|
Eagle-Research
is working with people around the world to
develop the Brown's Gas technology.
This
patent-free
exchange of information has resulted in an
avalanche of progress in the Brown's Gas
research.
Free
cooperation has made tremendous progress
developing Brown's Gas machines that are far
superior to anything that has existed until
now.
For
people who wish to find out more about Brown's
Gas, a large portion of the history and
development of Brown's Gas research is detailed
in 'Brown's Gas, Book One'. It also gives most
of the mathematics needed to understand Brown's
Gas and the theory behind the Gas.
'Brown's
Gas, Book 2' contains all the needed information
to home-build a safe and easy to use commercial
sized Brown's Gas electrolyzer (several people
have now done it, using surplus components). The
latter part of Brown's Gas, Book Two points out
some misconceptions and myths about Brown's Gas
that that Eagle-Research has been able to prove
false with actual experiments. However, Brown's
Gas has many wonderful, beneficial applications.
(see Fabulous
Uses)
(Note:
William Rhodes patents predate Yull Brown's on
this gas by over ten years. Yull Brown
commercialized the gas and gained worldwide
recognition.
For
technology standard, I recognize the worldwide
use of the name 'Brown's Gas')
|
.
|
We built a
'clear' series-cell Brown's Gas electrolyzer,
using the instructions in my 'Brown's Gas
Book 2'. You see a jpeg of this 'clear'
series-cell here.
We found, as
we'd expect, oxygen gas being formed on the
positive side of each plate and hydrogen gas
being formed on the negative side of each
plate but we also saw a third ASTONISHING
thing.
We can see
(and we see it every time) a THIRD gas being
formed exactly
in the
middle BETWEEN the plates . . . in the
fluid itself.
There is no
connection between the bubbles coming off the
plates and the line of bubbles coming out of
the fluid; the fluid is clear. When very high
amperage is used, the line of bubbles forms
faster and at first assumes a bowed shape,
before stabilizing as a straight line in the
middle of each cell.
This is
where we figure the actual Brown's Gas forms
(water that has absorbed enough actual
electrical energy to become a gas that is not
steam).
You have
never seen THIS in your high school physics
class.
I can see
gas being formed exactly midway BETWEEN the
plates in my transparent series-cell
electrolyzers. It starts as a line of bubbles
from the top to the bottom of the cell, so
solid that it looks like another plate. This
line of bubbles becomes visible in about
three seconds from the time the electrolyzer
is turned on. The line of bubbles then widens
till it meets the bubbles being formed on the
plates and the cell is full of bubbles (this
takes about eleven seconds). I think the gas
formed in the fluid is the Brown's
Gas.
My new
theory of Brown's gas is 'electrically
expanded water.'
I now think
any gas formed ON the plates is normal
diatomic oxygen and hydrogen. It stands to
reason that gas formed on the plates would be
mon-atomic, immediately change to di-atomic
(because of brownian movement and
association) and would stay di-atomic. I can
say for sure that no one knows exactly what's
happening, except the results are getting
more interesting.
Thus, when
the electricity (in the Brown's Gas) is
released by the 'flame,' it comes out as
electricity and the water 'implodes' to it's
original liquid form, with no heat and no
expansion first. That's also why the flame is
'cool' yet has high energy
effects.
Working with
scientists and experimenters around the
world, we have
discovered
new several new things about Brown's Gas. One
of which I will detail here.
It now seems
that Brown's Gas may NOT mon-atomic hydrogen
and oxygen (which will make the nay-sayers
happy)
but is
instead a special form of WATER; actual water
which
has had
enough electrical energy added to it to form
a gas that is NOT
steam (this
will make the nay-sayers unhappy
again).
Steam is
water that has heat energy added to it,
(becoming a gaseous form of water) and loses
it's volume (returning to liquid form) if
cooled.
I think
Brown's Gas is water that has had electrical
energy added to it in a very unique way.
Brown's Gas is stable in storage, is
implosive, has a 'cool' flame and seems to
put pure electrical energy directly into
whatever material its applied to. Brown's Gas
seems to be an 'electrical' flame, not a
'heat' flame.
BROWN'S
GAS = EXPANDED
WATER?
A long time
researcher of Brown's Gas (Todd Knudtson)
once described the Brown's Gas (to me) as a
'fluid crystal' which I had to accept at the
time because I could see no other explanation
that covered my experience/intuition about
the gas. Somehow the mon-atomic hydrogen and
oxygen were not finding each other and
recombining into di-atomic molecules. It is
easy to measure that the Brown's Gas has
mon-atomic volumes produced when compared to
the Faraday Laws. You can find my math on
this in my 'Brown's Gas Book 1.'
Since then I
(working with others who wish to remain
anonymous) have reconfirmed the math of the
'weighing' data of William Rhodes. This is a
simple, easily duplicated experiment and is
very conclusive. Simply weigh the gas. It is
important to note that the gas being weighed
must come from an electrolyzer that exhibits
characteristics mentioned in my Brown's Gas
Books.
It now seems
more clear; Brown's Gas is just 'expanded
water molecules'. Brown's Gas is too heavy to
be mon-atomic, it is even too heavy to be
di-atomic; but it is exactly the right weight
to be water-gas (di-hydrogen oxide in gaseous
form).
I currently
think that Brown's Gas is water and that it
is water that has absorbed electricity like a
sponge absorbs water. I think that the atomic
bonds are NOT broken, so Brown's Gas is STILL
WATER; just in a high energy gaseous form
that is NOT steam.
Brown's Gas
exhibits mon-atomic volumes and energy levels
(as per my Brown's Gas Books) and is able to
maintain this situation because the hydrogen
is still associated with their respective
oxygen, just in a higher 'spin-state'. I have
some additional evidence on this from Dr.
Clark in California, who developed the math
for Dr. Randall Mills hydrogen
research.
Now for
those that want to see the math, here is the
experiment described by William Rhodes
himself.
"LIFTING
POWER OF ELECTROLYZED MIXED GASES
First, be
aware we are dealing with common-ducted
gases, data
being absent
from NIST and the literature. There is also
theory
vs
experimental evidence to contend with. From
the CRC handbook:
"Lifting
power of 1 cu/ft hydrogen is about 0.075 lb.
at 760 mm
pressure."
SETUP: Our
test volume chosen was 1 liter single duct
electro-
lyzed gases.
An igloo from a plastic pop bottle was cut
to
provide
exactly 1000 ml volume between the flat igloo
door top,
and the
upper dome. (1000 ml was from a standard 1000
ml flask,
transferred
to the pop bottle, marking the door top, and
extend-
ing the
igloo another 2", where it was lathe cut and
the doorway
snipped out.
It was located inverted on the pan of our
Mettler
milligram
balance. An L shaped tube on lab stand
extended
through the
doorway and bent upward ending near the dome
top,
leaving the
balance completely free of
interference.
The gas
generator was purged of air 15 minutes. The
balance was
tare
arbitrarily adjusted for 30 grams +- 1 mg.
The igloo was
filled with
pipe smoke; -6 mg deflection noted due to
warmer air.
The gas tube
was attached and maximum weight
reduction of 0.510
grams was
attained, rounded off to the nearest mg. Gas
input was
allowed to
flow for 30 minutes for accuracy. 5 minutes
after gas
cutoff, the
balance returned to the pre-gas reading
caused by
rapid
diffusion of electrolyzed gases into
atmosphere.
Comparing H2
lifting power, 1 liter mixed gases multiplied
to 1 cu/ft
provided
lifting power of 0.0311 lb. Or 41% that of
H2."
RECALCULATION
LIFTING POWER OF BROWN'S
GAS
Now I will
summarize the facts that others and I
discovered upon analyzing the above
experiment. The conclusion is
interesting.
From the CRC
handbook:
"Lifting
power of 1 cu/ft hydrogen is about 0.075 lb.
at 760 mm pressure."
>We
calculate molecular hydrogen under the bell
to weigh about 0.089 gm >per L giving that
"lifting power" of .075 lb. per cubic ft (1.2
gm per liter).
>Lets say
that air as an "ideal gas" weighs about 1.29
gm per L. (29 gm in >22.4 L at STP).
Testing with molecular hydrogen should give
1.29-.09 >=1.2 gm/L of "lifting power"
which computes with the CRC
reference.
0.5 gm per
liter is equivalent to .0311 lb. per cubic
foot?
I calculate
it to be .0312136 which is pretty
close.
NOTE: A
standard volume (22.4L) contains the
molecular mass in grams at STP. See 'Brown's
Gas Book 1' for more on this.
In pure
Brown's Gas, the atomic weight would be 18,
if we assume a gaseous form of water. Two
atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen forming
one molecule.
2 moles of
H2 (a total molecular mass of 4 gm) + 1 mole
02 (a di-atomic molecular mass of 32 gm)
ie:
3 mole of
gaseous mix weighs 36 gm and occupies
(22.4x3) L = 67.2L or
36/67.2 gm
per L or 0.53 gram per
liter.
2 moles of H
= 2 grams in 44.8 liters. 1 mole of O = 16 in
22.4
liters.
18/67.2 = 0.2678 gram per liter; (half
that of di-atomic).
If Brown's
Gas were to be a newly discovered "ideal gas"
(gaseous water) of H20, one mole would weigh
18 grams in 22.4L or 0.8 gram per
liter.
So Brown's
Gas would be heavier than the molecular 2:1
mix (both measured at STP).
Assuming
that the test gas is mon-atomic it
should weigh 0.2678 gm per L. 1.29-0.2678 =
1.0222 gm/L lifting power.
Assuming
that the test gas is di-atomic it
should weigh 0.53 gm per L. 1.29-0.53 =
0.76 gm/L lifting power.
Assuming
that the test gas is molecular
'water-gas' it should weigh 0.8 gm per L.
1.29-0.8 = 0.49 gm/L lifting
power.
So we can
say that the test gas weighs (1.29-0.51) =
0.78 gm/L. And we are left with the
conclusion that Brown's Gas is neither
mon-atomic or di-atomic gas, but simply
expanded water. Water in a gaseous form that
is NOT steam.
I currently
think that Brown's Gas is electrically
expanded water that forms right out of the
fluid itself. A high-energy form of water
that carries it's energy as a form of
electricity. Several experiments have
measured an electrical pulse as the gas is
exploded. Some of the effects of the gas are
very hard to explain if electricity is not
assumed.
Obviously
more testing needs done by organizations that
have proper equipment. Let me know if anyone
is interested in independently verifying
tests like this.
Note:
Brown's Gas
as produced by most electrolyzers (even my
super-efficient designs) has enough di-atomic
hydrogen and oxygen in it to be explosive.
Though the explosion is not as violent as a
pure 'diatomic' 2H2:O2 explosion.
Note:
Previous
'mon-atomic' theory mathematics are still
valid as per energy potential per volume of
gas electrolyzed.
I am now
rating the gas as 'proof' instead of
'percent'. In my previous literature I rated
the quality of gas that comes off the cells
by the electrical input to volume ratio. For
a given amount of electricity you would get
about 930 liters of 2H2:O2 per liter of
water. If the gas was pure mon-atomic
(4H:2O), you would get about 1860 Liters of
gas per liter of water. So I called 930
Liters 100% and 1860 Liters 200%.
When I rate
my ER1150 Water Torch as 130%, some people
thought that meant I was doing 'over-unity'
gas production. I see no 'over-unity' in
Brown's Gas, I am just trying to use a method
to indicate gas quality so that people can
know the quality of gas coming from various
Brown's Gas machines. So now I rate gas
quality as 'proof.' My ER1150 Water Torch
puts out 130 proof Brown's Gas, which is the
highest quality of Brown's Gas available in a
commercial Brown's Gas machine.
Thank
you,
George
Wiseman
|
