Hey guys,

I have read a lot on the forums and I see a lot of people posting about HHO and brown's gas etc. To me at least it seems that not everyone is aware that Brown's gas and HHO are not the same thing.

HHO as we all know comes about as a result of ordinary electrolysis, and consists of ordinary hydrogen and oxygen.

Brown's gas is some type of by product of the electrolysis process and is only produced in small quantities, according to Chris Eckman a (university student - REFERENCE HERE) it's roughly 15% ordinarily. Browns gas also displays some very interesting characteristics, and it's quite possibly one of the missing key's to the Stan Meyer WFC.

Try for example the following experiment:

Use ordinary electrolysis and fill a paper bag with HHO and leave it for 12 hours. The paper bag is obviously incapable of containing hydrogen and it will escape and evaporate. However 12 hours later we are still left with a HEAVIER THAN AIR gas. This gas can be poured from the paper bag and into a glass and can be ignited at the bottom of the glass. This is browns gas. Now im quite happy to go into a discussion about what this substance might be and why it acts like it does but the main point of this was to point out to people who may not have been aware of these differences.

Apparently something like this:



And another really interesting reference from Muray King HHO NOT HYDROGEN?

Cheers :)

Quote from zaneaussie on September 19th, 2013, 04:43 PM

I have read a lot on the forums and I see a lot of people posting about HHO and brown's gas etc. To me at least it seems that not everyone is aware that Brown's gas and HHO are not the same thing.

This is what I meant when saying the gas I made had both explosive and implosive characteristics.  It's because there is two different gas in there.  Now I'm not entirely sure that is a bad thing.  Maybe having both gases is actually a useful quality.

What would be most beneficial is to make a gas in relatively low quantities (15 LpM) that is extremely powerful--capable of running say a 2 Liter engine.  Get there and we're really on to something.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 19th, 2013, 07:08 PM

This is what I meant when saying the gas I made had both explosive and implosive characteristics.  It's because there is two different gas in there.  Now I'm not entirely sure that is a bad thing.  Maybe having both gases is actually a useful quality.

What would be most beneficial is to make a gas in relatively low quantities (15 LpM) that is extremely powerful--capable of running say a 2 Liter engine.  Get there and we're really on to something.

That's exactly right. It's not the quantity but the quality that's needed. Just to idle a small engine on regular HHO you need at least 20 liters p/min and god knows how much to actually run it but probably in the hundreds of liters p/min. Brown's gas however is an entirely different kettle of fish and it's quite possible that Stan's device relied on the production of Brown's gas rather than bulk HHO. In fact I have to almost certainly say that is the case.

It is hard to speculate if having both gases is a good thing or a bad thing but the originators of Brown's gas thought of HHO as a pollution. I started a thread on this some time back, to discuss this issue.

Quote from zaneaussie on September 19th, 2013, 08:53 PM

That's exactly right. It's not the quantity but the quality that's needed. Just to idle a small engine on regular HHO you need at least 20 liters p/min and god knows how much to actually run it but probably in the hundreds of liters p/min. Brown's gas however is an entirely different kettle of fish and it's quite possible that Stan's device relied on the production of Brown's gas rather than bulk HHO. In fact I have to almost certainly say that is the case.

It is hard to speculate if having both gases is a good thing or a bad thing but the originators of Brown's gas thought of HHO as a pollution. I started a thread on this some time back, to discuss this issue.

Some folks including Max Miller think the Gas Processor is what converts the HHO into Brown's gas.  I tend to think instead, the Gas Processor is what keeps the Brown's gas from reverting back into HHO.  Just not sure because I really don't know how stable Brown's gas is.  Maybe it's actually a separator.  If Brown's gas is heavier than air, it might be worthwhile to see exactly how the Gas Processor is mounted.

The only thing I can recall from my research is that some said the gas you are looking for forms as bubbles in between the plates, not on the plates.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 19th, 2013, 10:19 PM

Some folks including Max Miller think the Gas Processor is what converts the HHO into Brown's gas.  I tend to think instead, the Gas Processor is what keeps the Brown's gas from reverting back into HHO.  Just not sure because I really don't know how stable Brown's gas is.  Maybe it's actually a separator.  If Brown's gas is heavier than air, it might be worthwhile to see exactly how the Gas Processor is mounted.

Yeah that's interesting and I guess both are equally possible. I personally think that the gas clusters are formed while the HHO is still water and then somehow retains that matter configuration when it's electrolysed, otherwise how would you explain Brown's gas? I believe Brown's gas is just that, a cluster of HOHOHOHOHOHO in this configuration and the reason it becomes heavier than air is because it forms a torroid of positive-negative conglomeration of Rydberg matter. Like a snake biting it's own tail to use a more ancient analogy. How this is possible is anyone's guess and raises more questions than it answers.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 19th, 2013, 10:19 PM

The only thing I can recall from my research is that some said the gas you are looking for forms as bubbles in between the plates, not on the plates.

Yeah I have seen this also and definitively an observation that warrants further investigation, and how Meyers device creates these clusters is also important. Perhaps this is where the whole cavity and frequency thing comes into play?

This is what I'd love to see happening more and more, questioning theories, thinking outside the box.
That's what's going to get us somewhere, always has been AAMOF.
Keep it coming

Quote from Lynx on September 19th, 2013, 11:40 PM

This is what I'd love to see happening more and more, questioning theories, thinking outside the box.
That's what's going to get us somewhere, always has been AAMOF.
Keep it coming

That's exactly right :)

Quote from King:
"What has slowed progress in the water-fuel scene? “The problem is the belief that they’re making hydrogen,” King says. A change in thinking could result in “a stampede of garage inventors” creating useful technologies. If the universities don’t lead the charge, then at least they can follow – with the careful studies that will eventually give the academic seal of approval to a new body of science – and game-changing clean energy technologies."

Quote from zaneaussie on September 19th, 2013, 08:53 PM

Quote from Matt Watts on September 19th, 2013, 07:08 PM

This is what I meant when saying the gas I made had both explosive and implosive characteristics.  It's because there is two different gas in there.  Now I'm not entirely sure that is a bad thing.  Maybe having both gases is actually a useful quality.

What would be most beneficial is to make a gas in relatively low quantities (15 LpM) that is extremely powerful--capable of running say a 2 Liter engine.  Get there and we're really on to something.

That's exactly right. It's not the quantity but the quality that's needed. Just to idle a small engine on regular HHO you need at least 20 liters p/min and god knows how much to actually run it but probably in the hundreds of liters p/min. Brown's gas however is an entirely different kettle of fish and it's quite possible that Stan's device relied on the production of Brown's gas rather than bulk HHO. In fact I have to almost certainly say that is the case.

It is hard to speculate if having both gases is a good thing or a bad thing but the originators of Brown's gas thought of HHO as a pollution. I started a thread on this some time back, to discuss this issue.

you can calculate the amount needed by cfm air flow into the intake.

a typical 8 cylinder motor needs about a 650 cfm and properly jet carburetor, or fuel  injectors, measured

what size injectors for horsepower calculator.. in lbs of pressure. they also calculate that air flow metere mix for you. . mass air meter the intake charge.

it knows your adding o2 so it reduces consumption. a 4 cylinder engine about 250 to 350 cfm is ideal for proper vacuum and air intake charge mix with fuel.


just search cfm per cubic inch calculator. or airflow rate calculator fuel ratio..

The implosion thing is a myth that has perpetuated around forums for years, primarily due to a lack of education and understanding.

Ignite a stoichiometric amount of hydrogen and oxygen, and ultimately you are left with liquid water, and as liquid water takes up only a fraction of the volume of the initial gases, it can be perceived that an implosion has occurred. Right? So just like the mysterious Brown's gas, the gas resulting from a simple DC electrolyser can also be seen to implode.

But what everyone fails miserably to consider is that when the hydrogen and oxygen form into the water molecule, a tremendous amount of energy is released in the form of heat: It explodes. Hence, the implosion is preceded by an explosion.

Only after this energy has dissipated does the water molecule enter into liquid state as it effectively cools.  And in the confines of a hot engine combustion chamber, it will not normally achieve liquid state at all. No mystery, just science that has been misinterpreted over the years.

Incidentally, exactly what prerequisite do you folks think is necessary in an electrolyser to produce anything other than just oxygen and hydrogen... and why?

Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 07:39 AM

Only after this energy has dissipated does the water molecule enter into liquid state as it effectively cools.  And in the confines of a hot engine combustion chamber, it will not normally achieve liquid state at all. No mystery, just science that has been misinterpreted over the years.

As for running, or should I say starting, a 4-stroke motor fed with hydrogen (and air), would you first need to somehow heat up the interior of the cylinder in order for it to start up at all?
Thanks.

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 07:46 AM

Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 07:39 AM

Only after this energy has dissipated does the water molecule enter into liquid state as it effectively cools.  And in the confines of a hot engine combustion chamber, it will not normally achieve liquid state at all. No mystery, just science that has been misinterpreted over the years.

As for running, or should I say starting, a 4-stroke motor fed with hydrogen (and air), would you first need to somehow heat up the interior of the cylinder in order for it to start up at all?
Thanks.

Why do you say that?  But, no you wouldn't.

Not that it really matters anyway, but the first explosion will heat up the chamber! In fact, because we are feeding in a fuel already in gaseous state a 4-stroke ICE will start better than on hydrocarbon fuels. Ask anyone that runs their car on LPG.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 07:53 AM

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 07:46 AM

Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 07:39 AM

Only after this energy has dissipated does the water molecule enter into liquid state as it effectively cools.  And in the confines of a hot engine combustion chamber, it will not normally achieve liquid state at all. No mystery, just science that has been misinterpreted over the years.

As for running, or should I say starting, a 4-stroke motor fed with hydrogen (and air), would you first need to somehow heat up the interior of the cylinder in order for it to start up at all?
Thanks.

Why do you say that?  But, no you wouldn't.

Not that it really matters anyway, but the first explosion will heat up the chamber! In fact, because we are feeding in a fuel already in gaseous state a 4-stroke ICE will start better than on hydrocarbon fuels. Ask anyone that runs their car on LPG.

Ok, thanks.
The reason for asking is that I've tried feeding an old Honda G65 4-stroke engine with the gases from my brute force cell and I can't get it to ignite at all, maybe I'm just going about it the wrong way here.
My guess is that I would do better separating the H2 from the O2 and only feed the H2 to the manifold, mixed with air of course.

That's odd, it doesn't take much to ignite hydrogen in the presence of oxygen, and you can't really have too much oxygen as the hydrogen will just react with what it needs, so I wouldn't be too concerned with the more complicated process of separating the gases. I believe hydrogen will ignite down to a around only 4% of the total volume of oxygen/air mix, so I would have thought you would be getting at least some combustion. I assume you definitely have a spark at the plug?

Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 08:28 AM

That's odd, it doesn't take much to ignite hydrogen in the presence of oxygen, and you can't really have too much oxygen as the hydrogen will just react with what it needs, so I wouldn't be too concerned with the more complicated process of separating the gases. I believe hydrogen will ignite down to a around only 4% of the total volume of oxygen/air mix, so I would have thought you would be getting at least some combustion. I assume you definitely have a spark at the plug?

Thanks, yes I do, it fires up using start gas.
I think I have to be a bit more persistent though, also I haven't adjusted any either ignition or valve timing, I'm just feeding the motor as is.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 07:39 AM

The implosion thing is a myth that has perpetuated around forums for years, primarily due to a lack of education and understanding.

Ignite a stoichiometric amount of hydrogen and oxygen, and ultimately you are left with liquid water, and as liquid water takes up only a fraction of the volume of the initial gases, it can be perceived that an implosion has occurred. Right? So just like the mysterious Brown's gas, the gas resulting from a simple DC electrolyser can also be seen to implode.

But what everyone fails miserably to consider is that when the hydrogen and oxygen form into the water molecule, a tremendous amount of energy is released in the form of heat: It explodes. Hence, the implosion is preceded by an explosion.

Only after this energy has dissipated does the water molecule enter into liquid state as it effectively cools.  And in the confines of a hot engine combustion chamber, it will not normally achieve liquid state at all. No mystery, just science that has been misinterpreted over the years.

Incidentally, exactly what prerequisite do you folks think is necessary in an electrolyser to produce anything other than just oxygen and hydrogen... and why?

Yes.  That's what I've noticed.  When the engine is cold though, I do believe the hot water vapor condenses rather rapidly inside the motor giving the apparent effect of implosion.  In my case, I could hear the sound of the engine change and notice a lack of exhaust pressure.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 21st, 2013, 09:28 AM

Yes.  That's what I've noticed.  When the engine is cold though, I do believe the hot water vapor condenses rather rapidly inside the motor giving the apparent effect of implosion.  In my case, I could hear the sound of the engine change and notice a lack of exhaust pressure.

Hi Matt, there may initially be some light condensation - and more noticeable in really cold weather - but even so, by then the explosion phase will have already done its work on the piston, so even if the vapour is turning to liquid for a few revolutions when the combustion chamber is still relatively cold, it will not pose any real issue.

Could you be experiencing blow-by of the rings around the piston, the gasses escaping into the crankcase on the compression stroke?

ask sometings,brown gas's made  from?

hho 's made from brute force electrolysis right?

if  they are produced from the same method then they are the same or not?imho.

thanks
geenee

Quote from geenee on September 21st, 2013, 12:06 PM

ask sometings,brown gas's made  from?

hho 's made from brute force electrolysis right?

if  they are produced from the same method then they are the same or not?imho.

thanks
geenee

A stoichiometric volume of H2 and O2 is produced by a simple everyday DC electrolyser. Common duct the gas and we get Hydroxy or Oxyhydrogen

So what I was asking is what conditions you people considered necessary to produce 'Brown's gas from an electrolyser? Obviously something must be different, or else we just get oxygen and hydrogen, right?

hho after pressure it then it became to brown gas(heavy than air).

Stan always show pressure,maybe this's importance?

thanks
geenee

From Wikipedia.

Quote

Fringe science and fraud  [edit source]

"Brown's Gas" is simply oxyhydrogen with a 2:1 molar ratio of H2 and O2 gases, the same proportion as in water. It is named after Yull Brown, who claimed that it could be used as a fuel for the internal combustion engine.[4][14] It's also called "HHO gas" after the claims of fringe physicist[15] Ruggero Santilli, who claims that his HHO gas, produced by a special apparatus, is "a new form of water", with new properties, based on his (fringe) theory of "magnecules".[14]

Many other pseudoscientific claims have been made about Brown's Gas's pretended ability to neutralize radioactive waste, weld metals, help plants to germinate, etc.[14]

Oxyhydrogen is also often mentioned in conjunction with vehicles that claim to use water as a fuel

I don't know who is responsible for writing this, but this information is grossly inaccurate. If Brown's gas was just another name for Oxyhydrogen, then it would be called 'Rhodes Gas' after William Rhodes, the first person I know of to common duct electrolyser gases and carry out detailed scientific tests.

There is much confusion here, and indeed at one time I too considered that Brown's gas was simply common ducted electrolyser gases, ie. Oxyhydrogen. However, I know better now.

Using straight DC in a standard simple brute force electrolyser and you will only get oxygen produced at the anode and hydrogen produced at the cathode, to get anything other than this you must do something different. You must create within your electrolyser conditions that induce other reactions to take place so as to produce gases other than just oxygen and hydrogen.  That is you need to employ non-Faraday techniques. Both cavitation and plasma electrolysis will achieve the desired effect. Along with oxygen and hydrogen, you will then get various free radicals and the likes of hydrogen peroxide being produced. The result is a mixture of gas very different to that produced by a simple DC electrolyser.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 01:30 PM

There is much confusion here, and indeed at one time I too considered that Brown's gas was simply common ducted electrolyser gases, ie. Oxyhydrogen. However, I know better now.

Using straight DC in a standard simple brute force electrolyser and you will only get oxygen produced at the anode and hydrogen produced at the cathode, to get anything other than this you must do something different. You must create within your electrolyser conditions that induce other reactions to take place so as to produce gases other than just oxygen and hydrogen.  That is you need to employ non-Faraday techniques. Both cavitation and plasma electrolysis will achieve the desired effect. Along with oxygen and hydrogen, you will then get various free radicals and the likes of hydrogen peroxide being produced. The result is a mixture of gas very different to that produced by a simple DC electrolyser.

I have to agree again with this assessment.  If Moray King is correct and Brown's gas is some derivative of the suspected water cluster molecule, I have to think the water clusters are already there (dissolved) in the liquid OR you put them there by cavitation or some other high energy effect.  He says these things are heavier than air, okay.  I'm guessing they are lighter than water though, but let me take a stab at something here:  Could they be heavier than some other liquid that you could bubble the gas through and see it settle on the bottom?  Now wouldn't that be a kick to see a liquid floating above a gas?  I suspect one might have to cool or pressurize this gas, but still, if someone could prove it in a lab experiment, there's no more guessing to be had.  The next big thing would be to take known quantities of HHO and Brown's gas and demonstrate the explosive power and other characteristics in a side-by-side comparison.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 21st, 2013, 03:40 PM

I'm guessing they are lighter than water though, but let me take a stab at something here:  Could they be heavier than some other liquid that you could bubble the gas through and see it settle on the bottom?  Now wouldn't that be a kick to see a liquid floating above a gas?  I suspect one might have to cool or pressurize this gas, but still, if someone could prove it in a lab experiment, there's no more guessing to be had.  The next big thing would be to take known quantities of HHO and Brown's gas and demonstrate the explosive power and other characteristics in a side-by-side comparison.

I read they have put a gasmixture into a paper bag, left it overnight, the HO disappaded and the heavier brownsgas was left the next morning to play with.

Hey guys,

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 07:46 AM

As for running, or should I say starting, a 4-stroke motor fed with hydrogen (and air), would you first need to somehow heat up the interior of the cylinder in order for it to start up at all?
Thanks.

I have seen a lot of different people state that you cannot start a car on HHO alone. I don't know what the reasons for this are but at best the car will backfire majorly and it can be dangerous. I don't know if anyone saw the Mythbusters episode where they wanted to see if it was at all possible to run a car on hydrogen and they pumped hydrogen directly from a bottle into the carby. After several backfires and misfires and the car still not running they decided to pour a small amount of fuel into the carby to start the car and then hooked up the hydrogen to sustain the engine. They proved that a car could indeed run on hydrogen but as far starting..well it seems even with a large amount that this does cause some difficulties.

Quote from freethisone on September 21st, 2013, 06:03 AM

you can calculate the amount needed by cfm air flow into the intake.

This may be true for any conventional stoichiometric ratio. However with Brown's gas I believe we are looking at a different kind of fuel all together and it's hard to say at this time exactly how much of this stuff is needed. If someone has some figures that would be awesome... :)

Quote from geenee on September 21st, 2013, 12:06 PM

ask sometings,brown gas's made  from?

hho 's made from brute force electrolysis right?

if  they are produced from the same method then they are the same or not?imho.

thanks
geenee

Brown's gas is still hydrogen and oxygen but the way the molecules hang together are different. It is essentially a more complex matter structure. The scientific term is Rydberg Matter. In other words we now have matter that when configured in this manner extracts energy from the zero-point vacuum. It is this excess energy produced from the zero-point that makes running a car on hydrogen possible and without it impossible. How these clusters form is anyone's guess and Moray King does make some suggestions, but more experimentation is needed. Electropolishing for example could assist with the formation of these clusters but I am sure there are more than one way to do so, frequency, waveforms, voltages etc etc

Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 01:30 PM

From Wikipedia.

Quote

Fringe science and fraud  [edit source]

I don't know who is responsible for writing this, but this information is grossly inaccurate. If Brown's gas was just another name for Oxyhydrogen, then it would be called 'Rhodes Gas' after William Rhodes, the first person I know of to common duct electrolyser gases and carry out detailed scientific tests.

Hey Farrah Day,

I couldn't agree more. The references made are poorly researched and grossly inaccurate at best. At worst it's a direct at attempt at hiding the truth.

In all I would love to see us all experimenting with this and come up with some results.

The question I have and would love to know peolpes thoughts on is this.

Is it possible that these clusters exist in pure water and if so is it possible to increase the formation of these clusters in pure water to such a point that the water itself becomes combustible without the need for electrolysis at all???

Quote from zaneaussie on September 21st, 2013, 06:43 PM

Is it possible that these clusters exist in pure water and if so is it possible to increase the formation of these clusters in pure water to such a point that the water itself becomes combustible without the need for electrolysis at all???

Good question for sure.  The description Moray gives of the water clusters in a ring formation indicates to me there is an art involved in making them, much like making smoke rings.  The energy required to get the molecules to form certainly could come from a cavitation event that forms a torus ring causing the molecule to rotate longitudinally through it's circular axis.  There must be a stability involved that allows this water cluster molecule to continue to rotate indefinitely, keeping it's characteristic ring shape.

I very much suspect if you could concentrate these molecules in water and use something like a piezoelectric fogger to disperse them, that water cluster fog would burn in an engine just fine.  Which makes me think that Stan Meyer's water injectors are in some way creating this type of motion, producing water clusters and shooting them straight into the combustion chamber.  I have little doubt if those injectors were just pushing HHO and regular water, the engine would never run.