swift22

Since I just spent the last three hours looking into this please do not flame and I am starting this thread for discussion purposes.

As most of you are aware and probably seen on youtube...videos of people running cars off "water" with a combination of valves and switches. I am going to fill you on what the real process is and how it works in plain english.

Basically a phenomenon is upon us and the physics world. As many of you know it takes energy to make energy. Nothing is "free". As you look into the creation of bio diesel and E85..you will clearly see this. What I have discovered through looking into this since i am a gearhead is what they call "brown's gas" or HHO or HOH. It is more commonly referred to as Oxy-Hydrogen and is already used in jewelry welders and torches. You can braze and cut metal and you can touch the torch surrounding tip and not burn yourself because of a small vacuum at the end of it! Some facts i have located is that its flame speed is 8160ft per sec or MACH 7.5 and that you can have it ignite at 95:1(air to hydrogen). It is created already at Stoich at atmospheric pressure and only would take .02 milliajoules to ignite or split.

What this means to us? You can take your ol' chev 350, hook up a positive line from your "red top optima" to a reservoir containing metal plates(forgot type) about 10 thousands apart in a pure solution of water or up to 25% sodium hydroxide(?) added to increase electrolysis. It forms this "brown gas" that you can have come in before your throttlebody and it will combust and also increase the efficiency if you still run a gas mixture. 1L=15hrs running time.

Now of course I have only scratched the surface of this and I am sure there are skeptics abound as I am. But search youtube for Oxy-Hydrogen or Brown gas and you will be left head scratching unless you are a scientist or physics expert.

What I can say to quell some of the drama is this....at many universities they have used advanced machines and datalogging to measure the molecular weight etc of gas given off so see what percent is hydrogen and what percent is oxygen. The Result?? You take pure water and this gas maintains some UNKNOWN element or trace and the bonding is assemetrical between H and O. Also one man was successful in setting a system up that based on the amperage which was the lowest yet(1/2 amp) and a fixed frequency passed through the plates/rods the output of the gas could run a generator or whatnot. Can't remember specifics HOWEVER...the main thought was that it was defying common law and physics because he was creating more energy than he was inputing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SO I hope I have intrigued you. No I have not done this yet on my vehicle but you bet I will. You don't have to understand the process completely but know that it for whatever reason...somehow...actually works! Since I am a gearhead and into performance I relate it to Nitrous or...better yet Methanol injection. You are creating a better combustion with a more pure form of a reactant which equals more power which in turn if left stock would yield more mpg(less work). With these gas prices...i say f%*k what we think we know, what can't or can work. We need to think outside the box. Yet I have also thought that the most simple form of "fuel" was right in front of us just waiting to be realized. Just take a look at water itself and how it differs in how it reacts compared to other substances. When temperature is reduced it expands..versus shrinking..

So please feel free to link intresting finds or videos to prove or disprove the working of this.

PS-Its 2am and excuse any misspelling etc.

CLIFFS: Search brown's gas or oxy-hydrogen

amisconception

Cocoa

iTrader: (2)

http://car-runs-on-water.com/

CanopyFlyer

The days of burning fuel to power an automobile are numbered. The first all electric cars that can compete directly with ICE powered automobiles are less than a decade away.

Here is why.

Granted there is still work to be done. A cathode material will need to be found to take advantage of the new anode. However even without a new cathode significant improvements will be seen with this technology.

As far as pollution goes, yes all electric cars shift the pollution production to power plants. However having one central source that can be tightly regulated should be produce less pollution that millions of cars running around the country side.

Just my nickel with three cents change.

SwervinCL

Interesting.

JaredGMS

Ok, for those who wants to know - this is just hydrogen and oxygen....in the correct proportions. There is no difference between the reaction described above and those which use bottled oxygen and hydrogen. The sole difference is that in this reaction the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined into the correct 2:1 ratio to get the best exothermic reaction available.

Would this work in a car? Perhaps. It would likely lead to better (more complete) burning in the chamber (when used as a complement to traditional combustion)

However, also realize that as soon as the reaction is complete, you've made water IN THE FIRING CHAMBER. That's bad, mmmkay...

Also, there really is no way you could run this reaction as the sole energy source in a car...it would take immense quantities of electrolysis to create the gasses.

swift22

^^ you have no idea what you are talking about. This is NOT just making hydrogen...please look into it and you will know that. Also creating "water" as you call it does not occur in combustion chamber(its in a gas state) and even if it does it is not bad. Ever heard of methanal injection..look into that too.

As far as the other replies go not to shabby. I just like the alternatives and we NEED to get away from using fossil fuels period.

PS-you have to look at the molecular level when this gas is created. The molecules are bonded asymetrical and there is an unknown substance presence also which has yet to be determined. SO not H2+O but HOH.....

Q1911

I thought this was going to be a farting thread.

eclipse23

I thought it was a sharting thread, brown gas is not just gas.....

JaredGMS

You're an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%2...#Brown.27s_gas

Brown's device was pateted in 1977-78. It's a simple electrolysis rig. When you pass electric current though a water solution (note - you can't pass much electricity at all through PURE water...it needs ions to travel by) 2 moleclues of H20 disassociate into 2 molecules of diatomic hydrogen (H2) and one of diatomic oxygen (O2). If you catch this gas and mix it again, it's already in a 2:1 H2 : O2 ratio, which is optimal for a hydrogen combustion reaction. Also, monatomic hydrogen and oxygen are HIGHLY unstable....if there are loose H's and O's, they will bond to become gaseous diatomic molecules.
Also, every hydrocarbon combustion reaction creates water (in vapor form). ALL OF THEM. If you combust hydrogen, the reaction is

2H2 + O2 + activation energy source---->2H2O + heat + light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

And the "HOH" you refer to is a theory, trademarked by a corporation, called a magnagas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnecule#Magnecule_theory

Please note that this theory has been rejected by most of the chemistry community.

And it's methanol, not methanal.

Please don't ever try and argue anything chemistry/biology related with me ever again. It's hard seeing you get this beat up.

Moron.

harlowlax

did someone just site wikipedia? ahahaha so scholarly

TS_eXpeed

haha
+1


Wikipedia FTL

shooter

Did Wikipedia's CEO get his dirty laundry exposed on ebay by his one-time fling or something like that? LOL

hemhaw

My money's on the plug.

JaredGMS

What's wrong with citing a peer reviewed source? Better than half the shit out on the web.

Besides - I'm right.

Unless you have a better understanding of chemistry (you don't), and can prove I'm wrong, GFY.

swift22

haha because it wrong... i will get back to you with a REAL link.

I am happy you do "think" you know what your talking about when your trying to prove your opinion.

BTW_ I have witnessed people using misinfo off a site they thought was legit before...

swift22

http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgashistory.html

swift22

PS-dont beat yourself up over it.

swift22

Brown’s Gas is common ducted oxyhydrogen; oxyhydrogen produced in a common ducted electrolyzer. From a practical level, what can visually observed, Brown’s Gas is indistinguishable from oxyhydrogen. The only sensory distinction, that can be observed, is the apparent temperature of the Brown’s Gas flame as compared to that of oxyhydrogen. Considering this obvious and duplicable phenomena, common ducted oxyhydrogen reasonably shares the vast majority of properties with oxyhydrogen, but possesses several distinctions.

Oxyhydrogen is produced in an independently ducted electrolyzer (substantially separate anodes and cathodes). It can also be produced using bottle (tanked) hydrogen and oxygen. Any electrolyzer that is designed according to common ducted parameters will not produce pure oxyhydrogen. The results of common ducted electrolysis is the formation of small quantities of hydrogen and oxygen molecular formations other than solely diatomic structures; oxyhydrogen, according to strict chemical stoichiometry, is a mixture of ONLY diatomic hydrogen and diatomic oxygen. Common ducted oxyhydrogen (Brown’s Gas), on the other hand, contains predominantly H2 and O2, but a variety of other viable molecular formations that account for the substantial temperature differential between the two flames; a higher entropy content is a reasonable means of accounting for this property. Entropy is a parameter of a substance quantitative of the degree of molecular disorder. Considering that Entropy times (*/x/multiplied) with the temperature of the substance yield a unit of energy other than solely the direct enthalpy content. It is theorized that the entropy content of Brown’s Gas is greater than that of pure oxyhydrogen; given the inversely proportional relationship between entropy and temperature, as entropy increase the temperature of the substance must decrease to be consistent with the 1’st Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy). Thus the increased entropy of Brown’s Gas pushed the flame temperature substantially down; this can be revered saying that the observed, relatively low, temperature of the Brown’s Gas flame can be accounted for by an substantial increase in entropy.

Bearcat94

Citing the proponent as a source is suspect.

That's like citing www.chevrolet.com to prove Chevy makes the best cars.


Science and the Scientific Method is really in the shitter in this country.

hemhaw

You do understand that the energy required to electrolyze O2 and H2 from water is greater than what the resultant gases release when burned, DON'T YOU?

JaredGMS

Only the second thing here stands out. What other viable molecular formations are there? I can't find any.

Everything else is fine and dandy, but it still doesn't explain how this gas is supposed to be used as the be-all, end-all of energy sources....

Here's the facts - even your article states that "brown's gas" is predominantly just diatomic hydrogen and oxygen. The "big" difference is the entropy of some unknown molecules. So what? All you article says is that they burn at a lower temperature....how is that a good thing? Also, it's fact that hydrogen, made through electrolysis, requires more energy to create than any combustion reaction would produce.


Everything you've posted is bullshit. Brown came out with this hypothesis almost 40 years ago, and yet I cannot find ONE peer-reviewed paper substantiating those claims. (hence the citations to wikipedia)This would seem to be a fundamental shift is physical chemistry.....so why hasn't it been studied? Because it's BULLSHIT.

So here's the thing....I challenge ANY of you to produce a peer-reviewed article that justifies all of these claims.

Until then, enjoy being told what to think. Freakin sheep.

JaredGMS

You're trying to argue science you don't understand with a scientist....

JaredGMS

Why would I beat myself up over this, or the claims of a twit?

swift22

so you want me to believe your a scientist yet you quoted wiki articles?? wtf...right.

and this article/site that i link for the others is NOT the main site of this "brown's gas" so there are many others that have same info.

If you look closer and actually read...oxyhydrogen can be created for welding etc with compressed hydrogen and oxygen in seperate tanks combined when needed...

brown's gas CANNOT be and has to be created using water and electricity on a needed basis.

As for the comment of using more energy to create then produced is a very good point. However some independent researchers have only put 1/2 an amp through and created brown's gas and ran it off the cars electrical system. Now I do remind you this isn't some miracle just yet...but when combined with gas increased performance and gas mileage. And no this is not like water injection etc.

Other articles show CLEARLY that another gas is formed during the process. There are numerous articles on this subject everywhere and numerous people posting on other forums as well. So all i asked when posting this is that people look into it. Considering I work with engines and built some and tuned some...i look at the FACTS of using this as a power source.

Ps-do you really think i would post an article that actually supports your argument? It tells the DIFFERENCE between the two... Do some more reading and you will realize there is a DIFFERENCE. Like the difference between diesel and gasoline.

hemhaw

OIC.... So it's like... perpetual motion?

harlowlax

Its obviously so the doc and marty can make it back to 1985...i mean his name is emmitt brown isnt it?

JaredGMS

<---B.S. - Microbiology/Chemistry, M.S. - Microbial genetics/physiology......an understatement to say I've had some training in chemistry.

And I never said that using oxyhydrogen would not increase mileage - I actually said it might work since it may encourage a more complete burn. BUT, it's so damn expensive, and physically it makes no sense (in thermodynamic terms) to use it.

You keep talking about this difference, but cannot come up with ANY solid evidence of this. SHOW ME AN ARTICLE that gives qualitative measures of these mystery gasses. Your articles just say that they're there, without any evidence. And "other articles everywhere and people posting on other forums" does not count for evidence. You have the burden of proof here - show us this proof.

Until then, STFU.

JaredGMS

P.S. - why is everyone here so down on wiki? It's a peer-authored service, and has links to citations to close any credibility gaps. Shit, most patent attorneys now use the wiki patent service for their prior art searches.

synth19

Didnt Gargamel try to turn the smurfs into gold?

JaredGMS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargamel

synth19

Qualitative or Quantitative?

JaredGMS

Qualitative....I don't care how much of the other gasses there is, just show me that there are other gasses present, and what those gasses are.

GCMS graphs would work fine.

synth19

^ busting your balls.

JaredGMS

joerockt

What makes you a "scientist"? I thought you were a bankruptcy lawyer or something...

godfather2

here's my question if this thing has a remote chance of working, how come nobody knows about it? all conspiracy theories aside, i have a hard time believing this is a feasible option

JaredGMS

B.S. - Microbiology/Chemistry
M.S. - Microbial Physiology/Genetics
J.D.

I went to law school to get into patent/Intellectual property law.....that didn't pan out so well...

joerockt

So what do you do that makes you a "scientist"? Just curious...

JaredGMS

Other than the 7 years of my life devoted to the study of science (including multiple authored articles), and continual reading of a few select journals in my areas of expertise/interest, nothing.