There are quite some claims going around considering HHO/Browns Gas.
Since quite a lot of people in this forum subgroup seem to have actual hands-on experience with it and I do not, I would like to ask a few questions about the subject.
First of all, it is often claimed that Browns Gas (HHO) can be produced in a 'normal' electrolysis unit without additional energy input compared to the production of normal 2H2 + O2 gas mixture. Is this true, or does the production of Browns Gas in fact need additional electrical input in comparison?
Second, it is sometimes claimed that a 'normal electrolysis unit will produce Browns Gas while simultaneously producing the normal 2H2+O2 mix. Some claim this again does not need additional input, other say that it does and that the seperation between the electrodes needs to be of a specific size... How much of this is true?
Third, it is regularly claimed that Browns Gas (HHO) is a form of "expanded" water, and that it IMplodes when ignited. Is this true?
Fourth, if the previous is indeed true, then why do I not hear people discuss how they are going to use this implosion effect properly? I see a lot of people talking about how they burn the Browns Gas, and some even mention how they (plan to) use it in their car engines... But hardly anyone seems to consider that a car engine is an EXplosion motor, and that using or adding an IMplosive gas will most likely result in zero added net effect in such a case... unless you phase shift the engine cycle 180 degrees so that the volume decrease of the Browns Gas causes the piston to move into the cylinder at ignition and implosion....
Fifth, what is the simplest/best/most efficient/most reccomended type of Browns Gas generator?
Thank you :)
I am a newbie here too but I believe the initial reaction is a very fast expansion due to the speed of the burn and heat produced, then te gas implodes gas to a liquid state where you get the implosion.
Yes well that's why I ask; I have heard people say the gas implodes, I have heard others say it does not, and I have also heard stories that it depends on the exact mix you use...
Apparently the definition of what Browns Gas is exactly is not entirely clear, or at least quite some people seem to use it inaccurately.
Some consider Browns Gas to be the gas mixture you get from mixing all of the produced gasses, which would then be a mix of H2, O2 and HHO gases.
Others consider Browns Gas to be only the gas that bubbles up in the middle of the 'reactor', which is different and should be kept seperated from the H2 and O2 gases.
Obviously the two different mixtures will react differently when ignited.
I can imagine that, if the HHO gas actually implodes, it should not in fact expand before it does so. Or at least not nearly as much as it implodes after that.
I can also imagine that the H2 and O2 do expand upon ignition, but if mixed with imploding HHO gas the mixture might first expand due to the reaction of the H2 and O2, and then implode a little due to the reaction of the HHO.
Just to give you an example of the different things people say, here's a quote from the website http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/watergas.html
QuoteThus, 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.
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.
Now this is completely different from your own statement, that the gas does expand and release heat when ignited. See how such conflicting statements are confusing?
On a sidenote, perhaps the 'mysterious' HHO gas that shouldn't be but clearly is, has something to do with the lower-than-lowest energy state of hydrogen as presented in Millers "Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics" and confirmed by the "blacklight hydrogen experiment" in at least 2 different independant experiments. (see www.blacklightpower.com for his theory and e-book) Quick description: According to QM any particle should have a certain number of energy states. Hydrogen is apparently the only anomaly here, with not 4 but rather only 3 energy states. QM theory does not allow for this, so no experiments could possibly be though up to test it. Miller went over the history and development of QM and on several crucial points of development has decided that the assumptions used by modern quantumphysicists as solid facts are in fact assumptions based on interpretation. He shows a different possible interpretation which allows for all modern QM re- and interactions, but also allows for a few additional ones that accepted modern QM does not allow. One of these is the eixstence of an additional energy level in the hydrogen atom, an energy level lower than that which is usually considered to be the lowest.
His theory allows for an experiment using hydrogen, excitation by adding electrical current via a coil, and a catalyst in the form of potassium ions if I recall correctly. The catalyst is not consumed and does not react, it only serves to allow the hydrogen to drop to its lowest energy state. When the hydrogen dos this, it emits very high freq UV light. Since the wavelengths of emitted light (and the related energy levels) can be calculated using QM theory to predict which frequency is emitted for which energy drop in the atom, one can easily work out that the light emitted should NOT be emitted at all according to accepted QM theory. Yet is is. Proof that modern QM is flawed. and it has been confirmed in experiments in both Germany and Holland.
I bet you haven't heard about it at all? That's what happens with groundbreaking research that does not accord to established scietific dogma. Odd that nobody proves him wrong though eh? ;)