Talk:Oxyhydrogen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 7, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Archive
Archives

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Article Layout

It seems to me this article could be reorganized a bit...it seems to mix uses for oxyhydrogen with methods of production

I propose the following sections:

[edit] Properties

[edit] Applications

[edit] Lighting

[edit] Welding / Cutting

[edit] Automotive

(without discussion of production... simply a discussion of fueling cars on hydrogen)

No!! You misunderstand. Fuelling cars on hydrogen has NOTHING whatever to do with Oxyhydrogen. No engineer with half a brain cell would be stupid enough to put a 2:1 molar mixture of hydrogen and oxygen into a big tank and drive it around in the back of their car! That mixture is spontaneously explosive...it doesn't take much of anything to make it blow up because (like all good explosives) it contains both fuel (the hydrogen) and the oxidizer (the oxygen) and in the perfect ratio! Also, why would you want to haul vast quantities of oxygen around in your fuel tank when the very air we breathe is full of the stuff! It's tough enough to make bulk storage for the hydrogen - without considering the problem of containing a similar number of atoms of a vastly heavier gas! It's just dumb! No, if hydrolysis of water is used to make bulk fuel for cars, the hydrogen manufacturers will perform the childishly simple task of separating the bubbles that come off the anode from the ones that come off the cathode. The hydrogen goes into bulk storage tank - the oxygen either gets vented to the atmosphere or is bottle commercially and sold for other purposes. At absolutely no point in the process will oxyhydrogen gas ever be created! SteveBaker (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of the edits you undid. Take another look and you'll note that the edit stated that these systems are physically impossible and redirected the reader to pages that elaborate on the shortcomings you note above. The term oxyhydrogen and associated neologisms are most often used by people promoting water-fuelled car or the toned down variation scam hydrogen fuel enhancement. Since this is the most common use it would be worth while addressing it here.--OMCV (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Exactly. You'll note that at no point did I say or suggest anything about the merits of suchs a system. All I'm saying is that this term is associated with 'watercars' and various associated terms which (to date) have been scams. 70.5.17.190 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"simply a discussion of fueling cars on oxyhydrogen" might be a better phrasing.   70.5.17.190 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whooopsie. Gotta learn to login! The above is all me.Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Methods of Production

[edit] Electrolysis

[edit] Discussion of efficiency

[edit] Various Patented methods of production

Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brown's Design - Applications

Is this section supposed to be describing an invention or patent? If so, the applications subsection goes way off track. If oxy-hydrogen, brown's gas, hho, or whatever warrants consideration as a fuel supplement, then this should be under an altogether new heading and should be dealt with correctly. The way it is presented here does not belong in an encyclopedia: this is essentially a persuasive paragraph with the aim of suggesting that the gas is a proven and substantial fuel enhancement or supplement. The facts should be presented without bias and there should be better consideration for the balance of energy if purporting it as a fuel supplement. (In other words: present counter arguments as well, describe what is required in energy and quantitatively how the benefits compare, and provide better descriptive info from the references, with perhaps a broader base of references, to judge the merits of what is presented.)

oh, yea. As for this unfortunate statement: "When Brown's Gas burns it forms water, resulting in cooling the combustion chambers of engines, effectively allowing for greater compression ratios (see: Water injection)." That is silly. Steam is formed as a combustion product... at combustion temperature! The same steam is formed in gas and diesel combustion reactions, and without this mysterious magical cooling effect. Yikes! Deleted! Tjcognata (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a much better way to present the info that has been placed in the Brown's Design - Applications section. See Hydrogen fuel enhancement. In fact, it would probably be best to move the content of applications to a heading titled "Applications" and remove much of the content regarding fuel enhancement in favor of a brief introduction and a link to Hydrogen fuel enhancement. That way the Brown's Design section remains consistent with the article, and what appears to be its purpose, namely describing an apparatus for producing this gas. Tjcognata (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Applications

Without any discrimination as to the content, I separated the portion about use of oxyhydrogen as a fuel supplement into a new sub-heading of applications. It appears from this content that it is a general application for the gas, not necessarily of Brown's design, and for the sake of clarity and organization it belongs at a higher level. In fact, I would think Brown's water torch was intended as a design for a welding/brazing tool rather than a gas generator for enhancing IC engines based on its description. Tjcognata (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing again

Bag! By now the sourcing has become like a snapshot of uspto.gov. In my opinion, and I just got some affirmation that I understand this correctly[1], patents are of extreme limited use for sourcing encyclopedia articles.

Don't know what to do about the Brown's Gas section (which I still consider out of place taking more than a half of mainstream article), but I've deleted "Klein's design" which was only sourced to the patent application.

--Pjacobi (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Same thoughts here - Brown's Design warrants a considerable bit of snipping. Only the very first paragraph is really necessary to put across its relation to the actual topic. The rest of Brown's Design may warrant a separate topic, but its presence here is really out of proportion to its contribution to the topic. Tjcognata (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I cut browns design down to the pertinent information. This describes its basic concepts which are:"common ducted," series cell electrolyzer, and arc at torch. Tjcognata (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding "Needed citation"

The article mentions that a citation is needed for the statement that "has been referred to as "Brown's gas"" I was going to paste in a link to some place like water4gas where this term is used, but I don't think that really supports the claim. I think we need the term because it is being used by scammers and other questionable sources to refer to oxyhydrogen, and it's a term that may help people find an article with more reliable information. Why does the claim that it "has been referred to as "Brown's gas need a citation anyhow? --Yoderj (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, if we look at other articles about gas mixtures (Coal gas and Forming gas two pick a couple of examples) the other names for them are stated without references. It might be better to have a reference - but it's just not a controversial statement (for the mainstream view) so we don't have to justify it. However: In this case, there is controversy at the fringes that cannot be ignored. Plenty of the fringe theorists have claimed that whatever their electrolysis unit produces is not 2H2+O2 - and have claimed one of these other names for whatever they claim to produce. That is controversial and absolutely requires a reference. So I think we should take the mainstream view - state boldly and (if necessary) without special references that Browns Gas, Oxyhydrogen and whatever other names are out there are all the same thing - then go on to say that some hold the fringe view that they are not the same - and because that is a remarkable thing, we'll need references to indicate who makes these claims. SteveBaker (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aquygen info

From their website:

  Aquygen™ is a novel gas made from ordinary water through our patented electrolysis process

It is not a trademark for their device. Their gas product is not claimed to be a new mixture. They do claim that their gas generator is patented and novel.

I dont see any reason to discuss their trademarking an ordinary gas mixture.

Probably discussion of their device should be under a 'methods of production' sub section?

Aquygen also seems to make claims that contradict the "Electrolysis of water:Efficiency" section, with claims of "average increase of 20 to 30 percent in miles per gallon" using their branded "Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen System". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Please sort out here whether or not to include a link to http://aquygen.blogspot.com , rather than an edit war. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to post links to blogs/websites. If that website is linked to my website should be linked to; therefore no websites should be linked to. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Nseidm1: links to blogs are permitted by wikipedia if the source is an authority on a topic. This blog is an authoritative source of information on aquygen and is not affiliated with Denny Klein. It is relevant to any understanding of HHO gas or Oxyhydrogen. It's not my purpose to have an edit war with you. You do a fine job of maintaining a fine article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmurphee (talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The blog looks pretty much like spam to me, definitely not a reliable source for anything. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Its only value is to demonstrate that the HHO/aquygen/whatever fraudsters are really making the claims we say they are. As evidence of HHO's existence or properties, it's worthless. — NRen2k5(TALK), 11:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

TWTTATL, the site consolidates news & reviews of aquygen and hho gas. Perhaps maybe you would like to recharacterize your disagreement with it's inclusion on this page? A bit too quick to dismiss I think. Folks who are interested in hho gas but dont have a phd in chemistry need a place to find plain english descriptions about this area of technology. They want to understand it's practical application and track it's viability for use in consumer products notably cars. Having a site which brings all that level of information together regarding Aquygen in particular is the focus of the site. As a result, the source of information is largely news sources and occasional blog entries. There are plenty of wikipedia articles which have external links to similar sites. Noah's assertion that if his obviously commercial site--devoted to hho gas consulting--can't be linked to then no sites can be linked to is not simply arbitrary...it is spooky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.247.162 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


It really doesn't matter how good the blog is - we flat out aren't allowed to link to blogs or forums...except under extremely extenuating circumstances. See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided:

  • WP:External_links bans "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." - if the author is claiming to be a "recognised authority" on this topic - then show us where that recognition may be found. (Since the author signs himself 'B' - that's going to be an interesting matter!) If the author of the blog is indeed an established authority in the field then there are VERY likely to be Conflict of Interest issues that mean that this person shouldn't be editing this article at all (let alone adding blog-links to it) !!!
  • I would argue that all blogspot.com pages fail several other tests in that section of the WP guidelines - it's a form of social network (it has all of the 'sharing', 'rating', etc features that are so characteristic of social networks, and it carries advertising.
  • Your blog most certainly doesn't "...provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article".
  • Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services are banned and since almost every blog entry promotes one commercial product or another, it's unacceptable for that reason.
  • It falls under the ban on linking to sites with temporary content.
  • Since the entire topic of the blog is about water fuelled cars, it's most certainly a Fringe theory - and as such is also banned under the "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." rule. (The word "unverifiable" refers to the Wikipedia verifiability rules.
  • You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.
  • We are prohibited from linking to sites that violate copyright. The blog contains MANY images that appear to have been copied from various company web sites - with no indication that permission was granted to do so.

If any one of the things I said above is true - then your blog cannot be linked to.

So: NO WE CANNOT LINK TO YOUR BLOG. Is that perfectly clear?

SteveBaker (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback Arrangement

Fuel enhancement systems do not use an external energy source. They are comparable to mechanical supercharger systems, where a portion of the output energy is consumed to effect the input into the engine. In both systems the portion of output energy consumed effectively improves the efficiency of the system to such a degree that the overall increase in energy output accounts for the energy consumed in the production of the oxyhydrogen. Noah Seidman (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Noah. I have a few reservations on the addition to the Fuel Supplement section about feedback. It is not entirely clear what is being related and the overall impression is of an inappropriate use of technical terms. Feedback and positive feedback are typically associated with control systems and controls theory. I don't think the use is appropriate here. Could you put this in other terms?
On another note - of the references in peer-reviewed journals for the Fuel Supplement section, how many of these use electrolysis generated oxyhydrogen? (I suspect the intention of these authors is to generate hydrogen on-board via the gas or diesel fuel, perhaps in a partial-oxidation reactor.) Tjcognata (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The comparison to a supercharger is bogus. A supercharger takes mechanical energy from the motor and uses it to force more air into the engine - this in turn allows more fuel to be burned - which makes the car go faster DESPITE the load of the supercharger on the engine. But it doesn't improve your fuel consumption - in fact, it makes it significantly worse. Look at (for example) the 2006 MINI Cooper and the MINI Cooper'S - identical cars except for the supercharger. The regular Cooper gets about 35/38 mpg and the Cooper'S gets 32/35 mpg. So the supercharger made fuel economy much worse. On the other hand the supercharged version shaves about 2 seconds off the 0-60 time and adds an extra 20mph to the top speed. So superchargers get more power from the engine - but only by burning more fuel.
However, these bogus 'enhancement systems' use electrical energy from the battery to generate hydrogen which is burned in addition to the regular gasoline fuel. The trouble is that the energy produced by burning the hydrogen is (by necessity) far less that the electrical energy required to produce it - which has to be replenished by recharging the battery. The more the battery has to be recharged, the bigger the load on the generator and therefore the bigger the load on the engine. Even if this were not true - the lame setups they use produce an almost entirely negligable amount of hydrogen gas - you would not be able to even measure the additional energy one of these cells would add to the motor. The net result is that these gadgets don't work as claimed - it's completely impossible.
What complicates things greatly is that the sellers of these machines deliberately confuse two entirely different technologies. The hydrogen generator contraptions are worthless - but the gadgets that spray water or steam into the cylinder really can work to improve fuel economy. The water cools the cylinder more rapidly than usual - this retards and smooths the burning of the fuel resulting in a more efficient burn - you can use a lower octane fuel and a leaner burn without so much risk of 'knocking'. Yeah!!! Finally, a gadget you can buy on the internet that actually might work!! But please - practice the art of critical thinking. You should be asking yourself: If it's so good - why don't all modern cars come with water injectors as standard equipment? With the push to improve fuel economy and the fact that this technology has been known for at least 40 years and costs just a few dollars to install - why doesn't every car have it straight from the factory?
Well - guess what - there really is an excellent reason for that. It's because there is a horrible problem. Injecting hot water or steam into your cylinders induces corrosion - the resulting water vapor can rust out your exhaust system - and the water in the cylinders can wash past the piston rings and get into the engine oil too. Oil and water don't mix so you either get areas where the water displaces the oil and you can seize up the engine - or you get the oil and water 'emulsifying' into a white gooey substance that clogs the fine oil passageways in the engine...the result is much the same...a dead engine within just a few thousand miles. That's "A Very Bad Thing". The small savings you gain on fuel economy are utterly wiped out by the fact that your engine is going to die much, much sooner than it should. However - the shysters who sell this stuff either don't know that - or they are immoral enough to take your money and run anyway.
So - don't do it. These things are a con trick that (at best) do nothing and (at worst) wreck your engine.
SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Most fuel enhancement systems are scams in that they do not provide a way to achieve >=30:1 air/fuel ratios. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Supercharger systems can improve efficiency, if it is chosen to use leaner air/fuel ratios than an unsupercharged system. Most car manufacturers choose to use superchargers to improve the power output of the engine, rather than to improve economy. Noah Seidman (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Fuel enhancement systems are based around engines operating at lean air/fuel ratios. Gasoline does not burn at a 30:1 air/fuel ratio, but the hydrogen allows the gasoline to remain flammable. Noah Seidman (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

While most systems are indeed scams, the concept of a lean/air fuel ratio has been around a long time. It takes a much more sophisticated computer management system to control an engine under such conditions. There is no reason a car cannot be built from the ground up to deal with the issues. Any system that only sells an electrolyzer is a con trick, most likely due to the manufacturer not understanding the concept of fuel enhancement and lean burning IC engines. There of people in the industry that know what they are talking about, or are at least rational; don't lump us all in the same category. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The supercharger comparison is applicable to fuel enhancement systems. Superchargers consume energy parasitically from the engines output, in turn to effect the input into the system. This is where the concept of feedback comes in. Feedback is used in electrical amplifies to stabilize the system, where some of the output of the amplifier is diverted back to the input. In a block diagram superchargers are the same as fuel enhancement systems. Even if the hydrogen is produced from the carbon fuel source, some of the engines energy (heat or electricity) is used directly or indirectly to effect the input into the system. Noah Seidman (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A clarification: the concept of fuel enhancement has nothing to do with the energy content of the hydrogen. Hydrogen allows gasoline to remain flammable at lean and ultra lean air/fuel ratios. At an air/fuel ratio of 30:1 or greater, the temperature of combustion is substantial reduced, which will practically eliminate NOx pollution. Also associated with a more complete combustion process is the complete formation of dioxides from monoxides, which will completely eliminate the need for a catalytic converter. Unburn HC emissions will be eliminated, and smog (O3) will fully be consumed in the combustion process leaving the exhaust relatively cleaner than rich air/fuel ratios. The only reason rich air/fuel ratios are used is to use excess gasoline to cool the combustion process; this is because car companies went the cheap route in designing the programs in the ECU. It take a much more sophisticated computer programs to properly manage a lean burning IC engine. For instance, on cold starts the air/fuel ratios need to be richer, which is also the case at WOT. But under partial load, idle conditions, and moderate acceleration substantial lean (or ultra lean) air/fuel ratios can be implemented have marked benefits. You would need different fuel maps under different driving conditions, and not just under different loads/rpms; this entails more sensors, and more money. Noah Seidman (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, to answer your question why aren't the car companies using the fuel enhancement concept. Because they want cars that are practically identical, and easily duplicable. They do not want to custom tailor ECU's for each make and model engine. They also want interchangeable parts. On another note, water injection has been used in Jets for almost a century. The harrier for instance uses water injection during is VTOL phase of operation. The Harrier requires substantially lean engine conditions to produce the power required for VTOL maneuvers. I'm pretty sure corrosion resistant material can be used to deal with water contact ;) Noah Seidman (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because a concept is not widely implemented does not mean that it is not a good idea; it is a fallacy to suppose this. Often the cost to implement it is not practical when compared with the benefit to the specific application. Steam/water injection in an automobile, which SteveBaker mentioned, requires a very different set of materials in the cylinder and exhaust system, not to mention additional control, which adds more expense than a consumer will find in benefit from a vehicle. In industrial turbine generation however a 1% increase in efficiency can mean millions in profit on a daily basis, and that often justifies the greater cost in special coatings and materials necessary to maintain a service life comparable to a dry system. I have seen steam injection in many cases in turbines because the benefits make sense in that application. (also could add combined cycle generation... not in widespread use by the public, much less in vehicles, but under no circumstances a concept without merit.)
There may be merit to the lean-burn emissions claims for hydrogen fuel injection. The trouble arrives when you begin to consider efficiency claims - for example: there are many means for hydrogen generation: partial oxidation, electrolysis, steam reforming, etc. The "well to wheels" efficiency will differ based upon the efficiency of the generation method used supposing all else remains the same. Electrolysis, and consequently oxy-hydrogen, is a pipe-dream for fuel enhancement simply by the the large energy required to crack H2O. Any hydrocarbon based method would be preferred by merit of the relative efficiency in producing hydrogen. This is why industrial hydrogen is typically made from natural gas, not from water. Tjcognata (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Efficiency claims are dealt with precisely. (See: Hydrogen fuel enhancement:Fraud considerations). Your other points about viability are debatable. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: Noah Seidman claims that Harriers jets use water for fuel enhancement. This is absolutely not true. The Harrier uses water to cool the outlet nozzles not to get more engine power or better fuel efficiency. It carries only enough water to do this for 90 seconds and it only does it while hovering. Check out our articles on the aircraft if you are not convinced. I used to design flight simulators - including one for the AV8B version of the Harrier so I'm 100% certain of this. SteveBaker (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: Noah Seidman said the harrier uses water for water injection. Water injection is not fuel enhancement; it is used to cool various components to deal with high temperatures. Also note that Noah Seidman wants to learn, and everything I say may not be 100% accurate. We have to debate to make progress. Where else is this topic discussed in an open forum? Why must their be animosity? Should our conversations be constructive? If a statement is found to be the contrary you can delete it outright, or debate it to gain a better understanding. As I will say for the billionth time all I want is to make progress and gain a clearer understanding of what can fundamentally work versus outright fraud. Sheesh. Noah Seidman (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Also note that many people are 100% absolute of things. Richard Feinman said things are not absolute, they are either likely or less likely. To think anything is absolute is irrational; and there is nothing wrong with a healthy debate. I don't claim anything; claims are for patents. I do on the other hand think alot. I have many ideas, of which some are likely to be correct, and others erroneous. Lets focus on progress rather than who claims what. Noah Seidman (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, are you using the Harrier misunderstanding to discredit me somehow? Because I don't understand everything does not mean all my ideas are completely incorrect. Great, as you said my statement is "absolutely not true". Now I know what is true, and I have incorporated it into a better understanding of things. Did I not just learn something? Noah Seidman (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere there are people in this world that laugh when someone is wrong, and there are people they try and help other people learn. Noah Seidman (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how you read animosity or hostility into what I wrote - I merely corrected your incorrect statement. You were talking in the context of fuel enhancement - I don't think you intended a complete non-sequitur to talking about cooling systems - which is why I corrected you. At any rate there is absolutely no relationship between the water used to cool the nozzles on the Harrier and the way water is being employed in the context being discussed here. The nearest analogy would be to the coolant circulating in a car engine. You misquote (and misspell) Feynman - he was talking about the nature of natural laws - not about a specific man-made machine, whos design and purpose may be known with as much certainty as you know that I write this post. SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I was having a bad day. Your comments were constructive, and your editing of the article is much appreciated. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Noah, I think you mis-understood me. On one point I was partly buttressing your argument about why good technologies are not adopted whole-sale. I also brought up application suitability. Mabey I could put this another way - Steam turbines did not displace steam engines, even though a viable, proven, and promising technology, until Charles Parsons humiliated the Royal British fleet by leaving them in the wake of his Turbinia at the 1894 Naval Review. Don't assume that just because a concept or technology is not widely accepted that it has no merit.
As for the other point, I was basically suggesting that there are a number of hydrogen generation methods which are much more efficient than electrolysis. A more efficient hydrogen generator will make for a more efficient system given that all else remains the same. That is why I feel oxy-hydrogen is not a viable fuel enhancement save perhaps in very special cases. Tjcognata (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. I think a hydrogen reformer is much better suited for fuel enhancement applications for reasons of efficiency.
As for electrolyzers, although there is a substantial drain on engine performance when using an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen, there are positive considerations. Being that fuel enhancement systems are an aftermarket technology marketability is important. Producing hydrogen from water, rather than from the vehicles gasoline has interesting marketing components, which has been grossly misused in internet frauds. In any arrangement be it a hydrogen reformer, or electrolysis energy is needed from the output of the engine, which will decrease the performance of the vehicle in exchange for allowing the engine to operate with substantially leaner air/fuel ratios than possible with solely gasoline. The net equation is performance in exchange for mileage? How much performance is dependent on the method of hydrogen production? Noah Seidman (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article is 100% lies

There is no such thing as Browns gas. Brown was actually a swindler and quack.

There are hardly any applications for hydrogen + oxygen welding since it has a WEAK worthless flame. It's only good is for liquid rockets.

Your comments are nonconstructive in creating a better article. If you wish for your comments to be taken seriously you should adjust your tone and elaborate further. For example: considering the properties of the flame welding is not a viable application, although torch applications have logistical and environmental implications.
Note that you say "it" has no applications, and then you say "it is only good for liquid rockets". You are not consistent, and inaccurate. Brown made a torch design, and associated electrolyzer that produces oxyhydrogen. Because of this oxyhydrogen produced in the relevant design is commonly referred to as Brown's Gas. Brown's Gas is oxyhydrogen, and oxyhydrogen is a torch gas. This article contains references regarding the topic of oxyhydrogen. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This is of course the user whose repeated insertion of material caused this article to be protected.
Note that a torch has other applications than welding. Also, the fact that the oxy-hydrogen flame is poor for welding steel does not make it inappopriate for fusing other materials such as glass, plastics, and precious metals. Some of this is described in the article.
I don't particularly care for the term "Brown's gas", but since it is notable, and many people seem to use it, we need to mention it. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Having multiple names for oxyhydrogen is very frustrating. I have been dealing with this for a long time. The only significance to the term Brown's Gas is that it implies a particularly designed electrolyzer. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aquygen Blog

User User:Jmurphee continues to add the aquygen blog to the external links. If the link to this blog remains I will add my website; well not really. I feel that the link to this blog should be removed ASAP by another editor. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Noah Seidman (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He linked a few similar blogs in other articles as well. I have removed them all. William Pietri (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe theories.

All of the talk of Brown's gas, Oxyhydrogen and HHO (and probably other things too) come under the heading of "Fringe Theories" - and we have to approach them as such. Mainstream science (rightly or wrongly) doesn't acknowledge that there is anything other than a good old mixture of H2 and O2 produced as the perfectly normal results of electrolysis of water without adequate separation of the resulting gasses. Taking that mainstream perspective (as Wikipedia guidelines require) means that these three terms all mean exactly the same thing - and even when all are taken together, they are only just barely worth an article (because their claim to notability is - at best - thin). So let's keep our eyes on the mainstream view - and write only about properties of these gasses that can be backed up with articles in peer reviewed journals. Anything else we want to say has to be of the form "so-and-so so claims that..." with references that show that they do indeed claim that. We cannot say "this is true because so-and-so says so" unless this is referencable with peer-reviewed science.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I dont understand why aquygen is even referenced...as it seems to be simply a trademark for a common gas mixture. There doesnt seem to be any clear distinction to their production methods from ordinary hight school science electrolysis except that for some very dubious claims. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As you noted this material is at most high school science. Since its so simple there is very little if any current peer reviewed work on the subject. The only scientific interest at this point is developing electrocatalysts for the electrodes. The fringe theories which apply these neologisms are the core of scientific frauds used in commercial frauds. For example one company [2] using an associated fraud is attributed to have raised 21 million dollars in capital based on these "theories"[3]. This doesn't include all the trucking owner operators this company ripped off over the years.
These theories need to be acknowledged some place. Oxyhydrogen is a historic way to refer to the hydrogen and oxygen produced through the electrolysis of water making it a reasonable place to mention these fringe neologisms. Other pages and associated talk sections related to this subject are water fuel cell, electrolysis of water, hydrogen fuel enhancement. I would appreciate any help you can offer in clearing up this material.--OMCV (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


We cannot say "this is true because so-and-so says so" unless this is referencable with peer-reviewed science.

Yes, but it is also our duty to say "so-and-so claims x to be true, but this is false because of y". For instance:

Denny Klein claims that his welders produce a flame at a temperature of "10,000 degrees", due to their ability to "subluminate" tungsten. (The boiling point of tungsten is 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit.) However, his demonstrations of the effect occur in air. In air, tungsten oxidizes to predominantly form Tungsten(VI) oxide, which then melts at only 1473 °C and is ablated away by the flame as smoke particles (which can be seen in Klein's videos). The temperature required for this effect is then consistent with that of an oxyhydrogen flame.

and include references to Don Lancaster, James Randi, etc. — Omegatron (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. SteveBaker (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm all for that. Shoud be added to the section on Aquygen. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)