BROWNS GAS INFORMATION
note: for more information, check out:
Browns Gas sold by BWT: -warning, these people have tried to sell poor quality machines
a review of Browns gas welding machines by "welding Bob"
opinions by George Wiseman : he sells them opinions by Todd Knudtson: he worked with Yull a while ago
opinions by Bill Beaty: Bill runs the best alt science pages and is an experimenter
opinions by Don Lancaster: Don is a published author in reputable science magazines
Tom Napiers investigation of Browns gas implosion claims Tom is a physicist who experimented with gases
Official Browns gas page
Someone told me that one shop uses BWT's BG machines for cutting, but as of 3/30, I've still been unable to confirm this.The following comes from BWT as of 3/16/00 regarding their previously troubled BG machines:
By the way, all the problems with the B.G. boards have been solved and we can make any Gas machine work great. It is not dangerous because you use all the gas as you create it. Certainly safer than acetylene which you have to store and is very volatile and when you use it it gives off all that nasty smoke. Nothing at all like that with Browns gas and there IS no better steel cutter available anywhere. Some day we will be able to do research into the properties of the Gas and find wondrous things. There is nothing that I have seen that you can put in front of the Browns gas that it does not immediately affect.
The following is from an anonymous former researcher:
I worked with a researcher & manufacturer of hydrogen/oxygen gas generators during the mid- 1980's. I am a welding engineer and entered that particular business fresh from a senior technical position of 10 years with a prominent fortune 500 group. I eventually left the hydroxy gas generator industry in 1990. During my tenure with the company I co-authored several patents related to combustion modification and flame thermal map manipulation of stoichiometric 2H2O2 gas mixtures. At this time I became directly involved in litigation proceedings with Yull Brown. Unfortunately, my colleagues and I wasted a considerable sum of money investigating Brown and his mostly ridiculous claims.
Hearing Brown referred to as a "Bulgarian physicist", "world famous scientist" etc. is extremely nauseating bull****, the man had been coaxing money from gullible investors, morons and unfortunately, innocent little old ladies in Australia for years in the late '70's and mid '80's. Brown asserted that he had been for many years, a professional electrical engineer with Asea Brown Boveri (ABB). It was discovered however, that Brown was formerly employed by ABB as a somewhat more lowly, electrician. Furthermore, Brown unashamedly claimed the title of 'professor' (bestowed by the University of Life Sciences). When contacted in 1986, the 'University of Life Sciences" was actually a residential address (Chicago I recall), a housewife answers the telephone, she knew of Brown because he and the woman's husband had set up this "university". (her husband by the way, was unable to come to the phone because he was actually at his daytime job driving a truck somewhere). Professor ? - yeah, right!
Brown liked to quote Dr. John Bokris. I contacted Dr. Bokris at Texas A & M University in 1986. He knew of Brown but denied supporting his claims or having any involvement with Brown other than allowing Brown to store one of his primitive machines at the (rented) office at Texas A & M.
Brown 'borrowed' his electolytic cell from an expired patent (Rhodes, I believe) who was possibly the forerunner at the Heynes Company (nice guys-producing good quality,small machines for the jewellery industry in the U.S. since the '60's). In latter years his cell designs were I believe, probably borrowed from the preliminary concentric nested tubular designs of "Dr". Alvin Crosby in New Zealand. "Dr." Crosby was originally one of Brown's licensees but was forced to radically re-design Brown's machine to make it work. I became friendly with Crosby and subsequently discovered he was not a "doctor" - his sole qualification was that of automobile electrician. The "doctor" handle was used to lend credibility to "The Brown Gas Roadshow".
I object most
strongly to the term "Brown's Gas" - who did he think he was ?
Faraday ? Cavendish ?
Using funding from a prominent New York merchant bank, we experimented at great length with proper controls and documentation, at times borrowing expensive equipment from Auckland University's physics dept. to compile data with one aim : to develop this technology to a level where it could compete with, or supersede 'standard' metalworking industry practice for oxyfuel cutting, welding and brazing. We spent several million dollars over the course of this research.
There is nothing 'wonderful' or 'not fully understood' about the combustion characteristics of the stoichiometric mixture 2H2O2. The flame burns with a comparitively low 'specific heat' per unit volume making it impractical / uneconomical for most commercial ferrous metal working businesses. Acetylene derives enormous 'specific heat' via breaking of its triple bond. There is no way, that a hydroxy flame can compete in speed or labor with LPG or acetylene for oxyfuel gas cutting and most brazing applications, even with vapour entrainment of a wide variety of hydrocarbons including alyphatics, aromatics even double-bondeds like Toluene (methyl benzene) or the ketones, as well as alcohols to boost specic heat. In a steel cutting operation each torch will require a minimum 2000 litres/hour of hydroxy fired through the preheat slots of a modified LPG cutting tip (or un-modified MAPP) to even come close to LPG/02 oxyfuel cutting performance. Sublimate tungsten ? read oxidation !
A potential customer would be better off investing in an pressure-swing adsorption oxygen unit and LPG fuel for oxyfuel production cutting systems.
I snickered when I read that people had been trying to fusion weld steel plate with 2H2O2. Just use electric arc in its many different forms MA, MIG/MAG,FCAW,TIG...it is faster, stronger, cheaper and cleaner. If you need to fusion weld thin steel with 2H2O2 it is possible. Methanol entrainment is something "Professor/Doctor/Engineer/Famous Scientist/Electrician" BROWN probably flogged during the discovery procedure for his litigation. What dickhead Brown did not comprehend is that you must use A.W.S.- ER70s-6 wire which is alloyed with maximum deoxidant for mig welding rusty steel plates under a CO2 atmosphere. This wire is a common, cheap MIG wire but will (in a limited way) compensate for the lack of CO & gaseous compound interforms in the flame mantle that normally envelop and shield the weld during acetylene/oxygen welding. - precisely the same reasons why you cannot fusion weld steel effectively with LPG/OXY. Brazing most metals (of low mass) is easy, just use flux either applied externally or as a core inside the filler rod. Accordingly, this type of equipment only has a limited place in a NICHE market.
Brown attracted the
"nutters" and "fringe people" with his banter
of the "golden mean", free energy, atmospheric motors, passive
radiators and of course, he would identify the dullards and latch on to them
quickly. I must say that it is really gratifying that wankers like Pat
Robertson got taken for big dollars....... tee hee hee.
Brown must be laughing his tittys off in that hot 'ol place where his soul (assuming he had one) now resides. After all, the original suckers in Australia and
in latter times the U.S., proved to be the bounteous hosts on which he, the Bulgarian electrician with the Bulgarian name, Brown ? fed - and fed really
response to the above is: Eric, you need to read the stuff you post
better, this is from his stuff, "The flame burns with a
comparatively low 'specific heat' per unit volume making it impractical /
uneconomical for most commercial ferrous metal working businesses. Acetylene
derives enormous 'specific heat' via breaking of its triple bond. There
is no way, that a hydroxy flame can compete in speed or labor with LPG or
acetylene for oxyfuel gas cutting" He is full of crap there.
Browns gas with nothing in fromt of it is cool, but it gets very hot with
metals very fast. It does adjust, all the way up to sublimatinf Tungsten
at 13,000 degrees F Replacing Acetylene with Browns Gas, still using the
oxygen, Browns Gas cuts quicker and cleaner with not nearly the pre-heat needed
with Acetylene or propane or any of the other cutting gasses.
Note: Wiseman said: I have had this confirmed, tungsten oxidizes fairly easily, and the
tungsten oxide melts at a LOWER temperature than the tungsten metal.
Vaporizing tungsten and melting carbon need to be done in an oxygen free
Another person doing BG research is Milan Milan Manchich Director AEM elektronika <firstname.lastname@example.org> P.O.Box 127 24000 Subotica Yugoslavia
Brown's Gas and Energy by Tom Napier
So-called Brown's Gas is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas prepared by electrolyzing water. Generators which prepare Brown's Gas are sold for welding. Brown's Gas has also been proposed as a fuel for internal combustion engines and as an input gas for fuel cells. Here I propose to examine the energetics of Brown's Gas and the practicality of these latter applications.
All calculations are made in metric units with occasional translations. I shall also refer mainly to the mass of the gas since using volumes requires specifying the temperature and pressure. For illustration some masses will be translated into volumes at one atmosphere pressure and room temperature (75 F).
In electrolysis the output rate is a function of the molecular
weight of the product, its valency and the total current passing through the
electrolytic cell. One Faraday is that amount of current which will
produce one gram.mole of a product with a valency of one. To split water,
H2O, into H2 and O2 takes two Faradays per mole, that is two Faradays will
convert 18 grams (about 0.635 oz) of water into Brown's Gas.
Two Faradays is equivalent to 193038 Coulombs. This equals the product of the current through the cell in amps and the time in seconds for which it passes. For example, if 5 amps pass through the cell it will take 193038/5 seconds or 10.72 hours to electrolyze 18 grams of water. Thus the output of a Brown's Gas generator operating at 5 amps would be 1.678 grams of gas per hour. At 500 amps the output would be 167.8 grams per hour and so on.
A cell running at 500 amps would produce 364 liters of Brown's Gas at atmospheric pressure every hour. (A liter of gas is about as much as a quart milk carton will hold.) My guess is that a welding torch uses some tens of liters of gas a minute. A practical Brown's Gas welder thus either has to operate at currents higher than 500 amps or must be operated in bursts.
Normally the current passing through the cell comes from a step-down transformer. At DC it takes some 1.7 volts to cause an electrolytic cell to operate. That is, our 500 amp cell is operating with a continuous power input of 850 watts. The AC input will be somewhat higher than this, depending on the details of the construction of the generator. Let's assume 1000 watts. That is, to generate 168 grams of gas requires one kilowatt.hour of electrical input or about 10 cents worth of electricity.
Suppose we wanted to run an internal combustion engine on this
gas. How much energy would we get out? If we burn Brown's Gas we
get pure water vapor. Burning 18 grams releases 242000 Joules of heat
energy or 229.5 btu. (Allowing the vapor to condense would yield an
additional 44500 joules, 42.4 btu, but in any conventional engine this output
would only appear as waste heat and will be ignored.)
Thus if we drove an engine with 168 grams of gas per hour we would be putting 2.26 million joules per hour of heat energy into it. Operating at a plausible combustion temperature the thermal efficiency might be as high as 50% so we would get out 1.13 million joules per hour or 314 joules per second, that is 314 watts.
The bottom line is that we have put in about a kilowatt of electrical energy to get out under a third as much in mechanical energy. Considering that the efficiency of an electric motor would be over 85% there is no justification at all for using a Brown's Gas generator and an internal combustion engine. An electric motor would do better at less cost and with far greater reliability.
It has also been proposed to use Brown's Gas in a fuel cell. Unless it is proposed to store the Brown's Gas, this is an inherently absurd idea. A fuel cell is fundamentally an electrolysis cell run backwards. That is, the same relationship between current passing and mass of input and output gas applies, less inevitable losses. If the oxygen and the hydrogen were generated separately, which they are not, an ideal fuel cell would generate a given current using exactly the same input gas flow as would be supplied by electrolyzing water with the same current. Unfortunately, the electrolysis cell requires an input voltage of around 1.7 volts while a practical hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell generates 1.23 volts in theory and perhaps 0.7 volts in practice. Thus the ratio of output electrical power to input electrical power would be roughly 42%. Operating such a system has no conceivable utility.
The only justification for such a double conversion would be if
Brown's Gas could be stored in large quantities. Since Brown's Gas is an
explosive mixture it would be hazardous to store any quantity of it at
atmospheric pressure. To compress it for storage would be criminally
A standard cylinder used for storing hydrogen contains just over a cubic foot of gas under about 150 atmospheres pressure. At that pressure it would contain the equivalent of about 5380 liters of Brown's Gas. That is 2880 grams or 160 moles. At 242000 joules per mole a cylinder contains almost 39 million joules or 36700 btu.
There are two ways of looking at this. One is that the cylinder is a poor storage device since, for all its size and weight, it contains about as much energy as two pints of gasoline. The other is that each cylinder is the equivalent of 21 pounds of TNT in a steel tube. This is not something I'd want to have around!
Tom Napier asks,
Among the "wonderful" properties of "Brown's Gas" is that when ignited it doesn't explode, it implodes. That is, the reaction product has a smaller volume than the initial gas mixture. Is this true? Is it remarkable? The answers to these two questions are "Not exactly" and "No." Brown's Gas is that you get if you electrolyze water and keep the resulting hydrogen and oxygen mixed together. Let me make two important comments at this point. One is that it would be extremely hazardous to store any large quantity of Brown's Gas, either at atmospheric pressure or in compressed form. A spark, or the presence of any material which catalyzes the hydrogen/oxygen reaction, will cause a devastating explosion. The second comment is that all the energy which comes from burning Brown's Gas was put into it by the electrical energy used to electrolyze the water. In a loose sense, since Brown's Gas could be used as fuel for an engine and, since Brown's Gas is made from water, one could say that one was running a car on water. However, the power driving the car is coming entirely from the electrical input, not from the water. A car "driven" by Brown's Gas would either have to carry a large tank of compressed gas (see my point one) or drag a long power cord behind it. If you had electrical power available you would be much, much better off driving the car with an electric motor than fooling around with a gas generator and a gas powered motor.
So does Brown's Gas explode? Yes, of course it does. As it happens, in my foolhardy youth I once filled a polyethylene bag with a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and lit it from a safe distance. It exploded very satisfactorily and made a very loud boom. Many of NASA's rockets, including the Space Shuttle, burn hydrogen and oxygen. If Brown's Gas always imploded, the rockets would be sucked into the ground.
What you may have seen, and I have seen, is some Brown's Gas being put into
a cylinder and then being ignited. The piston in the cylinder is sucked in with
a thump. However, if the piston was free to move outwards it would fly across
the room. Brown's Gas would be great in spud guns. When ignited, Brown's Gas
explodes, that is it burns rapidly, generating hot, high pressure gas, in this
case, water vapor. Because it is inside a long, narrow, room temperature
cylinder the water vapor rapidly condenses into liquid water, heating the
cylinder as it does so. Since the water has much less volume than the hot vapor
the pressure inside the cylinder drops suddenly, pulling in the piston. The
cylinder heats up in the process, the heat energy from the burning Brown's Gas
has to go somewhere. If the experiment were to be repeated, for example in a
continuously operating engine, the cylinder would get hotter and hotter and
eventually the internal pressure would blow it apart. So the answers are: Does
Brown's Gas implode? No, Brown's Gas explodes like any other combustible gas
mixture. Is this remarkable? No, except that in this case the combustion
product, water, readily condenses to a liquid.
Now for some numbers.
Let's suppose we use an aluminum cylinder which is 60 cm long, has an
internal diameter of 8 cm and a wall thickness of 1 cm. (That makes it 4
inches by 20 inches for you non-metric types.) The volume of the cylinder is
about 3 liters. Let's fill it with Brown's Gas at atmospheric pressure. It now
contains 2 liters (0.1633 gr) of hydrogen and 1 liter (1.307 gr) of oxygen.
When these are ignited they will generate about 176 kJoules of energy, briefly
generating a high pressure and temperature in the gas. However this heat is
quickly transferred to the aluminum cylinder. As the gas next to the cylinder
condenses it creates a low pressure, sucking more gas to the walls of the
cylinder where it too condenses. Not only does the cylinder have to absorb the
176 kJ from the combustion, it also has to absorb the heat of condensation of
the vapor. That comes to another 3.3 kJ, it's negligible but I didn't want you
to think I had forgotten anything. OK, we put 179.3 kJoules into an aluminum
cylinder which weighs 4580 grams (almost exactly 10 lbs). It takes 0.217
calories (0.908 Joules) to heat one gram of aluminum by one degree Celsius.
That is, it takes 4.158 kJoules to heat the whole cylinder by 1 degree. Since
we put in 179.3 kJ the cylinder will be 43 degrees C (77.6 degrees F) hotter
after the "implosion" than it was before. I can believe that. If the
cylinder started at room temperature, say 25 degrees C, it would end up at 67
degrees C. If it was immediately refilled with Brown's Gas and this then was
ignited the cylinder would now be at nearly 110 degrees C, too hot to condense
the water vapor and to generate a pressure below atmospheric. The piston won't
be sucked in until the cylinder cools down again. So ask your local Brown's Gas
merchant, why did the first charge of Brown's Gas implode but the second charge
--------- The following was offered in response by George Wiseman: >
> The last time Tom tried to ignite a stoichemetrc mixture, it exploded. . . He posits that a phase change just after explosion
> makes it appear to implode.
Typical 2H2:O2 behavior, known to everyone. Because 2H2:O2 (diatomic hydrogen and oxygen in stochiometric mixture) needs heat (explosion) to break the atomic bonds between the diatomic hydrogen molecules, turning them into "mon-atomic" atoms, which can then reform into water (implosion). So you get an explosion, then an implosion. It is important to realize that for hydrogen and oxygen to form water, they must be in their mon-atomic or "elemental" form.
The heat in a 2H2:O2 flame is called a "self propigation" temperature, the temperature at which the flame will continue to burn. This is the temperature (heat energy) required to break the atomic bonds of the diatomic molecules of hydrogen and oxygen. The heat energy required to break the bonds of diatomic hydrogen and oxygen (2H2:O2) exhibits a temperature of about 5000°F. This is all standard chemistry folks, easily looked up in any good chemistry book.
A pure 2H:O mixture (two mon-atomic hydrogens and one mon-atomic oxygen) and in a pure form will implode with NO explosion first, because it does not require a "self propigation" temperature to break the atomic bonds. There are no atomic bonds to break; therefore the mon-atomic atoms can form directly to water, which is an implosion with NO explosion. This "Pure" mon-atomic gas has no name at this time because I know of no one who can make it.
Brown's Gas is a mixture of mon-atomic and di-atomic hydrogen and oxygen, with a bit of water vapor thrown in. I measure the "quality" of Brown's Gas by the amount of mon-atomic portion. 100% gas is pure di-atomic; 200% gas is pure mon-atomic. My testing of a BN 1000E showed a typical quality of 120% Brown's Gas. Our ER 2200 gets 130% quality Brown's Gas. In these qualities you will still get an explosion before implosion, because the explosion caused by the di-atomic portion is greater than the implosion of the mon-atomic portion. As the Quality goes up, you get less explosion and more implosion.
All this and MUCH more is covered in detail in my Brown's Gas books. I suggest that people read the books before dithering about anymore. I have proven the above with mathematics and experiment; and detail how people can build their own Brown's Gas electrolyzers at a fraction of the cost of the machines sold by Dennis Lee. Our designs are not only much less expensive but weigh half as much, put out more gas with only half the wattage and are simple to build, safe to operate and easy to maintain.
>We would be happy to examine Dennis Lee's
> Browns gas implosion demonstration equipment, but he refuses to have or allow his followers any contact with me.<
We at Eagle Research have tested the BN designs that Dennis Lee is selling. The results of that testing are included in the Brown's Gas Book 2. Dennis has a copy of that book and insists on perpetuating miss-information. Among other things, the Brown's Gas quality coming out of his machine explodes, then implodes because it is only 120%.
Brown's Gas Book 1 is $10 and Brown's Gas Book 2 is $20; available from Eagle Research, PO Box 1852, Eureka, Montana, 59917. Please include a dollar for shipping.
> > We have all heard fascinating
claims about Browns gas, like how it
> implodes. I just listened to a tape where Dennis claims it takes less energy to create than you can produce running an engine on it.<
This is pure bull. I have proven YEARS ago that Yull Brown made a mistake in his calculations and I have pointed out the error to Yull Brown and to Dennis Lee; but Dennis insists on perpetuating the error. The error is so easily proven wrong that this one fact will blow holes in Dennis's (non-existent) credibility. Yull Brown stated that it takes 4 watts to make one liter of Brown's Gas (which equals 4 joules of power) which can raise one liter of water 10 meters. He states that one liter of water falling 10 meters in one second is 98 joules of energy (which is exactly true) So we have (according to Yull Brown) better than 18 times over-unity.
In fact it takes 4 watt-HOURS to make one liter of Brown's Gas (equals 14,400 joules of power) I prove this with math and experiments with my electrolyzers AND with tests with actual BN 1000E, sold by Dennis Lee (fully detailed in my Brown's Gas Book 2). So we have 146 times UNDER-unity; (with the same amount of power to power one "atmospheric motor", you could have powered 146 electric motors).
In addition, in real life, using gas to displace water up 10 meters will take considerably more than one liter, because the pressure of the water, thus more power required. Again full details debunking this statement and several others are detailed in my Brown's Gas Book 2. Brown's Gas DOES have many important uses, but there is a lot of miss-information that has been fed to people who don't know any better.
Best from George Wiseman
The following is a 6/01 update by George:
Dennis Lee has threatened to sue me ... again ...
He threatens anyone who challenges him in any way. A good technique, usually, because most people back off when threatened, leaving Dennis no competition or conflicting 'opinions'. Since I'd love to get Dennis Lee in court, the threat doesn't work with me.
Dennis Lee has implied that he owns Yull Brown's technology.
Dennis Lee does not hold any patent rights
associated with Yull Brown.
This is easily proven by doing a patent search on Yull Brown and seeing the 'assigned' section to see who was assigned rights to Yull Brown's patents. Any agreement that he made with Yull Brown himself is suspect because of his subsequent dealings with Yull Brown.
Dennis Lee had a temporary alliance with Yull
Brown, at which time he convinced the Chinese to sell their machines directly
to him, by convincing them that Yull was not serving their best interest.
Thus he bypassed Yull Brown, who had the North American rights to sell the Norinco Machines. Yull Brown returned to Australia a sick and broken man, and died soon after.
Dennis now infers to 'own' all rights to
Brown's Gas everywhere.
All he 'own's is the North American 'rights' to sell the China made 'Norinco' machines. Rights given to him by a company that voided an agreement with Yull Brown, who helped them develop the technology in the first place.
I'd think those 'rights' are on shaky ground because the company has already shown that they could care less about honoring 'agreements'.
Since we have absolutely no technology in common with the Norinco machines, we do not infringe on any such patents. We don't want to use any of their technology, our technology is vastly superior.
Absolutely everything about the Brown's Gas machines built by George Wiseman is based on information that is in the public domain. Either because it is known to those 'skilled in the art' or the patents have expired or because George has put it in the public domain deliberately.
Further, George Wiseman has the blessing of the actual originator of Brown's Gas, William Rhodes, who is still alive and quite healthy.
George Wiseman built his Brown's Gas technology from scratch and has the documentation to prove it. If he'd copied technology existing in the marketplace he wouldn't have been able to achieve machines half the size and weight that were twice as efficient in producing gas. Only by throwing away tradition and starting fresh was he able to achieve such startling efficiency and simplicity.
No one 'own's Brown's Gas technology, it is in the public domain.
Dennis has claimed to 'own' the name 'Brown's Gas'.
Yull Brown himself had lawyers after me (twice) because I published the 'Brown's Gas Books'. I proved that even Yull Brown didn't have the rights to the name, he had allowed it to go into the public domain.
Dennis Lee is saying Yull Brown left parts out of the patent so that it couldn't be built from the patent, ... and of course Dennis knows the "secret."
It is very common in patents for inventors to leave out information, or give false information. If discovered, the inventor could lose the rights to the entire patent. Patents that do not include 'full details' for people 'skilled-in-the-art' to duplicate the device in the patent are automatically invalid.
So Dennis Lee claiming that he knows information was left out, is also claiming that he doesn't have a legal patent. It could also bite him if someone else discovers and patents the 'secret', because he then couldn't use his own 'secret' without permission. Or it could mean nothing if the 'secret' becomes public knowledge.
George Wiseman could care less about Dennis Lee's "secrets". George's machines demonstrate a magnitude higher efficiency than anything Dennis Lee is selling. And George developed the technology completely independently of Yull Brown, achieving efficiencies greater than any that Yull Brown demonstrated. George Wiseman already knows the "secrets".
To equal performance, Dennis Lee would have to copy George Wiseman, not the other way around. If Dennis Lee 'patents' George Wiseman's patent-free technology, his patent is worthless, because George Wiseman has already made the technology public domain.
> I think Tom mentioned that the Fischer engine may only run while acting as a condenser. Are you saying that you can harness more energy from the hydrogen than it takes to split it? Dennis makes that claim, but I believe that would be a free energy machine. - I don't know if I follow you about that 1 sixth claim. I haven't followed the sci.energy.hydrogen group (I already surf too much). Could you post Tom's tome to it? -feel free to post your browns gas ideas sometime to the dennis list - Dennis claims to have exclusive distribution rights in north America, so it's on subject.
> thanks for the response,
----- REPLY, Original message follows --------
> Better watch yourself here. There's some hidden and totally legit gotchas. First, a thermodynamic reaction can end up at a lower pressure than it starts off with if the vapor condenses onto conducting vessel sidewalls. A stociatric mix of hydrogen and oxygen can in fact deliver a slight implosion under certain circumstances. Naturally, it comes nowhere near the sub vacuum negative pressures implied by certain web denizens.
> Second, you CAN in fact legally get more
energy out of hydrogen than the electricity put in as electrolysis. There are
two inputs to an > electrolysis cell:
electricity and heat. At 1.47 volts all of the electricity > becomes gas . Above 1.47 volts the reaction is
exothermic and wastes extra heat.> But between 1.24 volts and 1.47 volts,
the reaction is endothermic and REQUIRES heat input from ambient.>
> This is in the badly misnamed FUEL FROM WATER book. I independently confirmed it several other credible places.
> Thus, under carefully controlled circumstances, Hydrogen can deliver up to ONE SIXTH more energy than electrical input. And hyrdogen can in theory become one-sixth of a real fuel. Totally legit, of course. Plain old physical chemistry. Check my latest Muse library stories at
The one-sixth gain part will appear next month. My Brown's Gas comments are in Muse118. Have you been monitoring the Proctologist's Delight at news:sci.energy. hydrogen ?-
> Many thanks,
> Don Lancaster
> Synergetics Press 3860 West First Street
Box 809 Thatcher, AZ > 85552
> Voice phone: (520) 428-4073 email: email@example.com> Visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
No, I am saying you can clearly and legally
get more heat energy out of hydrogen than the ELECTRICAL energy you put into an
electrolysis cell. By a factor of up to 1/6th. The rest comes from ambient
input heat to an endothermic reaction.
Not me actually, the FUEL FROM WATER book, credible web references, and the physical chemistry books all tell you this. Provided you pick an endothermic reaction voltage between 1.27 and 1.47 volts. Thus, you have to be very careful when you say "You can't get more energy back from hydrogen than the ELECTRICAL energy you put in", because there are times and places where this statement is simply *NOT* true. Going in the opposite direction, this supposedly **MUST** imply an absolute maximum hydrogen fuel cell efficiency limit of 86%. Have not checked this intriguing detail yet, though. I'm sure there is no free lunch. But you don't want to make a statement that a pseudoscience nut can scientifically attack. I made the mistake of posting to sci.energy.hydrogen once. Never again. These trolls even flame themselves! Just to stay in practice. --
www = world wide wait
Eric, William and Tom;
Do not use Sea water. Salt, sodium chloride
gas is the result. Very poisonous!
Keys to implosions/explosions;
Explosions occur in materials because of the ordered nature of the chemical level of the atomic bonds of a material. The Nitro, in tri-Nitro-Toluline, ie T-N-T, facilitates this nature of ordered bond alignment.
It has long been proposed that, as in what is bio-chemicaly known as ordered water, the gas molecules of (Browns' Gas) or Hydroxy, link and a electroliticaly suspended order that allows for a very regular alignment of the chemical level bonds in the gas.
Pheeeew! I got it all into one sentence. The degradation of this electroliticaly subordinated state of this gas in a few minutes, is what accounts for the reverting back to an explosive mixture.
The temporal nature of this state of
suspension make Hydroxy appear to be limited to a point of use technology. I
will however point out a few things that it does do that no other gas or
material can! Produce a combustion like heat in a vacuum without degrading the
volume of the vacuum. Produce heat release dependent on the material that it is
in contact with. The heat output of the Hydroxy flame is discriminating
elementaly. Each element reacts differently. Change the nature of
crystallization of materials once melted in the flame. Exhibit now side
dispersion of heat influence of the mantel of the flame. Trigger static vacuums
of any volume instantaneously. Provide a hand-held flame with heat release
potential 1.5 times that of the surface of the sun. Has a non expansive nature
that allows the glazing of fisherable materials such as concrete or brick with
no danger of surface explosion due to dissimilar heat distribution.]
Catch on to just a few of the many differing and unique characteristic of Browns discovery, and you see that these resulting anomalies will be the foundations of vast and untapped commercial applications. This not a gas. This is not a flame. This is not Hydrogen. This is not Oxygen. Nor is it a mixture of either or both. You are looking into a place where mater and energy coexist. Electricity forms the state of mater, and what the state collapses, pure electricity is the only byproduct. No heat, no light, no electron shower, no radio emissions, no ionization emissions, nothing but pure electricity. Find one gas, chemical, fluid, material that acts like this and I will eat your hat! And yes, the more pure the gas the more pure the resultant vacuum. As usual, all the best Eric. Keep up the good work.
Todd Knudtson's Browns gas page
> The last time Tom tried to ignite a
stoichemetrc mixture, it exploded. That's different. The previous message
sounded just like a thought- experiment. When anomalous claims are involved,
thought-experiments can be used to guide investigation, but I don't think they
can be used to counter the claim of an anomaly.
One of Brown's claims is that the mixture must be within a fraction of a percent of 2:1. This suggests that care must be taken in assuring that this requirement is met, and that a quick+dirty test might fail (explode.) I would love to see a report that said "I duplicated the claims, the system was flushed for XX days to eliminate H2 surface absorbtion biasing the mixture, the mixture was ignited repeatedly during the flush time and the sound output waveform observed via oscilloscope, ...etc." (more like the hydrogen powered shuttle than the hydrogen floating > hindenburg) He was trying to give a natural explanation for something that appears to implode. He posits that a phase change just after explosion
makes it appear to implode. This is very sensible. But since shock waves are intimately connected to molecular velocity effects, and since there is no inert gas, only combustion products, maybe something weird is going on even when no cold surfaces are present. Perhaps the shock wave is eliminated, and the explosion becomes a quick but soundless "inflation."
Brown's claim cannot be shot down unless one can say something like this: "I repeated the gas ignition in a metal chamber at various temperatures spread across the 100C point. Near and above 100C the sound output was extremely high, but at room temp it was lacking. This suggests that there is no mystery to BG, the "implosion" is simply a near-instant condensation onto cold surfaces during the explosion. The same would happen if methane/oxygen was ignited in a chamber containing liquid helium. The ignition was repeated in larger and larger containers. As larger containers are used, the volume to surface ratio increases, and when the container exceeds XX cc, we show that there is explosion only, no implosion."
But without actually performing the experiment, we can't say any such thing. If the above experiments were performed, perhaps the above results might NOT be obtained. Without lots of work, we can only give speculation on why Brown might be misguided. (Of course if BROWN performed these above experiments and reported unexpected results, his case would be much stronger!)
> If the gas implodes, where is all the energy going to.
If Brown is claiming the existence of energy anomalies, then the above question is very important. But the question strikes me as being a rhetorical question used mostly to make the claims seem 'questionable.'
> Tom is not debunking that gas implodes but merely explaining why it would appear to implode.
Yes. As long as the resulting conclusion is
that Brown MIGHT be misguided, not that he IS misguided, then I see nothing
wrong with this. It's "debunking" only if thought-experiments are
being used to show that Brown IS misguided.
> We believe that skeptics should be willing to investigate
> and take a fair look at claims. We would be happy to examine Dennis Lee's
> Browns gas implosion demonstration equipment, but he refuses to have or
> allow his followers any contact with me.
Last I heard, Brown won't have anything to do with Lee. I wouldn't trust that Lee's equipment is proper, or that it could be used to prove anything. There must be documents somewhere describing the details of Brown's equipment. A proper test would probably require contact with Brown for clearing up details when constructing equipment.
The "implosion" thing could be investigated, but I think his claims regarding the elimination of radioisotopes by "burning" in the BG flame is much more interesting to replicate. I assume that this merely requires the purchase of one of the BG welders. And a whole bunch of thorium lantern mantels?
.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117 firstname.lastname@example.org SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
I have welded off and on for pver 40 years. One of my friends had a Brown's Gas welder from Dennis Lee on consignment which I tested as a welder to validate Dennis Lee's claims that one could weld with Brown's Gas. What a joke. Brown's gas will not produce a weld of the nature required of any proper weld. The weld has no penetration of the base metal. It is brittle and unmachineable. The flame is such that the heat cannot be used to control the puddle as in welding with most other gas processes I have used. Further, the welding procedure if it were possible to weld with it is not competitive with arc or mig welding processes. The later which are automatic wire feed processes will run circles around any gas process.
Dennis was made aware of the uncompetitive nature of Brown's gas welding yet continues to attempt to sell it by selling the gas as a substitute for the oxygen/acteylene process. Although our demonstration shows that one can cut steel with Brown's Gas as Dennis demonstrates, many companies use propane for that purpose even though it burns at a lower temperature than oxy-acetylene. One the steel begins to puddle, the steel will burn with the oxygen alone no matter what gas is used in the cutting process so long as the surface of the metal is perfectly clean.
The problem with Brown's gas for cutting is the weight of the machine. The 2000 liter machine weighs over 900# and lacks the portability required for most jobs. And that is the main requirement of a cutting torch in the field on construction sites or wherever cutting torches are generally used. Regardless, Brown's gas is a flop as Dennis promoted it.
After extensive use and testing of the
Brown's Gas machine, our conclusion is that a Brown's Gas machine makes a good
boat anchor. End of story. There is much more, but the sum and
substance is that he twisted the demonstrations in the same manner that you
have explained on your web site. I was one of those gullible people that
got involved with his hair brained ideas but fortunately have had much more
experience in that area than Dennis, his crack welder, Sparky, and all the
others working with him.
========== the following is Bob's earlier message with permission:
Although I would like to send you a copy of the reports that we sent Dennis Lee regarding the impossibility to weld with Brown's Gas, I don't want to jeopardize my friend's relationship with Dennis now as he is trying to obtain credit on some purchased items. I hope you will respect that for now. I will discuss it further with him as I believe Dennis has a mission that will hurt everyone that gets involved with him as I see it from reading of others experiences. Please check back in about 30 days if I haven't contacted you.
It is obvious to me after perusing your website why Dennis is admonishing his followers not to look at it. He fears they will learn the TRUTH.
I further believe that Dennis suffers from
some sort of delusionary dysfunction. I think that he actually believes
that somehow, someday, if he
continues to persist, God will show him free energy - - that one day he will earn "enlightenment." It is obvious that he lacks specific knowledge of
certain essential elements needed to achieve an end result. He is either extremely naive or is a compulsive liar and a fraud. He somehow just cannot help himself from himself. What surprises me is that he is not locked up for
life for fraud. He certainly is no businessman.
His statements from month to month in his newsletters are contradictory on the same subjects. He writes and talks his followers to death. He mesmerizes those as naive as he is in the area of basic knowledge of scientific formulae, the laws of physics, mechanical principles, and just plain common sense. His demonstrations can best be compared to a magic show. He is a master of delusion. Anyone who challenges him is his enemy. When I pointed out his contradictions (lies) in statements in the same newsletter, he called it "wordsmithing." I called it FRAUD.
Suffice it to state that our suspicions of
gas welding with Brown's Gas were borne out by the test results. First,
any kind of gas welding in any
application is too labor intensive compared to conventional wire welding techniques. If Dennis would have discussed this with anyone having had
Welding 101, he would have known this. Second, Dennis was promoting welding all kinds of dissimilar metals to each other, welding rods to brick, and etc. When we asked if Brown's Gas would weld steel which is 85-90% of all welding applications, he was taken aback. One month later, he and his party discovered it didn't. Then they came up with special rods at $40.00+ dollars a pound. When that was too expensive, they came up with a "special welding solution" which turned out to be methanol which he sold to the distributors for $40.00/gallon plus the very expensive shipping of a volatile substance. The Brown's Gas was bubbled through a canister connected at the output of the machine. This had no effect on the characteristic of the weld, only changed the color of the flame. End result: It still doesn't weld steel.
Dennis uses his crack welder, Sparky, to demonstrate welding with Brown's Gas but the experienced eye can see the flaw immediately. Sparky cleverly makes a disclaimer about his inexperience with gas welding. None of the "students" know enough to ask why. The reason is as stated: Gas welding is passe' for most applications. When he makes his welds, he does it on thin materials and on both sides. Any conventional process would pass the bend test when welded from one side on such material. Brown's Gas does not have the localized heat to produce the penetration, so the result is not strong enough welded one side to pass the bend test. But Sparky did what he had to do to earn his pay. Right?
Brown's Gas is incapable of producing a proper weld because the flame is too broad and the nature of the gas oxidizes the weld. The flame produced is only good for soldering and brazing which is basically what the videos show Yull Brown doing in his so-called aluminum welding demonstration. It is a matter of having the right amount of characteristics in one complete bundle to accomplish the intended result. Many factors contribute to a proper weld. Brown's Gas welds fail because:
1. Flame is too broad and
2. There is inadequate penetration of the base metal
3. Welds have a rough appearance
4. Welds are not machineable
5. Welds are too brittle - - the result of excessive oxidation
The Brown's Gas Machine compared to a $2,600 list price plasma cutter that one of our friends recently purchased will cut 3/4" materials including aluminum and stainless steel uses the same power consumption. The $12,000 list price Brown's Gas Machine cuts only steel and is 2-1/2 times slower. What businessman is going to pay over 4-1/2 times more for a machine that is 2-1/2 times slower, weighs over 900#, and takes comparatively more time to set up to operate? A plasma cutter requires only shop air and no added cost for oxygen - - and is ready to operate at the flip of a switch. A $12,000 machine less efficient than status quo equipment on the market is out of the question unless one uses it only for the novelty of using water as the fuel. What businessman could afford such a luxury? Knowing welding and sales as we do, we would be embarrassed to even consider attempting to sell this to anyone having the level of knowledge to operate a welding and fabrication shop.
Dennis stated that the Chinese were building
all future units with stainless steel tanks and that they would provide the
machine with taps on the
transformer for arc welding. Our testing confirms what the Chinese discovered - - with the arc welding capabilities, the machine will at least be useful for something. The machines were produced with steel tanks which become brittle from exposure to hydrogen and will eventually crack. Even the Chinese manufacturer recognized this as a problem and announced they would make stainless steel tanks. Dennis's units will eventually crack and who will be liable? The Chinese even went so far as using the huge transformer in the machine as an arc welder as an accessory. I wonder if they got to the point where they realized that they had to do that to make it useful for themselves since they couldn't figure out why the stupid Americans were buying the thing?
Our conclusion for using the gas in a cutting
torch: No knowledgeable fabrication shop can use the machine anywhere
near as competitively as an
oxyacetylene torch because of the high initial cost, lack of portability, and other reasons mentioned previously, and when compared to a plasma cutter, Brown's Gas isn't even close. When the customer demands performance, all the talk in the world won't get the job done in spite of Dennis's ability to do so.
Yet, Dennis somehow continues.
Apparently, he gets sincere people to donate their time in the belief that he
will eventually succeed. These people believe in him. It amazes me
that he continues to delude followers with his mystic and his stamina.
Even after the horse is dead and the carcass is rotting and stinking, they
continue to jump on board and beat the horse to run faster. I am
amazed. Even dumbfounded.
First, you are quite obviously an irritant to
Dennis as he continues to castigate you in his newsletters, admonishing dealers
not to go to your
website, that you are spreading lies about him, and makes an appeal that the dealers pray for you. Frankly, what bothers me is that he stands behind God to get people on his side to perpetrate his schemes. I suggested to him through my friend's letters that because no one else has found a way to silence him, that he ought to examine himself because God apparently was dissatisfied with his deception and silenced him with his throat problems.
When someone as deceptive as Dennis tells me not to do something over and over after having had the experiences we did with Brown's Gas and his other brainstorms, this was all we needed to hear to see what it was that bothered him so much. I figured it was the TRUTH that bothered him.
Second, I have listened to Dennis' version of his former problems which I suspect contained a considerable amount of "wordsmithing" in his favor knowing his track record of the past several years. I will admit that I have not delved into the court record to read the accusations. If indeed it is true that he promised delivery and didn't deliver and that's what got him in trouble, that's one thing. If, on the other hand, he used being jailed as his reason for not delivering product ordered and paid for, that's a horse of a different color and he ought to have been jailed. His most recent record leads me to favor the latter as opposed to the former. One cannot change the stripes on a zebra as they say.
Third, it was obvious the units are not UL approved. I cannot respond with any authority as for the safety comparisons of Brown's gas beyond what I stated regarding the steel canisters potential to crack under exposure to hydrogen which makes steel brittle. That's why stainless steel is usually used in storing hydrogen gas. Suffice it to say that the filling and flushing of the machine, the need to keep it level at all times, the need for a 60 amp/220volt power source, the 900#+ weight of the machine itself, and the 3" straight wheels under it do not lend to portability for cutting. They don't even have a pair of caster wheels on one end of the machine. To turn it, it must be slid sideways over the concrete. It is only useful for a shop with a water source, a concrete floor, and an additional capacity for a 60 amp machine- - no way could it be used on a construction site where most portable oxyacetylene cutting is done, or in a junk yard.
Most high volume cutting of metals in factory applications today is probably done by plasma cutter. Where fast pattern cutting of materials is done, nothing is superior to plasma cutting in both speed, consistency of appearance, and cleanliness of cut. The high temperature in a plasma cutting flame (30,000 degrees as opposed to 3,000), and the laser like concentration are ideal for cutting thin sheet as there is no flame spread on the material, thus no distortion from heat absorption. A torch will warp light gauge steel and result in a shabby looking cut.
Dennis and Mike are desperate to get rid of
their boat anchors to anyone who will buy them. I can buy an entire
cutting torch with several tips for
cutting different thicknesses, 100' of twin hose, a cart to mount everything on, lease the tanks (oxygen and acetylene tanks are generally leased only as they must be periodically pressure tested for safety) for less than $1,000. The new Brown's Gas machine still requires a power source which does not lend to anything but a shop environment.
In my 40 years of welding, I have only heard
of two accidents with an oxyacetylene unit and those were both due to
carelessness. One left the gas
on in his garage and the torch valve open. Needless to say what happened when the light switch arced. Hoses cannot be cut and allowed to leak in confined areas and torches must not be used for hammers. I have seen torch tips plugged up so badly that the torch will backfire. This is simply
carelessness. Even most low level grunts I have met have enough common sense to consider self preservation using this equipment as they are always schooled in safety by someone who has used such equipment.
After I had given Dennis our report on
welding with Brown's Gas, he made the comment about the quality of the welds on
the dealers' "hot line" that "he would not want to hang
over a cliff on one of the welds." Why did he say that? It was
obviously a disclaimer. From that point on he began emphasizing the
cutting application, slacked off on emphasizing selling the machine to weld
with Brown's Gas, and advised naive dealers to sell prospective customers on
the idea of supplying their gas needs for less than their present gas costs by
leasing them the Brown's Gas Machine. That is just another joke when
comparing costs in addition to the negative factors mentioned above. According
to Dennis' thinking, such factors are to be overlooked and ignored and the
machine is supposed to be sold on its positive points as he pitches them.
That is an insult to my intelligence and anyone with equivalent knowledge of
such equipment. Only a dealer who is ignorant of such equipment and
procedures would advocate such a program under those circumstances. Once
informed and knowledgeable, and Dennis has been informed, such marketing and
selling is called FRAUD.
If Big Mike or Dennis knew anything about cutting, they would know that most cutting will probably never involve anything near a 7" thick piece of steel. Most dealers are ignorant of welding and cutting procedures and would not know that 7" material is almost never cut.
I took a two (2) year welding training program at Caterpillar Tractor when I returned from my active duty military service where one of the things I did was to work on the flame cutting tables. We cut the 6" thick ripper teeth for D-9's, using oxygen and propane. That was the thickest material cut in the shop. Those are the four harrow like teeth that mount at the rear of their then largest tractor that rip up shale as the tractor passes over it. So much for practicality. It is probably a safe statement that 75% of all cutting is on steel less than 3/4" thick and a plasma cutter will cut stainless steel and aluminum which would be the next most commonly cut materials in addition to others. That's why I used that size as an example.
Eric, as for the welding solution. As I stated: We routed the gas through the methanol they call their "welding solution" and ran test welds. We then used the gas straight off the machine. Either way there was no noticeable difference. Perhaps a metallurgist could tell us the affect of Brown's Gas bubbled through methanol and burned in a flame employed welding steel. We detected no catalytic effect. I wonder if they got certification from some laboratory or if they did their own certifying. Ask Big Mike for a copy of the certified test results. I suspect he can't provide it and it was the latter. I have four witnesses to our test, a welder, a machinist and tech school grad, another who sets up and repairs large computerized machine tools for Mitsubishi Machine Tools, and another who has run a welding shop for 30 years.
The idea that the flame reaches the
temperature needed to weld whatever substance it encounters as Dennis stated in
his seminars is pure bull****.
The problem with the welding flame is that it is too broad as it comes out of the torch tip and it distorts thin materials. An oxyacetylene flame burns with a defined cone. With a neutral flame (gas adjusted for optimum combustion - - noncarbonizing and nonoxidizing), the greatest concentration of heat is about 3/8" to 1/2" from the end of the tip depending on the tip orifice opening and pressure. The flame from the same tip using Brown's Gas burns the metal, is not defined, and not concentrated. Instead of heating a concentrated area to form a puddle of molten metal, the Brown's Gas flame spreads and heats too broad an area to penetrate the base metal to make a normal and adequate weld. It produces a weld that has little more than surface adhesion thus inadequate penetration. The weld would separate from the base metal in a bend test unless welded both sides as Sparky does in his demos.
If Brown's Gas could produce an acceptable weld by American Welding Society Standards, with a single pass weld like other conventional processes where single pass welds are sufficient, it is still not competitive considering labor time alone. Any welding shop can buy a mig welder and an oxyacetylene torch for less than $2,000 and do more cutting and welding with less overall operating expense, including labor, than a newer version of the Brown's Gas machine with an arc welder accessory included. (Arc welding is also becoming pass' and giving way to mig welding). That is 16% the cost of Dennis' and Big Mike's new and improved Brown's Gas Machine. How many do you think they will sell to welding shops. Theirs are dead end sales as they will not go beyond gullible dealer's possession because no welding operation can afford such high initial and high operating costs compared to conventional equipment and you can take that one to the bank. Time will prove me right.
Although I haven't had reason to check on a
plasma cutter that cuts 7" materials, I believe it a safe bet that they
are available and for probably
less money. There's less that a 1% need for cutting anything that thick. Let's concentrate on reality not razzle dazzle. Dennis likes to sell the
sizzle, not the steak. I know the difference. I can't eat the sizzle, only the steak. Ask Big Mike how many shops cut 7" material and then ask him what the maximum thickness it is that 75% of the shops cut. By making such statements they expose their ignorance of the business they pretend to be experts in to those of us with knowledge gained from experience in the trade.
If Brown's Gas is so good for welding, ask Big Mike why they incorporated an arc welder as part of the machine? There is only one reason. Tell him to set up two welders side by side. Get two qualified welders and have them prepare two 12" long x 12" wide x 1/4" thick steel with a 1/8" bevel, then weld the plates together on one side only starting at the same time. One welder will weld with Brown's Gas while the other uses the arc. See who finishes first and record the time for each. Then tell him you want a bend test performed on each of the welds bending the plate in such a manner as to fold the weld to the inside with the unwelded side out. This will tell us which weld is a good weld. I rest my case.
"Any material will maintain it's temperature at its melting point temperature because the energy goes into melting the material. If you put a propane torch on an ice cube, it will stay at 32 Deg. F. until it is all melted then the energy can go in to raising the temperature." - LS
A forwarded email on the topic :
Subject: [free_energy] More Brown's Gas Stuff
Date: 17 Feb 2000 12:38:43 -0000
From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org
I have in front of me a copy of an SAE paper:
"Explanation of Anomalous Combustion of Brown's Gas Using Dr. Mills'
by Hiroshi Ymamoto, Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd.
SAE 1999-01-3325 / JSAE 9938080
Presented at the SAE Small Engine Technology Conference and Exposition
in Madison, Wisconsin September 28-30, 1999.
In this paper, Ymamoto tries to use Randell Mills' "hydrino theory" to explain the "anomalous combustion of Brown's gas", Graneau's "water explosions", sonoluminescence, and "airless combustion of water emulsion fuels". What strikes me immediately about this paper is Ymamoto's credulous acceptance of the phenomena he "questions".
There is absolutely no question about the behavior of Brown's gas by anyone other than those who don't understand thermochemistry. Every "anomalous" behavior is easily duplicated with a mixture of H2 and O2 produced through more conventional methods.(Note even George Wiseman's failure to ever to a direct comparison, yet he insists there's something "anomalous" about Brown's gas.)
Graneau's "water explosions" are mainly the result of dumping a charged capacitor across a spark gap under water, flashing the water to steam and creating a big "pop". His experimental results support this conclusion, with the loudness of the "pop" correlating with the charge of the capacitor, size of the water sample, etc. Yet for some reason Graneau postulates some sort of magical release of energy from within the water molecule.
The sonoluminescence I can't speak to. Uyehara's work, though, is plausible. Subject a water emulsion fuel to a high enough temperature and you could conceivably decompose the water into hydrogen and oxygen and the oxygen could oxidize the hydrocarbon content of the fuel. No reference to Mill's work is necessary. And having worked with Otto Uyehara many years ago at the University of Wisconsin Internal Combustion Engine Laboratory, I am certain that any "free energy" interpretation of his work comes solidly from Ymamoto's mind.
I don't understand. Why is it that people eschew the obvious explanations based upon solid, well-known science, and instead postulate mysterious mechanisms that they can't demonstrate and that mainstream science doubts even exist?
Anyway, regardless of how vacuous Ymamoto's paper is, it demonstrates how easily "free energy" work can make it into the mainstream technical literature. This paper's existence completely blows away the whine that such "alternative explanations" are censored from the mainstream technical literature. While I can guarantee you that Ymamoto's paper would never pass the review process to wind up in Transactions, it's been presented at a conference, has a paper number, and is now part of the literature. I want to see more.
To George Wiseman: You claim Brown's gas exhibits "anomalous" behavior. I doubt anybody is set up better than you to demonstrate this. I strongly suggest you present a paper at a conference such as the SAE Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, SAE Future Transportation Technology Conference, ASME International Joint Power Generation Conference, or many others.
Publishing nowhere but in Infinite Energy, New Energy News, Cold Fusion Times, etc., does little for one's credibility, as these publications, quite frankly, are written by and for ignorant people. But there are many conferences throughout the year and across the nation where you could present your results and get your publications into the mainstream literature, enhancing your credibility and the credibility of your work. What do you have to lose?
The following is a dialog between the above poster and George Wiseman, who sells
books on BG machines:
Subject: [free_energy] Brown's Gas
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 03:58:00 PST
From: "David Howe" <email@example.com>
I apologize in advance to the list members for this long posting. It's just that Wiseman posts so many misconceptions and outright lies that need addressing.
George Wiseman wrote:
>>I have in front of me a copy of an SAE paper:
>>"Explanation of Anomalous Combustion of Brown's Gas Using Dr. Mills'
>>by Hiroshi Ymamoto, Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd.
>I have a copy of the paper that Hiroshi Ymamoto sent to me for comment.
>Since I am not familiar with most of the technologies that were presented
>in relationship to Brown's Gas (particularly Don Mills stuff), there was
>little I could comment on. However, as an inventor I've learned not to
>'throw the baby out with the bath water' There may be some insight in
There's no insight in the paper. It's just another rehash of the same old crap. Another desperate attempt to try to get people to "believe".
>This man and his friends have bought one of my ER1150 Water Torches, so
>demonstrate conviction of putting money behind their theories; which earns
>some respect even if the theory ultimately does not work.
There is often little correlation between one's sincerity and one's technical background. Some of the pseudoscience world's worst cranks are devout Christians. Note: The followers of Joseph Newman, Dennis Lee, and Stanley Meyer have put large sums of money behind their silly theories.
>Note that the GEET technology IS running internal combustion engines in
>closed loop (no exhaust) and they are demonstrating it all over the States.
Bullsh**. If this were true, it would have made headlines the world over and Paul Pantone would be a household name. As it is, it's just one more of the many anecdotes floating around the net. Tell me, why doesn't he demonstrate this to people and in a manner that means something? He could be filthy rich overnight. Instead what do we have? Yet another crank telling us about a magical engine that needs no fuel and produces no exhaust. And still, strangely, Ford, GM, and Chrysler are not interested.
Oops, I forgot. The automakers are in cahoots with the oil companies. They'd rather maintain the status quo than put them and their competitors out of business by producing a vehicle which needs no fuel and produces no exhaust.
>You will NEVER learn new things without entertaining thoughts outside
>normal parameters. I do not say everything you think of is correct; I do
>say all that is new and correct will only be thought of by innovative
Before you start "thinking outside the box", you _must_ learn how to think _inside_ the box. That's where the pseudoscientist screws up. He never quite learns the basics, rather he moves directly to "innovative thought" that is loaded with errors at every turn.
>Please don't be too hard on people who color outside the lines, they are
>our future. Where would we be without Nikola Tesla?
The people who "color outside the lines" fall into two categories: the ignorant and the crackpot. The ignorant can be cured with a bit of education, but he must be willing to learn. The crackpot is beyond hope. He's right by definition and nothing will sway him. The crackpot is the one who constantly rails on about "thinking outside the box", chiding mainstream scientists for being closed minded, while committing hilarious errors at every turn.
Oh, and Nikola Tesla was a great man in his earlier years, but he didn't age well. It's sad that so many people focus on his waning years when many of his ideas were, shall we say, downright nutty. What people like Dennis Lee and the Tesla Engine Builders Association do to Tesla's memory is a travesty.
>>There is absolutely no question about the behavior of Brown's gas by
>>anyone other than those who don't understand thermochemistry. Every "anomalous" behavior is
>>easily duplicated with a mixture of H2 and O2 produced through more conventional
>Please check out this page and tell me how this weight of the gas can be
>explained using conventional methods.
Laughably insufficient controls. There were no measurements of known reference gases to be sure the experimental setup produces the expected results. Just one lax measurement of an "unknown" gas, and a tremendous leap of faith into all sorts of new physics.
Rhodes measured the "lift" of one liter of Brown's gas to be 0.510 grams using an "igloo" (?) cut out of a 1-liter pop bottle on a gram scale. (He tared the scale with the vessel filled with air, then measured the weight with it filled with Brown's gas. The difference in weight is reported as the "lifting power".) You added some calculations.
You _calculate_ the "lifting power" of monatomic 2H/O as 1.0222
You _calculate_ the "lifting power" of diatomic 2H2/O2 as 0.76 g/l.
You _calculate_ the "lifting power" of "molecular water gas" as 0.49 g/l.
Rhodes measured the "lifting power" of Brown's gas as 0.51 g/l.
Note again that single sloppy measurement amid all the calculated, but unmeasured, values. Absolutely no attempt was made to see if the setup produced the expected "lifting power" when filled with a known gas. I have to give the guy credit for observing that the weight dropped when it was filled with warm air, but he missed the boat entirely by not baselining his setup with a known gas.
So, according to this poorly controlled experiment, Brown's gas is too heavy to be monatomic 2H/O. It's too heavy to be diatomic 2H2/O2. But it's just about the right weight for "molecular water gas". (And you agree it can't be steam at that temperature and pressure.)
Then, faced with these numbers you say "we are left with the conclusion that Brown's gas is neither mon-atomic or di-atomic gas, but simply expanded water" (that is not steam). You go on to say "I currently think that Brown's gas is electrically expanded water that forms right out of the fluid itself."
Let me get this right: You're faced with an odd experimental result that was generated in a pathetically lax manner. Rather than examining the experimental setup for flaws and lax controls, you start proposing all sorts of new physics. You're definitely a pseudoscientist.
Weren't you the guy who used to say Brown's gas was a mixture of monatomic
2H/O and diatomic 2H2/O2, and you rated the "quality" of the gas as
0% for pure diatomic and 100% for pure monatomic? And you based your
evaluation of the monatomic/diatomic ratio on some ridiculously naive AC power
measurements? What happened to that? Did Rhodes' density
convince you that you might be wrong?
Note that nowhere did Rhodes measure the "lift" of a known mixture
of diatomic hydrogen and diatomic oxygen to show that his experimental setup
gives the expected results under known conditions. Even with a continuous
purge, the rapid diffusion of hydrogen from this open "igloo" could
easily account for the decreased lift (it would be diluted with air). Humidity
would also contribute to a decrease in the "lifting power". And it's
precisely this decrease that you use to support your assertion that Brown's gas
isn't 2H2/O2. But no. Your desire to confirm your
beliefs outweighs your desire to get accurate data.
If you think Brown's gas is (or contains) anything different from H2 and O2,
stroll on down to the chemistry department at your local university and have
them run a sample through their mass spectrometer. If you're right, you
could be famous overnight. Forget the indirect measurements with the
attendant errors. Measure the mass spectrum directly. The prospect
to a fundamental breakthrough in chemistry and physics would interest just about any graduate student in helping you out with a mass spec. Informal collaborations with professors happen all the time.
For what it's worth, I've had numerous aftermarket oil additives analyzed with an FTIR at the local college. The professor in charge of the group I deal with gets as big a kick out of the claims as I do, and we're never surprised by what (if anything) we find in these additives.
>Also, please explain the MELTING of carbon in an inert
>and other anomalies are what I am working with people around the world to
>try and explain.
I've never heard this one. Please elaborate.
>I do not say that Brown's Gas does not consist of di-atomic hydrogen and
>oxygen; I feel certain that mixtures coming out of ALL the Brown's Gas
>machines in the world (including mine) are primarily di-atomic hydrogen and
>oxygen. There is something else in the gas too, which gives the mixture
>properties that I feel are not achievable by bottled hydrogen and oxygen.
Then MEASURE THE BLOODY STUFF!! Run a sample through a mass spectrometer. Stop the silly inferential work based on sloppy density measurements, bad AC input power measurements, etc., and do the right test. As long as you insist it's something different and refuse to show it, you look like an idiot.
>>>(Note even George Wiseman's failure to ever to a direct
>>there's something "anomalous" about Brown's gas.)
>I have not done a direct comparison because I haven't built or acquired
>equipment to make a direct comparison and I won't for a period of time yet
>because I'm busy on other projects. However, it is my intention to do this
>and many other test comparisons.
Yeah, right. How many years have you worked with Brown's gas? And you still haven't done this simple comparison? Why is it that every single Brown's gas researcher somehow fails to make this direct comparison?
If you insist B is not A, and everybody else (including all of physics and chemistry) says it is, doesn't it stand to reason that the very first step in your research on B is to do a direct comparison to A??? i.e. repeat the same tests for both A and B. Any differences that show up (and hold up under statistical analysis) can then be directly attributed to differences between A and B. (A comparison that even Rhodes failed to do.)
You even say above:
>There is something else in the gas too, which gives the
>mixture properties that I feel are not achievable by bottled hydrogen
I've underlined the most important words. You "feel" that these properties are not achievable with bottled hydrogen and oxygen, but you've never tested your "feeling". Astonishing. How long have you sold Brown's gas machines based partly on this "feeling"? And you've never tested it?
>>To George Wiseman: You claim Brown's gas exhibits
>>I doubt anybody is set up better than you to demonstrate this. I strongly suggest
>>you present a paper at a conference such as the SAE Fuels and Lubricants
>>Future Transportation Technology Conference, ASME International Joint
>>Conference, or many others.
>I thank you for the honor you credit to me.
Don't flatter yourself. I'm merely urging you to publish, in mainstream conferences and journals, results that are nothing short of earth shattering. The production of some fundamentally different gas from water would shake the very foundations of the science community. The fact that you don't shake the foundations of the science community and instead peddle your "innovative" work on the Interner speaks volumes.
>Such papers will eventually be written when I feel we know enough about
>Brown's Gas to justify it. At the moment, we have more questions than
Are you doing anything to find those answers, apart from selling machines? I'll bet not. And I'll bet that your "work with researchers around the world" entails nothing more than selling your books and machines through your web site and trading fantastic stories through email.
>On the hard nosed business front, my machines sell based on performance,
>which gives buyers solid financial reasons to buy. Most of my buyers don't
>care about theory, they want results. Theory will just help me design more
>efficient machines in the future.
Ah, there's the motivation: Sell machines. And I thought you did research.
>>Publishing nowhere but in Infinite Energy, New Energy News, Cold
>>Times, etc.,does little for one's credibility, as these publications, quite frankly,
>>are written by and for ignorant people. But there are many conferences throughout the
>>year and across the nation where you could present your results and get your
>>publications into the mainstream literature, enhancing your credibility and the credibility
>>of your work. What do you have to lose?
ROTFL! And I thought you were the expert on Brown's gas. George,
you disappoint me. I had always thought you were doing legitimate (albeit
naive and sloppy) experiments studying Brown's gas, but you're only interested
in selling books and machines. The fact that you sell books and machines
based on fantasy and pseudoscience makes you a snake oil salesman, pure and
simple. You're no better than Newman, Lee, and Meyer.
-------------- more dialog:
>>Example: The promoters of Brown's gas claim it has an open-air flame temperature
>>of 274 F, and that the flame adjusts its temperature depending upon the material
>>it's contacting. They cite pyrometric temperature measurements of this as proof
>>that Brown's gas exhibits anomalous behavior. Observation. Assertion of anomalous
>>behavior based on observation. But bad measurements. Point an IR pyrometer at
>>a low-emissivity flame and you get ridiculously low temperature measurements. Try
>>to tell this to the Brown's gas promoters and they laugh in your face.
>Just for the record, I AM a Brown's Gas promoter and claim to build the
>Brown's Gas electrolyzers. I'll gladly tip my hat to anyone who shows me a better one.
>An IR pyrometer will indeed show BG to have a radiant temperature of about 275°F. And
>as stated above, this does not mean that this is the flame temperature. So ALL BG
>promoters won't laugh in your face. This one tries to get the FACTS.
George, you're probably the only Brown's gas promoter whose sincerity I do not doubt.
>The statement that BG changes temperature when shown different materials
is a popular
>MYTH, which I try to dispel whenever I see it. Regardless of the actual flame
>temperature, it always stays the same. Materials act differently when the flame is
>applied but not particularly differently than when any other flame is applied. If you
>have a material with a low melting point, it'll melt at a lower temperature.
No surprise there.
>The BG flame has a lot of characteristics that make it more practical
>industrial gasses for a large number of processes and I believe the gas will eventually
>replace currently used gasses in these applications.
Hydroxy welders have been around for decades. Yes, they have their place. But due to the very low heat content, hydroxy torches will never come close to approaching the effectiveness of oxyacetylene or even acetylene/air torches for common cutting/welding applications.
And I strongly recommend you avoid calling your machines "Brown's Gas generators" and the gas "Brown's gas". These terms immediately raise red flags, and lead many people into discounting much of what you report on your experiments.
>For example: The BG flame tends to be very directional, almost laser
like, compared to
>hydrocarbon flames which produce a lot of radiant heat. A recent explored application
>is a company that makes Christmas tree bulbs. They need to cut the neck flanges off
>the bulbs. Brown's Gas does the job cheaper, neater and faster; with zero pollution.
It's no wonder glass artists so often use hydroxy torches in their craft. High temperature, low radiation, and clean. And while H2/O2 certainly has a very high flame temperature, the energy content is pretty low. So it's pretty easy to control for fine work, but it's virtually worthless for standard cutting/welding of massive pieces.
And "zero pollution"?? While combustion of pure H2/O2 in a sealed environment definitely only produces water and heat, combustion in an open-air torch inevitably entrains some of the surrounding air (containing nitrogen). Have you ever checked for oxides of nitrogen in the combustion products? I guarantee you'll find them at some detectable level. (Still, definitely cleaner than hydrocarbons - that I'll grant you.)
>When most people measure the characteristics of Brown's Gas, they find
>than if they had a mixture of di-atomic hydrogen and oxygen.
How would you explain the _huge_ amount of information out there describing over-unity behavior, implosions, and it's ability to neutralize radioactive waste. Your comments on Brown's gas are certainly the most reasonable, but they're really only a tiny whisper buried under a din of weird claims. Are these people all mistaken?
>While I know that most BG
>electrolyzers produce mostly di-atomic hydrogen and oxygen (including mine) I also know
>that there are some interesting anomalies that we are researching and will eventually be
>figured out. I am working with people and organizations around the world to research
Please describe some of these interesting anomalies. Exactly what is it that leads you to believe that Brown's gas is at all different from an H2/O2 mixture? Everything I have ever read on first-hand accounts of the behavior of Brown's gas is easily explained as naive observations of the behavior of H2/O2. What are you seeing that _can't_ be explained like this?
>In the meantime, regardless of the mixture theorized, the gas has proven
>stable and useful. We are developing machines that are user-friendly and safe. This
>technology will change industry as we know it. The general population will not likely
>know anything about it but BG will allow more productivity at lower costs.
A while back I had visited your web site and read about your
"hypergas". While you dismiss (correctly) most of the
extraordinary claims of BG, you were making similar extraordinary claims for
"hypergas", one of which (IIRC) was the energy content. Please
describe your method for measuring the energy input into your
"hypergas" generator and your method for measuring the flow rate and
energy content of the output gas. Thanks.
A few more notes by Eric: a few other things about earlier BWT BG machines:
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!