Unveiling the Mystery of Brown's Gas

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wimms
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gas Mystery
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of Brown's Gas, its properties, and its legitimacy as a scientific phenomenon. Participants explore various claims about its production, behavior, and potential applications, while questioning the scientific basis behind these claims.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe Brown's Gas as being produced by an electrolyzer, claiming it generates 1866 volumes of gas from 1 volume of water and has unique properties such as a cold flame that can cut materials without igniting them.
  • Others suggest that the idea of Brown's Gas being a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is misleading, with some asserting it is essentially water in a gaseous state that has absorbed electricity.
  • One participant mentions the concept of monatomic hydrogen and oxygen flames, which is met with skepticism due to the tendency of monatomics to form diatomics.
  • Concerns are raised about the safety of experimenting with Brown's Gas, with references to the dangers of mixing hydrogen and oxygen.
  • Some participants express doubt about the scientific validity of the claims surrounding Brown's Gas, labeling them as "crackpotty" and questioning the underlying physics.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of electrical flames and whether they can be considered separate from heat flames, with varying interpretations of how energy is transferred during combustion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the claims surrounding Brown's Gas, with multiple competing views on its properties and legitimacy. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the scientific validity of the phenomenon.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions and interpretations regarding the nature of Brown's Gas, including its composition and the mechanisms behind its behavior. The discussion reflects a range of opinions on the safety and scientific grounding of the claims made about it.

wimms
Messages
489
Reaction score
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 


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


Originally posted by russ_watters
AKA WATER? Yes, wimms, its a joke.

Oh no russ, I mean as two gases; a bomb!
 
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.
 
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.
 
I thought "electrical" flames are "heat" flames - the reason for the light is the extreme temperature of the plasma. Sounds very crackpotty...
 
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.
 
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, independent 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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
yes, altogether very "crackpotty". sounds more like this belongs in mystism to me! :wink:
 

Similar threads

Advance of Technology; 1818 to 2318....
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
6K