Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Brown's Gas

  1. May 28, 2003 #1
    Brown's Gas

    Is it real or is it some joke? Its properties are somewhat amazing..

    Its produced by electrolyzer. It produces 1866 volumes of gas from 1 volume of water, its stable, it burns, with COLD flame, but can punch holes into and sublimate tungsten (13000F), applies electric charge to what it touches, can cut wood with laserlike sharp edges without igniting it. Its flame interacts with about anything, without much heat. Instead of exploding, it implodes (1866->1), producing its only waste - water.

    Thats abit too much, sounds more like startrek gizmo, but web is claiming science is investigating actual reproducible phenomena.

    What is your comments of scientific view?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 28, 2003 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I first heard about Brown's Gas from an acquaintance who feels that scientists are idiots and that REAL science is done in garages and basements. He then told me that this miraculous new gas can be stored as a stoichiometric mixture of H and O. I suggested that he would be doing humanity a favor and to continue his investigations and to make some himself as planned. All in all, I will always remember him as a nice boy but not real smart.
     
  4. May 28, 2003 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Re: Brown's Gas

    AKA WATER? Yes, wimms, its a joke.
     
  5. May 28, 2003 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Brown's Gas

    Oh no russ, I mean as two gases; a bomb!
     
  6. May 28, 2003 #5
    hmm, for me it seems abit more muddy than that. Sure its surrounded by tons of crap, but..

    What I've come across (which isn't to imply I'm home at with), one idea is that 2H2:O2 is the 'bomb' but BG is 'mon-atomic hydrogen (H) and mon-atomic oxygen (O) flame' 2H:O. This is ridiculed as monatomics tend to merge to diatomics, but they seek escape in fact that gas is electrically charged and (somehow) doesn't form diatomic. Then there's cracks who claim overunity, etc. But then some claim that monatomic or BG is only 20-30% of gas, the rest is 'bomb', but still when treated right, such unpure BG exhibits weird behaviour.

    Then there's idea that 'BG is water that has absorbed electricity like a sponge absorbs water. That the atomic bonds are NOT broken, so Brown's Gas is STILL WATER; just in a high energy gaseous form that is NOT steam.' That came because "Brown's Gas is too heavy to be mon-atomic, it is even too heavy to be di-atomic; but it is exactly the right weight to be water-gas (di-hydrogen oxide in gaseous form).

    Thus, when the electricity (in the Brown's Gas) is released by the 'flame,' it comes out as electricity and the water 'implodes' to it's original liquid form, with no heat and no expansion first. This is another possible explanation why the flame can be 'cool' and 'implosive' yet has such high energy effects. Brown's Gas seems to be an 'electrical' flame, not a 'heat' flame."


    bummer.
     
  7. May 28, 2003 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, I was aware of some of these arguments. The guy that told me about this was such a crackpot that I gave little thought to the matter. Also, considering the ramifications of things gone wrong, I wanted nothing to do with this venture. I used to make water frequently when I was much younger [making water has a slightly different meaning to physicists than to normal people ]... before the mixing H's with O's became a federal offense. This is really dangerous stuff for a bunch of amateurs to be playing with. For this reason I never gave these claims a real chance.
     
  8. May 28, 2003 #7

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    I thought "electrical" flames are "heat" flames - the reason for the light is the extreme temperature of the plasma. Sounds very crackpotty...
     
  9. May 28, 2003 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, it smelled crackpotty from the start.
     
  10. May 29, 2003 #9
    Yes, it smells crackpotty all the way. I'm just trying to figure if there possibly is still any kind of point in it. People behind it seem to understand well hydrogen oxydation and dangers of it.

    What is meant above is probably that flame itself is low-temp due to lower energy needed to sustain 2H:O, and slower, but when touching with some material, that electrical energy stored is released through material molecules, converting that electrical energy to heat and interacting with material. Like some nanoscale electric welding. Thus they seem to claim that BG welding is not just temperature/heat, independant from material, but that speed of burn and thus energy released depends notably on material involed. Very little heat is wasted to environment and most energy is transferred directly to material. (thats my interpretation)

    This seems somewhat interesting, and I'm unable to sort it out if this makes sense, or is purposeful crap.

    Maybe some points are better put through here: http://www.watertorch.com/whatis/whatis2.html
     
  11. May 29, 2003 #10
    yes, altogether very "crackpotty". sounds more like this belongs in mystism to me! :wink:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Brown's Gas
  1. Brown noise (Replies: 7)

  2. Gas and photons (Replies: 4)

  3. Gas pressure (Replies: 12)

Loading...