Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Brown's gas?

Brown's gas?

MetalCastr - 4-7-2006 at 19:19

What's with this so-called Brown's Gas? They say it's just electrolyzed water and has unique properties. They say it can rust-proof steel, heat some metals up but not others, melts carbon, etc. So, are they BS-ing or what? Anyone have first-hand experience?

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/RhodesGas/index.html... and Distributors

[Edited on 5-7-2006 by MetalCastr]

Pyrovus - 5-7-2006 at 01:38

Sounds like crank science to me:

Quote:

HyTech (nickname for Hydrogen Technology Applications Inc) claims a process of converting H20 to HHO, producing a gas that combines the atomic power of hydrogen with the chemical stability of water.

'nuff said

neutrino - 5-7-2006 at 02:18

Anything with "free energy" in the name is either written by people who don't know basic chemistry / physics, or pure BS. In this case, the latter.

Mr. Wizard - 5-7-2006 at 05:57

The 'Brown's Gas' thing works. It's just the mixed Hydrogen and Oxygen from an electrolytic cell of KOH in water with stainless steel plates and a hefty DC power supply to provide the current. They put on a few 'gee-wiz' bells and whistles and sell the contraption ( Water Welder) and a spoonful of mystery for 10 times what it's worth. Burning the mixed gas is the risky part. Keeping the flame front from traveling back down the torch into the cell is the problem. I would be interested in any details about that. I do know they sometimes bubbled the mixed gas through a methanol bath. I have a small soda can sized stainless steel unit that was part of such a set up. The thing is very heavy and well built. It was supposed to 'enrich' the flame, but I suspect it was to keep KOH suspended in the gas from clogging the tip, and to prevent explosions from traveling back to the gas generator. I suspect the tip had a very small hole in it to keep gas velocity high and prevent burn-back explosions. I bought the item at a Gem and Mineral show in Quartzsite , Arizona. The guy didn't know what it was. The torches were marketed to jewelry crafters as a way to have a high temperature torch without maintaining a set of compressed gas tanks. There were some web pages on their use, and there were some ridiculous claims made about the flame properties, hinting at the extra energy from 'mono-atomic' Hydrogen combining with mono-atomic Oxygen. I really doubt that the mono-atomic gasses persist past the formation on the electrodes, but stranger things have proved true. I'm quite sure you don't get any more energy out of the gas than you put in. It might be an interesting area for an amateur to explore. An old PC power supply would supply enough power to demonstrate a small torch. I have some files d/l from an old site, which I will not post without permission, but I will share if anyone wants to PM me.

hodges - 5-7-2006 at 14:07

See also another thread where I describe some experimenting I did with Brown's gas:
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=6099

Hodges

MetalCastr - 5-7-2006 at 17:01

Thanks!

woelen - 6-7-2006 at 11:35

I'm not so sure whether this is crank or not. They have a serious publication:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.006

You need an account for that, in order to read it. This is, however, not just some vague thing, it is in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

The same paper also is on the website of those people, without the need for an account:

http://hytechapps.com/presentation/linked%20files/Hydro%20Te...

This version is somewhat older, but you definitely get the idea from it.

[Edited on 6-7-06 by woelen]

Nerro - 6-7-2006 at 13:12

Might it leaves the atoms in an excited and thus activated state? That would explain the enhanced corrosive properties of the gas.

[Edited on Thu/Jul/2006 by Nerro]

Oxydro - 6-7-2006 at 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Nerro
Might it leaves the atoms in an excited and thus activated state? That would explain the enhanced corrosive properties of the gas.

That seems to be what some of them claim. But wouldn't it decay back to ground-state diatomic molecules within milliseconds?

Nerro - 19-7-2006 at 16:38

Maybe it doesn't or maybe enough of the excited molecules hit the surface of whatever you're destroying to make it worth the effort?

The change from H2O to HHO seems to suggest that the hydrogens aren't equal anymore. Hence my guess that one of them might become altered in some way.

Of course this might just be another DHMO prank...

DeAdFX - 19-7-2006 at 16:41

I thoguth that water is already hydrogen hydroxide.

H+ OH-

neutrino - 19-7-2006 at 18:52

If there was really some fundamental change in the water molecule, the scientific community would be talking about it. The energy companies would also be talking about it because it would offer a much easier alternative to hydrogen. The media would even be talking about it because it would be superior to hydrogen in many ways.

But they aren't.

This leaves two possibilities: a major government cover-up directed by large corporations, or that this is all just a load of BS. Which do you think is more likely?

Odyssèus - 19-7-2006 at 19:35

*Plants signpost*

Please: Dont feed the conspiracy theorists.

I think that if there were other forms of H2O, then they would be present in water alredy: water self-ionizes forming small quantities of hydronium and hydroxide ions.

Theres also H2O2 and hydroxyl radicals which IIRC dont react/decompose to anything other than water (And O2).

[Edited on 20-7-2006 by Odyssèus]

unionised - 20-7-2006 at 00:18

"I'm not so sure whether this is crank or not. They have a serious publication:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.006

You need an account for that, in order to read it. This is, however, not just some vague thing, it is in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

The same paper also is on the website of those people, without the need for an account:

http://hytechapps.com/presentation/linked%20files/Hydro%20Te...

This version is somewhat older, but you definitely get the idea from it.
"
I had a look at that paper. If it is peer reviewed the reviewers want shooting.
It makes, for example, the irreleveant observation that this system can produce 35 cubic feet of gas at 35 PSI for just 5KWHr of energys and points out hom much more energy you would need to produce this much steam.
So what?
It's about 80 times more energy than would be needed to make that much compressed air. It tells you a lot about the latentheat of evaporationof water and also that, to get steam at 35PSI it needs to be rather hot.

The paper also includes a mass spectrum labeled as a chromatogram, not a huge problem but if they don't know the difference you have to wonder if they have any clue what they are doing.
The reall killer as far as I was concerned was their infra red spectrum of hydrogen. It doesn't absorb IR.
I stopped bothering to read it at that point.

neutrino - 20-7-2006 at 07:26

That mass spectrum you speak of is a little suspicious. How exactly do they get a negative peak at 34?

Oh right, they invented antimatter too. Obviously a massive government conspiracy.

edit: I skimmed the article to the end and learned a few more interesting things:

--HHO gas contains H, H2, and H3, among other things
--Their production method depends on removing the charges on hydrogen and oxygen in H2O, making it change into HHO.
--These guys like spirographs and toruses

[Edited on 20-7-2006 by neutrino]

Nerro - 20-7-2006 at 07:31

ok ok so it's another DHMO

neutrino - 20-7-2006 at 07:40

Either this is bored college / grad students playing a prank or pseudo-scientists trying to get naive investors. I didn't really read the article (just looked at the pretty captions), but the sheer length of the thing suggests the latter.

franklyn - 22-7-2006 at 12:13

Reminds me of polywater, that turned out to be a crock

fooled a lot of people who should have known better.

.

Nerro - 23-7-2006 at 14:49

At least the notio of polywater amde some sense. When water is subjected to an extremely intense magnetic field it lines up in neat rows and appears solid.

It was at least not quite so entirely retarded.

TheBear - 26-7-2006 at 00:36

Quote:

Brown's Gas remedy for nuclear waste was rejected - ~1992 video (12 mins) featuring New York Assemblyman, Dan Haley, gives evidence for the ability of Brown's gas to significantly reduce the radioactivity of treated samples; yet the U.S. Department of Energy turned away. (Google Video / P.A.C.E.) (Thanks Ken Rasmussen, NEC)

Quoted from the link in the first post. These guys really should be given the nobel prize of physics. I mean, achieving transmutation with hydrogen / oxygen flame... oh no I mean "HHO gas"

Here's news clip from that (in)famous news channel:

http://thatvideosite.com/view/2602.html

I mean, are people (and journalists!) really this stupid? It must be a april fool's joke, right? Hydrogen is merely useful as an energy carrier unless you produce it from petroleum products (today that is).

[Edited on 26-7-2006 by TheBear]

franklyn - 26-7-2006 at 18:42

Semanticist S.I.Hayakawa said it best, "most people don't
distinguish between facts, assumptions, and judgements" .
This, despite their inclination to believe otherwise, and
a poor foundation in the basic understanding of physics
makes for an abundance of rubes. But as Lincoln put it,
you can fool some of the people all of the time, and you
can fool all of the people some of the time , but you can't
fool all of the people all of the time. Basic street sense
will prevail.

[Edited on 27-7-2006 by franklyn]

unionised - 27-7-2006 at 12:39

There are a lot of folk out there who have realised they don't need to fool all the people all the time; just enough people and for long enough to rip them off.
I can't help thinking that while it's a good idea to teach schoolkids about reading and writing the next lessons shouldn't be history or science it should be "If it looks too good to be true then it probably is."
Who cares if they never remember the names of the presidents in order or how many sides a dodecahedron has? That's not going to stop them getting taken for a sucker.

Mr. Wizard - 3-8-2006 at 15:58

Attached pictures of the methanol bath unit. This was part of a "Water Welder" I bought in Quartzsite, Arizona at a junk sale for $5. It's stainless steel and pretty robust. It was the only part of the "Water Welder" unit that was at the sale. I do not have any of the gas generating unit, but if it was anything like the 'booster' unit, it was well built.

The Quartzsite sales has a lot of lapidary and jewelry working equipment. I think this unit came from such a worker.

[Edited on 4-8-2006 by Mr. Wizard]

booster.jpg - 115kB