Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
T.Alan Kraus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??


http://www.watertorch.com/index.html

I heard of brown gas before (methane) but what do you think about the
claims made by watertorch?

cheers
T.Alan
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Spehro Pefhany
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:12:26 -0800, the renowned "T.Alan Kraus"
wrote:


http://www.watertorch.com/index.html

I heard of brown gas before (methane) but what do you think about the
claims made by watertorch?

cheers
T.Alan


I have a waterwelder. The flame is not 'cool', it is hot enough to
melt platinum. It's just plain old hydrogen and oxygen from
electrolysis of a water-electrolyte solution.

http://www.watertorch.com/bghistory/hisbg1.html

W. Rhodes still lives in Phoenix (he's pretty old, maybe 85 or more).
I've talked to him a few times and visited him a while ago. I've also
met McMurray at Arizona Hydrogen and toured their plant.

I don't understand what the fuss is on this stuff...



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Andy Dingley
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:12:26 -0800, "T.Alan Kraus"
wrote:

what do you think about the claims made by watertorch?


Snake oil. The basic technology is a commonplace - avoid storing
flammable gases by making them on demand instead. The "Brown's Gas"
malarkey makes two additional claims:

- They claim that the gas they produce contains monatomic hydrogen and
monatomic oxygen as well as the usual diatomic form. This would indeed
be an "extra energy" fuel, but there's no evidence that this actually
happens. By normal chemistry the hydrogen and oxygen produced in the
electrolysis cell will have combined long before it gets to the torch.

- There's some babble about a "cool flame". This is simply ridiculous.
The idea that it "radiates at 129C" is particularly silly. It's a
hydrogen-oxygen flame - they're hot, that's how they work. It's not
magic though, nor are normal rules of physics or chemistry suspended for
this magic gimmick.

If you want a convenient hydrogen-oxygen torch, then many jewellers are
already running them happily. Personally I wouldn't buy a tin-opener
from this bunch, because they're talking rubbish. Maybe they're actually
selling a perfectly adequate electrolytic torch (as several other
manufacturers do) but they don't have to insult my own knowledge and
experience to do so,
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Tim Wescott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:12:26 -0800, "T.Alan Kraus"
wrote:


what do you think about the claims made by watertorch?



Snake oil. The basic technology is a commonplace - avoid storing
flammable gases by making them on demand instead. The "Brown's Gas"
malarkey makes two additional claims:

- They claim that the gas they produce contains monatomic hydrogen and
monatomic oxygen as well as the usual diatomic form. This would indeed
be an "extra energy" fuel, but there's no evidence that this actually
happens. By normal chemistry the hydrogen and oxygen produced in the
electrolysis cell will have combined long before it gets to the torch.

- There's some babble about a "cool flame". This is simply ridiculous.
The idea that it "radiates at 129C" is particularly silly. It's a
hydrogen-oxygen flame - they're hot, that's how they work. It's not
magic though, nor are normal rules of physics or chemistry suspended for
this magic gimmick.

That may be the one (partially) true claim, actually.

Hydrogen remains largely transparent as it burns, so it emits very
little light. Blackbody radiation is called that for a reason --
perfectly reflective or transmissive materials don't emit light when
they're hot; bright yellow flames get that way because soot is black,
which is part of the reason that hot soot glows. So if you looked at
the flame with an infrared pyrometer it would show up as not much warmer
than it's surroundings.

I wouldn't stick my hand in it though -- hot transparent things don't
radiate much heat or light, but they'll sure as heck make you hurt when
you touch them.

The rest is the product of a mind that's either severely misinformed or
severely dishonest.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Spehro Pefhany
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:08:48 GMT, the renowned Ignoramus4775
wrote:

Did you see a claim ``Q. If you want to neutralize radioactive waste,
then: A. Brown's Gas is the answer to the largest problem the nuclear
industry faces today!''

that's a little ridiculous.

i


You could propel it far enough away that it's someone else's problem.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Koz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??



Andy Dingley wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:12:26 -0800, "T.Alan Kraus"
wrote:



what do you think about the claims made by watertorch?



Snake oil. The basic technology is a commonplace - avoid storing
flammable gases by making them on demand instead. The "Brown's Gas"
malarkey makes two additional claims:

- They claim that the gas they produce contains monatomic hydrogen and
monatomic oxygen as well as the usual diatomic form. This would indeed
be an "extra energy" fuel, but there's no evidence that this actually
happens. By normal chemistry the hydrogen and oxygen produced in the
electrolysis cell will have combined long before it gets to the torch.

- There's some babble about a "cool flame". This is simply ridiculous.
The idea that it "radiates at 129C" is particularly silly. It's a
hydrogen-oxygen flame - they're hot, that's how they work. It's not
magic though, nor are normal rules of physics or chemistry suspended for
this magic gimmick.

If you want a convenient hydrogen-oxygen torch, then many jewellers are
already running them happily. Personally I wouldn't buy a tin-opener
from this bunch, because they're talking rubbish. Maybe they're actually
selling a perfectly adequate electrolytic torch (as several other
manufacturers do) but they don't have to insult my own knowledge and
experience to do so,


For a real laugh, check out their opportunities to invest page. Reads
like the Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale.

Koz

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Lew Hartswick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

Andy Dingley wrote:

If you want a convenient hydrogen-oxygen torch, then many jewellers are
already running them happily. Personally I wouldn't buy a tin-opener
from this bunch, because they're talking rubbish. Maybe they're actually
selling a perfectly adequate electrolytic torch (as several other
manufacturers do) but they don't have to insult my own knowledge and
experience to do so,


A-men to that. There is nothing that "turns me off" faster than
that kind of BS advertizing. It's even worse than used car salesmen. :-)
...lew...
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Andy Dingley
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:52:46 -0800, Tim Wescott
wrote:

- There's some babble about a "cool flame". This is simply ridiculous.
The idea that it "radiates at 129C" is particularly silly. It's a
hydrogen-oxygen flame - they're hot, that's how they work. It's not
magic though, nor are normal rules of physics or chemistry suspended for
this magic gimmick.

That may be the one (partially) true claim, actually.


None of their claim, as I paraphrased it, is at all true. I don't just
shake words out of a Scrabble bag, I use them very carefully.

Hydrogen remains largely transparent as it burns, so it emits very
little light.


Indeed. But although it radiates _little_ light, the spectrum of that
which it does radiate follows the same Planck distribution as for
glowing soot.

There is no competent way in which you can equate the dim light of a
hydrogen flame with "radiation at 129C"

So if you looked at
the flame with an infrared pyrometer it would show up as not much warmer
than it's surroundings.


That's a fault with infrared bolometers. Better modern pyrometers (such
as those used for measuring gas temperatures) don't measure total
fluxes, they measure the ratios between fluxes at a number of different
wavelengths. Older ones (disappearing wire etc.) simply used a target
of a known heated material (usually a lump of firebrick) and looked for
the peak emission wavelength / colour.

bright yellow flames get that way because soot is black,


"Black body" radiation has _nothing_ to do with the fact that cold soot
looks black to human vision. Red ochre paint is a good simulation of a
black body radiator at gas flame temperatures and it will return to
looking just the same red colour when it's cool.


  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Ted Edwards
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

T.Alan Kraus wrote:

http://www.watertorch.com/index.html


I heard of brown gas before (methane) but what do you think about the
claims made by watertorch?


I once attended part of a "meeting" of this bunch at the invitation of a
friend. Virtually everything they claim is rubbish.

It ain't methane, it's hydrogen and oxygen produced by electrolysis and
it has been in use by jewelers for many years.

Ted
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Guy Fawkes
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm


BROWNS GAS INFORMATION

note: for more information, check out:
http://www.phact.org/e/dennis.html
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

Subscribe to a list that discusses this stuff




More links


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:

Dear Eric,

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 ******s 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
well.

..........Know-all


a 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
environment.

Another person doing BG research is Milan Milan Manchich Director AEM
elektronika 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 stupid.
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,

"Does Brown's Gas implode ?"


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 a 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 didn't?


--------- 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.

========================================

The following is a response from Don Lancaster:

Don,




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

http://www.tinaja.com/muse01.html
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: 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. --

Many thanks,

Don Lancaster

www = world wide wait

The following is a reply from a man who worked with Yull for years,
Todd Knudtson:

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.

Love

TR Knudtson
Todd Knudtson's Browns gas page

The following is a response from Bill Beaty a long time promoter of
alternative science who is fairly middle of the road between
knee-jerk-skeptics and gullible believers

Bill,




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 SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


The following is a response from Bob a man who investigated Dennis
Lee's Brown gas claims \
Dear Eric:

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.


Bob J.

========== 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 uncontrollable
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.


Bob J.

Dear Eric:

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:
To:


I have in front of me a copy of an SAE paper:

"Explanation of Anomalous Combustion of Brown's Gas Using Dr. Mills'
Hydrino Theory"
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"
To:



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:

From:


I have in front of me a copy of an SAE paper:

"Explanation of Anomalous Combustion of Brown's Gas Using Dr. Mills'
Hydrino Theory"
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.


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 the
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
thinkers.


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
methods.


Please check out this page and tell me how this weight of the gas can be
explained using conventional methods.


http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/watergas.html

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 g/l.
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 measurement
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 of contributing
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 environment. These
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 comparison, yet
he insists

there's something "anomalous" about Brown's gas.)


I have not done a direct comparison because I haven't built or acquired the
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
and oxygen.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 "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.


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
answers.


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 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?


Time


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:


dhowe17 wrote:
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 World's best
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 than common
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 nothing different
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
these anomalies.


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 inexpensive,
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:

* they are low quality
* you can get electrocuted with them
* a communist front company made them and offers no real support
* dennis wasted big money on a huge amount and dealers are always
returning them
* BG can detonate if compressed
* even Dennis now admits that Yull Brown was a nut
* other companies make better cheaper, lighter, higher capacity
better quality machines
* they don't have ul ratings
* hydrogen makes metal brittle
* Dennis is still trying get money from the gullible for them
* Dennis doesn't allow dealers to discuss such problems among
themselves
* I must admit that BWT says they have made fixes to problems. And
many people say there are properties about BG not understood that could
be useful.
* I got a condeming message from the Netherlands on this, but no
permission to openly post it.

*


more discussion of Browns gas page eric kriegs rants A Browns gas
page and Brown's gas information from a Dennis Lee Dealer

* great B/G information from George Wiseman
* a new B/G report from George - updated 6/21/99
* BG forom KOREA Also, Amin, Mills (who may be legit?) Tilley,
Perendev, Bearden Lutec and Tewari o
* Green Gas -same thing but from Singapore
* The Hydrogen Energy Center
* Your car also can run on water. - (fails to mention conversion
energy )
* These people claim Dennis doesn't have rights to sell BG products
* An excellent explaination of Browns gas it's in pdf format and
far down the page
* Eric's review of claims by Dennis Lee
* IPN / Powerize - a new BG generator
* Advanced Scientific Inquiries - they look like they may offer
something like BG
* Dennis's Lee's information on Browns GasFAQs
* My open prize money for a real free energy machine
* Todds discussion of Browns gas
* Better World Technology BG machines - these people make the
machines Bob mentioned
* . FREE ENERGY FAQ
* Newer dealer page of UCSA Brown's Gas Water Welders
* H-TECH HYDROGEN-OXYGEN GENERATOR - good research information
from a former Dennis Lee dealer
* hydrogen additive fuel saver
* www.watergas.com What about claims of reactionless drives?
* Explanation of Anomalous Combustion of Brown's Gas using Dr. Mill
Hydrino Theory
* The Joe Cell specialized water electrolysis experiment
* http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf - analysis of Stan
Meyers Browns Gas scam
* subscribe to free_energy- get on an email list with discussion of
BG


EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Tim Wescott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:52:46 -0800, Tim Wescott
wrote:


- There's some babble about a "cool flame". This is simply ridiculous.
The idea that it "radiates at 129C" is particularly silly. It's a
hydrogen-oxygen flame - they're hot, that's how they work. It's not
magic though, nor are normal rules of physics or chemistry suspended for
this magic gimmick.


That may be the one (partially) true claim, actually.



None of their claim, as I paraphrased it, is at all true. I don't just
shake words out of a Scrabble bag, I use them very carefully.


Hydrogen remains largely transparent as it burns, so it emits very
little light.



Indeed. But although it radiates _little_ light, the spectrum of that
which it does radiate follows the same Planck distribution as for
glowing soot.

There is no competent way in which you can equate the dim light of a
hydrogen flame with "radiation at 129C"

Did I say "competent"? Allow me to appeal to your scrabble bag analogy
and remind you that I said "partially". If you were interested in the
radiant heat from the flame then it probably _does_ radiate the same
amount as a similar-sized black thing at that temperature -- at least in
a room-temperature environment.

Of course it's a meaningless distinction, because you're going to want
to point the flame at something and as soon as you do that thing is
going to heat up conductively. Since it's most likely a good emitter
then there's going to be heat radiated all over the place.

So if you looked at
the flame with an infrared pyrometer it would show up as not much warmer
than it's surroundings.



That's a fault with infrared bolometers. Better modern pyrometers (such
as those used for measuring gas temperatures) don't measure total
fluxes, they measure the ratios between fluxes at a number of different
wavelengths. Older ones (disappearing wire etc.) simply used a target
of a known heated material (usually a lump of firebrick) and looked for
the peak emission wavelength / colour.

Yes, but I bet they used the el-cheapo one from Harbor Freight.

bright yellow flames get that way because soot is black,



"Black body" radiation has _nothing_ to do with the fact that cold soot
looks black to human vision. Red ochre paint is a good simulation of a
black body radiator at gas flame temperatures and it will return to
looking just the same red colour when it's cool.

Red ocher paint is largely gray; there are very few things that have a
really pure color -- and those things emit at the wavelengths that they
absorb when they're cool. In fact, researchers (I think in Japan) have
designed filaments for light bulbs that are only emissive in the optical
band -- they're "white" at UV and IR. The bulbs are significantly more
efficient, because they don't radiate useless wavelengths.

Were soot clear (or white) at temperature it would not glow so strongly.
And it's "emissive" (black) at visible wavelengths at ambient, as well.

Look at 'clear' glass out of a furnace for a counterexample -- it's
glowing, but not nearly as strongly as it would if it were really
emissive at visible wavelengths. Take the same size chunk of iron at
the same temperature and you'll light up the room.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
DT
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

I
That may be the one (partially) true claim, actually.

Hydrogen remains largely transparent as it burns, so it emits very
little light. Blackbody radiation is called that for a reason --
perfectly reflective or transmissive materials don't emit light when
they're hot; bright yellow flames get that way because soot is black,
which is part of the reason that hot soot glows. So if you looked at
the flame with an infrared pyrometer it would show up as not much warmer
than it's surroundings.




Even that claim is dubious. It's true that a hydrogen flame doesn't emit much
light, but I can assure you it emits plenty of IR radiation.

I worked many years at NASA's Rocket Engine Test Facility (RETF) at the (now)
Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. One of our continuing programs was liquid
hydrogen cooled nozzles. The hydrogen was run through the nozzle and skirt to
cool the throat and preheat the hydrogen before it was injected. Since this was
a test of the cooling and not the combustion, we just dumped the warm hydrogen.

It went up a stack about 120 ft high, where it exited a manifold and was
ignited by a pilot flame. The flame was huge (this was about a 20,000 lb thrust
motor), about 50 feet high and 20 feet across. Since the RETF was right next to
Cleveland Hopkins airport, we had to get clearance to allow this flame so close
to the runway. My friend Ken actually flew a small aircraft above the flame to
test for thermals.

You could barely see the flame on overcast days, it surely is invisible. But,
if you went outside, Hole mackeral, it was hot! It was just like a second sun
on the other side of your face, really a strange feeling since there didn't
appear to be anything there to cause it.

Among other neat things about this testing was the fact that the final run of
piping to the engine was not insulated (it was a SS flex line). When the
hydrogen came on at 2000 psi the lines stiffened up and liquid began 'raining'
around them. It is liquid air! The non insulated line is so cold the atmosphere
condenses around it. The oxygen rich mixure rained down on the test stand and
if any oil or dirt was present it poofed into flames.

More than once I called into the intercom, "Fire on the stand!" The test
conductor (a half mile away) would always reply with, "Hang on, we need 5 more
seconds!"

As the fuel operator I was only 30 feet from the stand, in a foot-thick,
hardened building ominously called the 'Termination Room" (it's where the
instrumentation terminated). I looked out through 40 panes of bullet-proof
glass (totaling 12" thick) with a a thick steel plate that held a mirror at a
45 degree angle. Above this was another mirror facing the stand, so it
amounted to a periscope.

Near my right hand was the big red abort button, but woe to the tech who pushed
it too early!

Dennis


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Leo Lichtman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??


"Tim Wescott" wrote: (clip) That may be the one (partially) true claim,
actually.

Hydrogen remains largely transparent as it burns, so it emits very little
light. (clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tim, only if you DEFINE temperature in terms of radiant emission can you
cling to that statement. Are you aware of the deaths that have occurred at
the Indy Speedway because alcohol flames are not visible in daylight? If a
torch truly produced a low temperature flame, it wouldn't be worth s**t for
welding. It isn't necessary to heat some other surface in order to have
heat. One of the laws of thermodynamics is that heat ALWAYS flows from a
higher temperature to a lower temperature. If the flame were really cool,
it COULD NOT HEAT ANYTHING TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE.


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
J. Clarke
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

Leo Lichtman wrote:


"Tim Wescott" wrote: (clip) That may be the one (partially) true claim,
actually.

Hydrogen remains largely transparent as it burns, so it emits very
little light. (clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tim, only if you DEFINE temperature in terms of radiant emission can you
cling to that statement. Are you aware of the deaths that have occurred
at
the Indy Speedway because alcohol flames are not visible in daylight? If
a torch truly produced a low temperature flame, it wouldn't be worth s**t
for
welding. It isn't necessary to heat some other surface in order to have
heat. One of the laws of thermodynamics is that heat ALWAYS flows from a
higher temperature to a lower temperature. If the flame were really cool,
it COULD NOT HEAT ANYTHING TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE.


And this is at variance with a claim about radiated heat how?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
J. Clarke
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

DT wrote:

I
That may be the one (partially) true claim, actually.

Hydrogen remains largely transparent as it burns, so it emits very
little light. Blackbody radiation is called that for a reason --
perfectly reflective or transmissive materials don't emit light when
they're hot; bright yellow flames get that way because soot is black,
which is part of the reason that hot soot glows. So if you looked at
the flame with an infrared pyrometer it would show up as not much warmer
than it's surroundings.




Even that claim is dubious. It's true that a hydrogen flame doesn't emit
much light, but I can assure you it emits plenty of IR radiation.


That's not necessarily inconsistent with their claims though. Sounds like a
selective emitter--that being the case where's the peak and to what
blackbody temperature would that correspond?

I worked many years at NASA's Rocket Engine Test Facility (RETF) at the
(now) Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. One of our continuing programs
was liquid hydrogen cooled nozzles. The hydrogen was run through the
nozzle and skirt to cool the throat and preheat the hydrogen before it was
injected. Since this was a test of the cooling and not the combustion, we
just dumped the warm hydrogen.

It went up a stack about 120 ft high, where it exited a manifold and was
ignited by a pilot flame. The flame was huge (this was about a 20,000 lb
thrust motor), about 50 feet high and 20 feet across. Since the RETF was
right next to Cleveland Hopkins airport, we had to get clearance to allow
this flame so close to the runway. My friend Ken actually flew a small
aircraft above the flame to test for thermals.

You could barely see the flame on overcast days, it surely is invisible.
But, if you went outside, Hole mackeral, it was hot! It was just like a
second sun on the other side of your face, really a strange feeling since
there didn't appear to be anything there to cause it.

Among other neat things about this testing was the fact that the final run
of piping to the engine was not insulated (it was a SS flex line). When
the hydrogen came on at 2000 psi the lines stiffened up and liquid began
'raining' around them. It is liquid air! The non insulated line is so cold
the atmosphere condenses around it. The oxygen rich mixure rained down on
the test stand and if any oil or dirt was present it poofed into flames.

More than once I called into the intercom, "Fire on the stand!" The test
conductor (a half mile away) would always reply with, "Hang on, we need 5
more seconds!"

As the fuel operator I was only 30 feet from the stand, in a foot-thick,
hardened building ominously called the 'Termination Room" (it's where the
instrumentation terminated). I looked out through 40 panes of bullet-proof
glass (totaling 12" thick) with a a thick steel plate that held a mirror
at a 45 degree angle. Above this was another mirror facing the stand, so
it amounted to a periscope.

Near my right hand was the big red abort button, but woe to the tech who
pushed it too early!

Dennis


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Bob
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

-There's some babble about a "cool flame". This is simply ridiculous.

The idea that it "radiates at 129C" is particularly silly. It's a
hydrogen-oxygen flame - they're hot, that's how they work. It's not
magic though, nor are normal rules of physics or chemistry suspended for
this magic gimmick.


Actually, he makes a big deal out of the fact that a small torch tip
used for a brief time doesn't heat appreciably. It's true, but it's
equally true for any oxy-fuel system. When I first went to a jewelry
class, it amazed me that the instructors would change tips on their
Meco midgets with bare fingers, only moments after using the torch.
Then I realized that most of the heat flows away in the flame, away
from the tip, and the copper tips and tip tubes quickly distribute what
little is left. The only time I even bother to check if the tip is
still hot is after an extended use, or after using it to melt metal,
when it heats up by absorbing radiation from the melt itself. Usually,
I just twist off the tip and change it as needed. Haven't been burned
THAT way yet!

Regards,

Bob

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
Tim Wescott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brown's gas??

Leo Lichtman wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote: (clip) That may be the one (partially) true claim,
actually.

Hydrogen remains largely transparent as it burns, so it emits very little
light. (clip)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tim, only if you DEFINE temperature in terms of radiant emission can you
cling to that statement. Are you aware of the deaths that have occurred at
the Indy Speedway because alcohol flames are not visible in daylight? If a
torch truly produced a low temperature flame, it wouldn't be worth s**t for
welding. It isn't necessary to heat some other surface in order to have
heat. One of the laws of thermodynamics is that heat ALWAYS flows from a
higher temperature to a lower temperature. If the flame were really cool,
it COULD NOT HEAT ANYTHING TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE.


They were specifically talking about "radiant temperature". Assuming
that means the temperature you read with an IR radiometer then it could
indeed be low, depending on your technique and the radiometer.

You clipped out the part where I was saying that I wouldn't stick my
hand in the flame -- having gone through more than one bottle of
isopropyl alcohol to fuel a bullet-making and general solder-casting
operation in my bedroom when I was 13 I can attest to the heat of an
"invisible" flame.

I'm just lucky I didn't burn the house down -- particularly since my dad
was assistant chief of the fire department _and_ on the board of directors.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"