Water Gas?

We built a ‘clear’ series-cell Brown’s Gas electrolyzer, using the instructions in my Brown’s Gas Book Two. Below is a picture of the actual electrolyzer used to discover the ExW constituent of BG. This electrolyzer has evolved into our ER50 design.

We found, as we’d expect in a bipolar electrolyzer design, 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.

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 a unique component of Brown’s Gas (BG).   My new theory is that Brown’s Gas contains 6 constituents H2, O2, H2O (as water vapor), H2O (as ‘electrically expanded water’ (ExW)) H and O.  

I now think any gas formed ON the plates is mostly normal diatomic oxygen and hydrogen. It stands to reason that gas formed on the plates would initially be mon-atomic, immediately changing to di-atomic (because of brownian movement and association) and would then stay di-atomic. Several tests of BG have confirmed that 1% to 3% of the gas does remain in the mon-atomic state.

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 think the ExW component of Brown’s Gas forms (water that has absorbed enough actual electrical energy to become a gas that is not steam).  

In one, finely tuned, experiment we achieved TWO lines of bubbles perfectly dividing the cell into thirds. From this we assume that frequency tuning is important to achieving the ExW component of BG. In any given design of electrolyzer and set of operating conditions there will be a DC frequency that is most efficient.

BG has energy characteristics that are unexplained, like it’s ‘cool’ flame temerature yet high energy flame. BG has only 1/10th the BTU energy of acetylene but will heat a tungsten rod faster than acetylene (see BG video 3).


I think we have a situation where water is absorbing electricity and expanding to a gasious state that is NOT steam or water vapor. This gasious form of water is combustible (it implodes) and it is stable (remains in a gasious state with changes in temperature).

I think when the electricity (in the Brown’s Gas) is released by the ‘flame,’ it comes manifests with electricical effects and the water ‘implodes’ to it’s original liquid form, with no heat and no expansion first. That’s also why the BG 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’m detailing here:

It now seems that Brown’s Gas may NOT mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen like I originally theorized (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) but loses it’s volume (eventually returning to liquid form) if cooled.   BG is temperature stable and will not ‘condense’ if cooled.

I think the ExW component of Brown’s Gas is water that has had electrical energy added to it, in a very unique way, to make the water into an ‘electrical’ gas. ExW is still water (H2O); ExW has NOT split into hydrogen and oxygen, which is why burning ExW results in an implosion without a pre-explosion like when you combust hydrogen.

Brown’s Gas is stable in storage, it’s ExW component is implosive, it has a ‘cool’ flame and seems to put a pure electrical energy directly into whatever material its applied to. Brown’s Gas seems to be an ‘electrical’ flame, not a ‘heat’ (BTU) flame.    

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. I thought 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 >100% volume of gas 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 contains ‘electrically expanded water molecules’ (ExW).

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 the ExW component of Brown’s Gas is water and that it is water that has absorbed electricity like a sponge absorbs water. I think that the H2O atomic bonds are NOT broken, so ExW is STILL WATER; just in a high energy gaseous form that is NOT steam or water vapor.  


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 ‘energy-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. 

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.”    


CALCULATION OF 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).

Let’s 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 (22.4×3) 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.

In my personal experience I discovered the ‘heavier than air’ ExW aspect/component of BG by accident. 
I was grinding on an ER1150 WaterTorch frame and some sparks flew over the waterfill hole, which I had covered with a cloth to prevent impurities from falling in. The hole had been open for over a day and I had no concern about igniting hydrogen, but SOMETHING went WHOOSH as sparks ignited it. 
Note that it didn’t go BANG like a hydrogen explosion would. It went whoosh like an instant vacuum had happened and air was rushing in to fill the area.

I subsequently discovered that if I fill a 2 liter transparent pop bottle with BG, then leave it sit for at least 15 minutes (with the lid off), the remaining mixture is implosive. If you ignite it too soon the result is VERY explosive because the hydrogen has not had a chance to escape. 

So, the ExW is heavier than air and will stay in the bottle as the hydrogen escapes. If the quality/quantity of the ExW is high enough to support combustion, it will IMPLODE with no pre-explosion.

It burns as a ‘slow’ imploding donut shaped flame as it moves down inside the bottle; quite interesting to watch.

Thus we are left with the conclusion that Brown’s Gas is more than mon-atomic and di-atomic gas, adding a component of uniquely expanded water. The ExW is a combustible water in a gaseous form that is NOT steam or water vapor.  

I currently think that Brown’s Gas contains an electrically expanded form of water that evolves right out of the electrolyte fluid itself (not on or from the electrolyzer electrode ‘plates’).

Some of the effects of BG are very hard to explain if an electrical potential is not assumed, like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uumlEhqb0-8

And the fact that BG heats up materials in a very different manner than BTU based flames. It seems to inject the electrical energy directly into the atomic structure of the atom, so that the atom becomes energized. What the atom then does depends on how it reacts to electricity… materials that are insulators (cannot get rid of electrical energy quickly) heat up remakably quickly. Materials that conduct electricity easily do not heat up to as high a temperature.

The ExW is 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.

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 initially explosive. Though the explosion is not quite as violent as a pure ‘diatomic’ 2H2:O2 explosion.   
 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 a percentage of electrical input to volume ratio (kWh/liter), comparing the actual volume to Faraday ‘predicted’ gas volume.

In normal electrolysis, for a given amount of electricity you would get about 1860 liters of 2H2:O2 per liter of water. This would be 100% Faraday efficiency. With Brown’s Gas electrolyzers it’s possible to achieve higher gas volume than Faraday efficiency, because the ExW constituent of BG is NOT H2 or O2. ExW is a gas formed independently of the electrodes.

When I rated my ER1150 WaterTorch as 130%, some people think that means I’m doing ‘over-unity’ gas production. I see no ‘over-unity’ in Brown’s Gas.

While there is more gas produced than Faraday Laws predict, it is because there is an ‘extra’ gas produced that is not included in Faraday calculations. By rating at greater than 100% I am just trying to use a method to indicate gas quality (quantity of ExW) 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.

For more information about BG and ExW, see my FAQ for BG and HyZor Technologies.