Brown's Gas

  • Thread starter wimms
  • Start date
476
0
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?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by wimms
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?
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.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,849
5,040
Re: Re: Brown's Gas

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
..can be stored as a stoichiometric mixture of H and O.
AKA WATER? Yes, wimms, its a joke.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Re: Re: Re: Brown's Gas

Originally posted by russ_watters
AKA WATER? Yes, wimms, its a joke.
Oh no russ, I mean as two gases; a bomb!
 
476
0
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.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by wimms
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.
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.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
I thought "electrical" flames are "heat" flames - the reason for the light is the extreme temperature of the plasma. Sounds very crackpotty...
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by FZ+
I thought "electrical" flames are "heat" flames - the reason for the light is the extreme temperature of the plasma. Sounds very crackpotty...
Yes, it smelled crackpotty from the start.
 
476
0
Originally posted by FZ+
I thought "electrical" flames are "heat" flames - the reason for the light is the extreme temperature of the plasma. Sounds very crackpotty...
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 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
477
4
yes, altogether very "crackpotty". sounds more like this belongs in mystism to me! :wink:
 

Related Threads for: Brown's Gas

  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
7K
Replies
53
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
934
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top