Mon 16 Oct 2006
Throughout my experiments with electrolysis processes, I’ve run across time and time again where people are calling the extracted gas “Brown’s Gas”. I’ve been doing a little research lately as to why exactly we had to name the combined Hydrogen and Oxygen mixture after a Hungarian, that doesn’t seem to have even invented the generator, which is said to be using an “advanced alkaline electrolysis process”. The gas is also touted as imploding instead of exploding and the methods used to make this determination don’t seem to be stated anywhere. Also, it’s stated that the gas is extremely stable, ummm ok…
As usual, my disclaimer: I could be completely wrong with my viewpoint here, but will share it nonetheless since this is my blog… Water is water, and performing electrolysis on water, results in Hydrogen and Oxygen breaking apart and therefore combining. It was not Brown that determined or developed this process as its been known for well over a hundred years. Hydrogen alone, is a very stable gas, as long it’s alone… :-) You mix it with oxygen and you have a bomb, not a stable gas. No matter what process you use to break apart water, you will still end up with a very minimum of Hydrogen and Oxygen, maybe a little more if you have dirty water with Chlorine or something in it. It’s physically impossible to get some other mixture of elements from water. Brown claims that his gas (not sure why its his gas) only contains hydrogen and oxygen, but I guess he mixes it up special? It is also physically impossible to mix up a solution special, its either mixed or its not. If you have 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom, then they are just that, they are both in the same environment, mixed.
In fact, here are a few of the claims made:
“There is no other method capable of producing such a gas. Brown’s Gas is a new product and there is no literature describing its properties, which are sufficiently different from a combined molecular hydrogen and oxygen gas mixture, in 2:1 proportion, to be significant in industrial and commercial applications. ” Brown, 1979
Yet, look at what they say here: Brown’s Gas is water separated into its 2 constituents by an advanced alkaline electrolysis process in a way that allows them to be mixed under pressure and then be burned together and safely in a 2:1 proportion. The process results in a gas containing ionic hydrogen and oxygen. When sparked, the gas recombines safely, by implosion, into water, collapsing in a vacuum/water ratio of 1,886.6/1.
So on one hand they claim it’s different than the 2:1 mixture, but a few paragraphs later, describe it as being exactly that. Yet somehow they lend magic to its list of qualities in that it implodes instead of exploding. They also state that its stable under pressure, but then so is everything else. If you put something under enough pressure and don’t relieve that pressure you won’t get a bang out of anything.
So, we have determined that Brown’s gas is a 100% mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and per their own claims is not made up of some other compound. So the last thing we need to determine, is the claim of implosion. They seem to make this claim based on the gas being special, however, they don’t provide any examples as to how it was determined that the gas implodes.
Here is the statement supporting their claim to implosion: “The ratio 1,860:1 refers to the fact that when the gas is electrically sparked, it immediately returns to water. If the amount of gas sparked, and thus imploded could fill 1,860 units, then the amount of water produced by its implosion would then only fill one unit. The resulting space instantly becomes filled with a very high and particularly clean vacuum.”
Thinking about this, if I were to somehow burn hydrogen and oxygen inside a closed container (which wouldn’t burn, but would most likely explode under these conditions), wouldn’t I have a vacuum? Because there would be nothing to fill the volume since we’ve converted the gas to liquid, loosing most as heat. Explosion or Implosion is not important in this case because of the fact that we had a volume of gas, and now we have a smaller volume of water as well as loss due to heat. So the resulting process would yield a vacuum. But without some detail as to how they performed this particular experiment, it’s hard to say what the real facts are. If you were to somehow light a match inside of an oxygen tank under pressure, and you contained that pressure which you’d have to in order to see results in the end that these people are claiming, you wouldn’t get any type of reaction. Because if the tank was held at pressure and didn’t blow apart, nothing should happen. Explosions happen when the oxygen tanks leak into the air, or explode apart.
After studying this, I see absolutely no way to lend credibility to these statements about Brown’s gas. The statements don’t seem to have any scientific credibility to back them up and Brown’s gas would be better named: “Lazy Man’s Gas”, because in fact, it is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen because we are all too lazy to develop a means of separating them…
–glenn hancock




