links below), I am puzzled by your statements. However, your questions will be answered for correction further clarification.

---

(Yours in quotes.)
"An inventor who has been referenced before issuance of the Yull Brown patents is now making claims on the Internet for precedence for generation and single-ducted use of mixed atomic hydrogen and oxygen. William A. Rhodes of the Arizona State University, refers to his US patents 3,262,872 issued July 26, 1966 and 3,310,483 of March 21, 1977, about 5 years before Yull Brown discovered his process in a small Sydney, Australia lab in 1971."

** I am *now* making claims? Look at Yull Brown's first U.S. patent. My patent is clearly listed as a reference there and dated 11 years prior to his. I used two years of experimenting before going for a patent. **

"Over 20 examiners, from Australia to the United Kingdom, did not agree when they granted some 30 patents to Yull Brown in the mid-1970s."

** What did Examiners not agree on? Certainly it cannot be my date of issuance or the invention itself? If not, then what? So far, this dealt with non-applicable trivia. Many patent attor- neys get jobs with the patent office because they were not intel- ligent enough to remain in private practice. I have about 60 patents.

One case involved technology so strange I was attacked as a fraud, and my application rejected. Time does not permit details except to say, the invention was gross simplification of an electrostatic generator using water dripping through two open cans. It's predecessor existed for sale in an old Central Scien- tific catalog. It contained four cans. I ripped out the page and mailed it to the examiner with a note that said, "If I am a fraud, then the company selling its equivalent is also a fraud." US 2,742,58l patent issued immediately. Now, lets look at more of your complaints. **

"The mixed gas produced by the Rhodes system is different and does not have the unique - and for most conventional scientists - 'anomalous' physical properties of Brown's gas. Essentially, Brown's gas comes already mixed and compressed at determinable levels, straight out of the electrolysis, while the Rhodes' system is mixed in a 2:1 ratio after electrolysis prior to mem- branes and onto conduits and then to the torch."

** I would certainly appreciate your explanation of what is unique about Brown's Gas. I examined his patent and find nothing different in his gas from mine. In either case compression of such gases must not approach 400 psi where auto-ignition occurs. Rhodes gas likewise comes straight from the electrolysis tank, ALREADY MIXED, but NOT in a 2:1 ratio. It is a stoichiometric mixture of 1:1 (atom for atom). A 2:1 ratio cannot be stoichio- metric and would cause incomplete burning. There are no mem- branes and "conduits". Mine is a single conduit. Whomever wrote this either did not read, did not understand, or too hastily scanned the document on Keelynet.**

"Browns's gas burns in a vacuum, is subject to implosion - as a single reaction - when sparked or heated, has a variable flame temperature of about 138 C to over 6,000 C at which tungsten sublimates and allows transmutation."

** Excuse me! There is no scientific reason why any combustible gas mixture chosen would not burn in a vacuum. This is an oxymo- ron. The degree of vacuum is not mentioned. Not much of a vacuum can exist with combustion occurring in it. The pumping system merely sucks gases out the burner orifice. "Implosion?" Implosion always occurs in both Brown and Rhodes. All hot gases "implode" on a continuous basis, with continuous combustion. To be proper, it should be called "volume shrinkage". When combus- tion ceases, regardless of the gas species used the byproducts of combustion and internal atmosphere SHRINKS toward ambient pres- sure. This is just plain high-school physics, in open air or partial vacuum. So far the author has a failing grade in physics. This implosion myth has been circulating many years. It comes from the scientifically ignorant. **

"The Rhodes system allows for a production in 20, 75, 150 and 300 liters of mixed gas per hour. While 340 liters of Brown's Gas are generated per 1kwh, only 167 liters of the Rhodes mixed gas are. The Rhodes system can use an 'outboard' alcohol booster tank that increases BTU output while decreasing the flame temper- ature of the standard 3,315 C to about 1,930 C."

** How was the liters per kw determined? The Rhodes electrolyzer system delivers the maximum output from a proper amount of potas- sium hydroxide (KOH). (Read the Keelynet document again.) In the States, there are two manufacturers claiming 100% efficiency. That, dear friend, would mean an electrolyte with zero resist- ance, presently impossible. They, including Yull Brown, were not aware that instruments used for such measurements must be capable of accurately reading all power delivered harmonics. Using the wrong instruments can and does provide readings in excess of true energy used.

Example: If electrical energy is through a converter that yields spikes occupying say 10% of the duty cycle, then false readings can produce a miracle by showing an efficiency of 300% or more. A gross impossibility. With that we would have, hooray, over-unity -- free energy from nothing. (Yull Brown's higher gas yields per 1kwh are no doubt instrument errors.) The only way to determine true energy input vs BTU delivered is using a watt/hour meter of the type seen on homes and businesses, followed by a calorimeter. They read ALL energy, not just portions of it. The last three sentences in the previous text about the alcohol booster are almost correct.** Instruments used in compiling the original Keelynet document were NIST calibrated. Nothing was left to chance. I would advise you read and understand it before launching such ridiculous trivia as found here. Somehow I touched a nerve yielding an emotional response instead of a scientific one.**

The Rhodes system is manufactured by Arizona HydroGen Manufacturing, 4225 East Madison Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034. It has applications in welding, soldering, polishing and annealing in industrial electronics, jewelry manufacturing, dental laboratories, glass, ceramic and plastics industries. Details: Dennis McMurray at 602-275-4126, FAX 267-8787.'

Respectfully,

William A. Rhodes, Physicist

Oxyhyd 1 paper

Oxyhyd 2 paper