Talk:Brown's gas

References

For a future article... — Omegatron 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Don Lancaster (February 1998). "Investigating Brown's gas, a tiny TV generator, and more" (PDF). Electronics Now. Vol. 69, no. 2. pp. p. 22. {{cite news}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Don Lancaster (March 1998). "How to Bash Pseudoscience" (PDF). Blatant Opportunist. No. 49.
• Oh, Hung-Kuk (1999-10-15). "Some comments on implosion and Brown gas". Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 95 (1–3): 8–9.
• "Vitrification of Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Fly Ash Using Brown's Gas". Retrieved 2007-04-05. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

• Michrowski, A. (1996-09-13). "Advanced transmutation processes and their application for the decontamination of radioactive nuclear wastes". Proceedings of the Second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University. Retrieved 2007-06-09. {{cite conference}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |conferenceurl= (help); Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
  • It could also be formatted with cite journal? (Journal of New Energy. Vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 122-130. 1996) It cites Kervran as if he was onto something, while most people consider his work pseudoscience, according to our articles:

    Nobel Nominee Prof. Louis Kervran replicated these numerous findings and advanced very far the understanding of natural, non-radioactive transmutations, acquiring in this pursuit a term for such transmutations, Kervran reaction, while engendering solid physics support from the Institut de Physique Théorique Henri Poincaré physicist, Olivier Costa de Beauregard.

    — Omegatron 17:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Korean company: http://www.browngas.com/ — Omegatron 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Lots of criticism, information, and references for the various claims — Omegatron 03:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

More academic journal articles dealing with hydrogen based fuel enhancement

Kong, Crane, Patel and Taylor, NOx Trap Regeneration with an On-Board Hydrogen Generation Device, March 2004, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2004-01-0582

Hoekstra, Van Blarigan and Mulligan, University of Central Florida, Sandia National Labs and Florida Solar Energy Center, NOx Emissions and Efficiency of Hydrogen, Natural Gas, and Hydrogen/Natural Gas Blended Fuels, , May 1996, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 961103

Tunestal et al., Lund Institute of Technology and Swedish Gas Center, Hydrogen Addition For Improved Lean Burn Capability of Slow and Fast Burning Natural Gas Combustion Chambers, October 2002, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2002-01-2686

Ochoa, Dwyer, Wallace and Brodrick, University of California at Davis, Emissions from Hydrogen Enriched CHG Production Engines, October 2002, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2002-01-2687

Fontana, Galloni, Jannelli, and Minutillo, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Cassino, Performance and Fuel Consumption Estimation of a Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline Engine at Part-Load Operation, July 2002, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2002-01-2196

Tully and Heywood, General Motors and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lean-Burn Characteristics of a Gasoline Engine Enriched with Hydrogen from a Plasmatron Fuel Reformer, , March 2003, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2003-01-0630

Natkin et al., Ford Motor Company and University of California-Riverside, Hydrogen IC Engine Boosting Performance and NOx Study, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2003-01-0631

Conte and Boulouchos, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Influence of Hydrogen-Rich-Gas Addition on Combustion, Pollutant Formation and Efficiency of an IC-SI Engine, March 2004 SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2004-01-0972

Allgeier et al., Robert Bosch Gmbh, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and HTI Biel, Advanced Emission and Fuel Economy Concept Using Combined Injection of Gasoline and Hydrogen in SI-Engines, March 2004, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2004-01-1270

Tomita, Kawahara, Piao, Fujita, and Hamamato; Hydrogen Combustion and Exhaust Emissions Ignited with Diesel Oil in a Dual Fuel Engine, September 2001, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2001-01-3503

Noah Seidman 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive argument

"But Brown's gas is the same thing as oxyhydrogen!"

Then we should have an article called Brown's gas that says, "Brown's gas is claimed to do this and this, but is actually the same thing as oxyhydrogen."

The AfDs and Deletion Reviews concluded with deletions, but without prejudice against recreations of HHO gas and Brown's gas (which are claimed to be different things) if they are well-written, referenced, neutral, and scientifically accurate. But it's going to be a crackpot magnet, so let's collect all the references and information on the talk page, first. — Omegatron 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think all hoaxes should be documented, and am a little disappointed that this article was deleted. Paul Studier 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To say that Brown's Gas is the same as Oxyhydrogen would be WP:OR. Noah Seidman 18:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Abstract" of Yull Brown's patent clearly states that Brown's Gas is common ducted oxyhydrogen Noah Seidman 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well actually its not in the "Abstract", but I do believe that the most recent Brown's Gas article stated "common ducted" Noah Seidman 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

• Oppose merge with oxyhydrogen. Even if they're the same thing, this is notable enough to be a separate article. — Omegatron 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article (if it deserves to exist) should describe the alleged phenomena of Brown's gas different from oxyhydrogen. I think, at least, the oxyhydrogen article should have some mention of Brown's gas and/or HHO gas. I'm not sure what the difference between those two is, the claimed properties of Brown's gas and HHO gas being similar. The way, the truth, and the light 13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the HHO journal article, it refers to Brown's gas by name and says they're not the same (see Talk:HHO_gas#Comments), so it wouldn't be neutral of us to put them in the same article, even if they were actually the same substance. I don't think there should be anything in oxyhydrogen about this except a See also link. — Omegatron 14:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To do

• Can we find anyone else doing something similar to the atomic welding? It seems legit, converting electrical energy into heat energy through a chemical reaction, but I'm not an expert. The patent says that when H₂ molecules are split into 2 H, the atoms absorb 101,000 calories per gram mole. O₂ → 2 O absorbs 117,000. On recombination into water, this extra energy is converted into heat (supposedly). Chemists?
• The patents seem mostly legit, but did Brown make dubious claims outside of the patents? If not, where did they originate?
• This page says that the flame has little radiant heat. Why would this be? They also show the same "holding the torch tip" and "waving your hand in the flame" demonstration as the HHO gas people.
• Watch the Dan Haley video very carefully and write down everything he says. It's pretty unintelligible in parts, so I just added a brief summary. — Omegatron 17:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

{{totallydisputed}}

I won't contribute to a wheel war over the deletion of this article but I'm not sure, what will happen next in this drama.

But assuming that the article will stay for now, I want to make some important points clear:

• "Brown's gas" is not a common or old name used for oxyhydrogen. If you are searching for an old name, try Knallgas. For some time -- and still in biology -- the German name was used.
  • If anyone finds evidence that this was in some time the common name for oxyhydrogen used in welding, please stand up and show the evidence. Textbooks from the 1970s and 1980s would be the reference to decide this with authority. Not some stuff on the WWW.
• Oxyhydrogen welding is described at Oxy-fuel_welding_and_cutting#Hydrogen. It is pointless and wrong to split off a separate article under the misleading name "Brown's gas" and only mention his products.
• Contrary to the comment by the undeleting admin AFD was for HHO, not Brown's Gas. Conflating the two and deleting this one was in error. HHO is the hoax, Brown's Gas has long and notable scientific/industrial history, this article is mostly about the hoaxy part.
  • The part about atomic welding has no reliable sources. Patents are useless to source this.
  • There is the wonderful transmutation of radioactive nuclids into stable ones, without any reliable source given, and not even considered to be one of the Anomalous effects. Heck, if transmutation is one of the normal effects of this gas, can we expect eternal life and world peace as a-normal effects?
  • Under anomalous effects we then have the Ajou paper. Which doesn't get any cites in any physics paper in nine years. We cant't take this as reliable source, that's just the background noise of the scientific publishing process. Compare WP:SCIENCE.
  • I'm too tired to address the other anomalous effects for now.

If this article is to be kept, it should be under Brown's gas hoax, or even under the weaselish Brown's gas controversy, but it must stop trying to give the impression to be just oxyhydrogen and oxyhydrogen welding.

Pjacobi 20:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to disagree with the criticism of the HHO related claims here; the stuff is used industrially, under one name or another, and Brown's gas is one of the names used. I have no problem with calling the pseudoscience stuff around the fringe what it is; I categorically won't factually defend any of that. But I have seen people use what they called Brown's gas in fabrication work, so it's a term and material in use. I think we can take note of that without lending credibility to the pseudoscience. Georgewilliamherbert 21:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a step forwards to move the totallydisputed tag to the subsections which are related to the pseudoscientific elements? Georgewilliamherbert 21:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not until there is a bona fide reference that the name "Brown's gas" is used in no-snake-oil engineering. --Pjacobi 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just tried a Google Books search. It's a bit complicated because of other Browns, an early 19th century inventor, and a company of the same name. Using my brain to filter these out, I was left with three books:

• ISBN 1843767996 [1]
• ISBN 1932857192 [2]
• ISBN 0972171312 [3]

Disregarding for now the question what can be sourced from these books, they for sure don't give credibility to the claim, that "Brown's gas" is a synonym for oxyhydrogen. The missing results from science engineering textbooks eliminates this possibility.

Pjacobi 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hot

Has anyone tried to place their hand even close to an oxyhydrogen flame? The thing is HOT, its basically a perfect hydrogen flame, and Corning uses hydrogen to make glass products (ie. requiring thousands of degrees). Hmmmm, how can you hold your hand right next to a common ducted oxyhydrogen flame as seen in the widespread videos? Does it appear hot? Obviously someone will return with the statement "wishful thinking", to that person I urge them to try the following experiment: place your right hand next to a oxyhydrogen flame, and then your left hand next to a common ducted oxyhydrogen flame. I look forward to the outcome of this experiment. Noah Seidman 04:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

People with "common" sense and not some other sense will know when the hand is in front of a flame or not. The video suggests this. Or simply suggest that the video itself is a hoax. Now if one says that the video must have been photoshopped, I feel really sorry for that person.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Chromatography

Everyone argues that oxyhydrogen is H2 and O2!! Therefore chromatography of oxyhydrogen would show AMU peaks at 2 and 32. The Santilli HHO article shows chromatography peaks at AMUs other than 2 and 32, such as peaks at 5, 12, 14, and 15. Is this paper a lie and was it conjured? Is the chromatography data a forgery? Noah Seidman 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This argument is not applicable to any Brown's Gas article that may emerge because: It reflects my opinion that the GC data is representative of Brown's Gas. Noah Seidman 16:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)