Talk:Oxyhydrogen/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Renders incorrectly in Firefox

The picture with the text "The overall electrolyzer apparatus designed by Dennis Klein.[19]" renders over some text when I view it in Firefox. I dunno enough about wikiediting to do anything about it, Im using Firefox 2.0.0.12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.184.214 (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Aquygen reference

Removed a reference to Aquygen, for which there is no peer-reviewed evidence. Once there is such evidence, and if Aquygen survives AfD, then it would be appropriate to replace this extract. LinaMishima 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No relation whatsoever Between HHO and Oxy-Hydrogen

Should not be merged, as there is absoluetely no relation between HHO and Oxy-Hydrogen. There is moreso a relation between HHO and Brown's Gas, but in such a case this article should remain to clarify the distinction between HHO and Brown's Gas. Please read the article for more information on the distinction between HHO and Brown's Gas. -->

Somebody please separate the retardate claims of greater than 100% efficiency and magical HHO gas from the useful factual information, ie oxyhydrogen as a mixture of O2 and H2, refs of oxyhydrogen torches, etc. Let the cranks have their own page, preferably as far away from something claiming to be an encyclopedia as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.136.240 (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)



Should not be merged, as there is absoluetely no relation between HHO and Oxy-Hydrogen. There is moreso a relation between HHO and Brown's Gas, but in such a case this article should remain to clarify the distinction between HHO and Brown's Gas. Please read the article for more information on the distinction between HHO and Brown's Gas. 18:22, 22 November 2006 User:Nseidm1

So, what IS HHO then, please explain. Since you claim there's no relation between a gas containing two H and one O, and a gas containing two H and one O, what is the difference? (Ignoring the O2 and H2 thingy here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.50.126.2 (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

HHO is common ducted oxyhydrogen; therefore it is a type of Brown's Gas. As stated in the previous sentence there is moreso a relationship between HHO and Brown's Gas, being that HHO is a brand name for a type of Brown's Gas. Oxyhydrogen is purely H2 and O2, whereas ongoing research is showing, and substantiating that Brown's Gas is predominantly H2 and O2, but also contains allotropes and isomers of hydrogen and oxygen gases. Ongoing Gas Chromatography analysis, of Brown's Gas, is producing empirical data establishing substantial scientific integrity. Noah Seidman 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't know what you are talking about. Allotropes refer to different states of solid matter formed by the same element. There is no such thing as an allotrope or an isomer of hydrogen or oxygen molecules. (Well, there are ortho and para isomeric forms of hydrogen, but the thermodynamic difference between them is negligible outside of a cryogenic laboratory.) Long Island Expressway (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You do know what your talking about. Although allotropy is not limited to solids by definition. See the third introductory paragraph in Allotrope; O3 is an allotrope of oxygen. Also diatomic structures are considered allotropes of there monatomic form, therefore diatomic hydrogen is by definition an allotrope. Also isomerism is independent of phase. Noah Seidman (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Diatomic H2 and O2 are not considered to be allotropes of anything. They are the only stable form under the conditions within the scope of the article. Allotropy refers to stable alternative structures for elements.Long Island Expressway (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Essentially the difference is in the molecular structures. Noah Seidman 19:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a molecule of "HHO". Really. Oxyhydrogen is a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. Santilli is a crackpot, as the reference I've included in his cleaned-up wikipedia article shows.Long Island Expressway (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Duhh, obviously HHO is a gross manipulation. I have been saying that for three years now since this article was in shambles with no citations. The difference between Brown's Gas and oxygen is merely the design of the electrolyzer, which I have also been saying for years. Noah Seidman (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I think the article is now improved due to references to prevalent scams, which non-chemists might come here to see. Although some better references would also be good here.Long Island Expressway (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to your deleted comment. H2 and O2 mixes do not definitively contain allotropes or isomers, in fact on my website I use the word "potentially" a lot. In either case I couldn't care less about the theorized, or claimed molecular formations. All I care about is "fuel enhancement", which for the longest time was thought to be a scam until I posted all the academic reference now available in this article!!! The only thing that can be done about the claimed molecular structures is academic publication. FYI thank you for your contributions, for the longest time this articles talk page has been dormant. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if Brown's Gas is left sitting in an open container there is a component that is denser than atmosphere that will remain after much time has passed. This denser component is volatile, and remains present in a completely open container (I measured 30 minutes when I did the experiment). Since H2 is less dense than atmosphere, and must rise out of the open container, speculation is inevitable. This dense components apparently does not explode, and during combustion there is no popping noise which is always associated with explosion; all that is observed visually is a dim flame and water condensation. Plus, the combustion of this dense component does not break or deform the container, allowing me to infer that there is no resulting positive pressure thus substantiating an implosive characteristic. On the other hand if Brown's Gas is ignited immediately after combustion, in an open container, the container breaks (obviously positive PSI) allowing me to infer immediately after production something is different chemically to account for the apparently different combustion characteristics at different times during the experiment. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

  1. This should not be merged if it has independent significance in biology. I'm confused as to what the significance is, though. Knallgas seems to be a type of bacteria? What does that have to do with the gas?
  2. In a welding machine, the oxygen and hydrogen are not mixed until the nozzle, right? A tank full of actual oxyhydrogen might as well be a bomb. Are they mixed inside the nozzle or directly in front of it?
  3. It says that oxyhydrogen "reacts explosively back to water", but this doesn't happen at room temperature, right? It's "stable" until ignited?
    • This gives some information about the pressure and temperature required for an explosion. — Omegatron 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


1:no, it is a gas, Into the Mitochondrien of living cells it comes with the final oxidation in the complex IV in the breathing chain to a similar, but strictly controlled exergonen reaction (biological detonating gas reaction), which serves the power production of the cell, i.e. the formation of ATP molecules:
2:depends on the design
3: no idear
4:Merge proposel, Oxyhydrogen flame, is the base for the designs of different applications in different areas.i am opposed, .cheers. Mion 03:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Are these mitochondria found in all cells or only bacteria? Can you provide some documents or references about this? All the Google results refer to a type of bacteria:

  • the recent discussion pertaining to the use of the 'knallgas' bacteria
  • Genome sequence of the bioplastic-producing "Knallgas" bacterium Ralstonia eutropha
  • digested cell envelope preparations obtained from the knallgas bacterium, strain
  • CO-2 FIXATION BY KNALLGAS BACTERIA

4. You are opposed to a merge with oxyhydrogen flame because of the biological definition? Maybe we should have a separate article for the welding and a separate article under the name Knallgas for the biological? — Omegatron 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • In detail, in grammar:-
    • In "oxyhydrogen" used by itself to mean the gas mixture, it is a dvandva and means "oxygen plus hydrogen".
    • As part of a longer compoound, e.g. "oxyhydrogen flane" and "oxyhydrogen torch", it is the beginning of a tatpurusa that hs two first parts and means "using oxygen and also using hydrogen".

Anthony Appleyard 05:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

dabify?

This page looks like it might serve as just a dab page... 132.205.44.134 02:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bottled Gases

keep, Oxyhydrogen is not inherently produced in an electrolyzer, and standard tanks/bottles can be used to produce the gas. Also oxyhydrogen refers to a gas, not a production method or a production device; watertorch is a device Noah Seidman 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

"This must be done carefully due to the explosion hazard." This statement is easily resolved by thoroughly insulating the interior of the electrolyzer with PVC or a comparable insulation material. Noah Seidman 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Citation

The Encyclopedia used as the main reference of this article is a large volume therefore it is requested that the particular pages within that source be referenced.

Maybe this entire article should start with the exact text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition

We should utilize references from the Encyclopedia to establish at least some citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nseidm1 (talk • contribs)

External Links

Two external links are utilized in this article that are most likely not consistent with "external link" policy

  1. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.

and the link to the HTA website which violate

  1. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
  2. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

Does "Unprovable unrealistic" in the Doubtful Claims section, utilizing an example of the claims made, constitute improper synthesis? Wouldn't we have to utilize a citation to someone saying that the claims are unprovable and unrealistic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nseidm1 (talk • contribs)

heat->energy

I made this fairly minor change, changign the singelw word "heat" in the lead section to "energy" This use of "heat is not inacurate, but it can be confusing fo those with limnited physics background IMO, since the paragraph describes how one reaction is "hottet" than another because the same amount of "heat" is produced. I am well aware that "hotter" is being used in the sense of temperature, or average molecular kenetic energy, while "heat" is being used in the sense of total molecular kenetic energy. But many readers will not appreciate that distinction.

Furthermore, to be strictly technical, the amount of "heat" many not be equal, what is strictly equal is the total energy release. Some of that energy goes not into randomized molecular motion (heat) but into macroscopic kenetic energy (explosive impuse). How much will depend on the precise circumstances, particualrly the degree of confienment of the gas, and the amount of energy going into grose physical work may be different between stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric situations, although the total energy release will be the same.

Thus "energy" is both less confusing and more accurate than "heat" and I wonder why my change was reverted without discussion or even an edit summery beyond the automated one. DES (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Either is correct here, but I judged 'heat' to sound better in this sentence; it's also more precise, since we are talking about the heating of the gases. True, energy can also go into macroscopic motion but that's quite negligible in a flame. The way, the truth, and the light 05:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Perpetual motion hoaxes

There are hoaxes floating around the Internet regarding a perpetual motion car which uses oxyhydrogen generated from water as fuel. The most commonly cited example is a news story from a local FOX affiliate at [1]. Since this article covers controversial claims and hoaxes, maybe a mention of this car could be added? 70.233.144.86 22:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cars cannot run on oxyhydrogen. Don't get swayed by crapola; that Fox News broadcast was MISERABLE, and has detrimentally tarnished credibility for truly substantive technology!!!! There is already an article on "water cars", and the so called "water fuel cell". Incorporation of such material would "dirty" this rather clean, and evolving article. Noah Seidman 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"Cars cannot run on oxyhydrogen". Why not? The article claims that igniting oxyhydrogen produces heat. Pretty much any source of heat can be used to power a heat engine, e.g. a steam engine. While you obviously could not burn oxyhydrogen in a car designed to burn gasoline, you could construct a "car" (vehicle) that was powered by a supply of oxyhydrogen, could you not? 71.146.147.108 19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Its about energy and efficiency. Its not conservative, nor economical. Noah Seidman 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Also oxyhydrogen cannot be stored at viable pressures, therefore its a completely impractical concept. Noah Seidman 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hydrogen powered cars can and have been made to work, FACT! 4:03, 6 November 2007 User:195.195.236.129
Oxyhydrogen and Brown's Gas are not Hydrogen. They contain Hydrogen. Oxyhydrogen and Brown's Gas cannot be stored under high PSI! Noah Seidman 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't say "Cars can't run on oxyhydrogen". It's obvious to anyone that knows a little science that they can. Say "It would be stupid to run a car on oxyhydrogen". The reason this is a hoax is not that it's impossible, but because it's wasteful and uneconomical. — Omegatron 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should cover these hoaxes in the article and explain why they are bogus so that people aren't mislead and don't have to ask questions like this anon anymore.

Lots of facts and references can be found at Brown's gas and HHO gas, and the content can be merged here as per the deletion discussions. — Omegatron 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Foundational Information

In theory this section should allow for substantial investigation, thus potentially avoiding unnecessary comments, and edits. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"common ducted"

I've deleted the chapter for a reasons. It's partly duplicated from the other infos about Brown's gas and partly just repeating unreliable sources. "common ducted electrolysis" (or "common ducted" NEAR electrolysis) isn't even a valid technical term. It gets zero hits on books.google.com and scholar.google.com and very few and insignificant hits on a normal Google search.

I know that this article has many problems, but me must start fixing them somewhere.

--Pjacobi (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert by User:Anthony Appleyard

Care to explain we you've reverted the link spam back in? If you have arguments for keeping the other part you've reverted back in, see section above and explain please. --Pjacobi (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The matter which I reverted back in are:
    • Links to captionless image of water torches (not to the head-pages of companies that make then).
    • The information paragraph "Some water torch models mix the two gases immediately after production (instead of at the torch tip) making the gas mixture more accurate; this electrolyzer design is called common ducting. Common ducted electrolyzers are typically series cell parallel plate design, but can also be built using cylindrical cells. The main criteria for common ducting is a single gas output hose. Oxyhydrogen gas produced this way is sometimes called Brown's gas (see below). Oxyhydrogen gas produced in an independently ducted electrolyzer is not considered Brown's Gas. Independently ducted electrolyzers have substantially separated anodes and cathodes, are typically rod type design, and have separate hydrogen and oxygen gas output hoses.". OK, it may need revising.
    • Links to 4 related pages: Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency, Hydrogen welding, Air fuel ratio, Octane rating.

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Images: I don't consider For images of water torches see <some URLs> to be encyclopedic style. Also the images don't tell much about oxyhydrogen.
  • In-line weblinks general: The link after "avoiding the need for supplied oxygen and hydrogen." just goes to one manuafacturer. As the use of oxyhydrogen is mentioned in several books and e.g. in the 1911 Britannica, we shouldn't link to a single manufacturer.
  • There is no reliable source for "common ducting" (and next to nothing for the entire Brown's gas business) to be a reasonable description, it's may just be a term invented by User:Nseidm1 for this article and his company website. See section above.
  • As nothing can reliably said about Brown's gas there is no rationale for giving just a list of wikilinks in that chapter.
--Pjacobi (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the temperature claim requires citation. Common ducting is a status quo design characteristic. The "1'st and 2'nd laws of electrolysis" is common sense; its electrolysis. The foundational links are important to remain somewhere in the article, otherwise anonymous posters will continue to make frivolous comments. And the applications section; there only two applications listed there that happen to have content rich wikilinks. Noah Seidman (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
After all this time I'm sick of tired of the "common ducted" stuff. See above. Quote reliable sources. We will get rid of this strange term which is nowhere used except on Wikipedia and some websites of dubious merit. Or just show me my error researching the usage of "common ducted". --Pjacobi (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It simply means that the electrodes are both in the same chamber and the gases are allowed to mix, unlike the traditional setup like this that tries to keep the gases separate so they form normal diatomic gas.
The "common-ducted" version appears in Brown's patent, in which he says it is good to allow the gases to mix because you want the flame to be neutral; too much hydrogen and it is absorbed by the metal causing Hydrogen embrittlement, too much oxygen and the metal oxidizes (which I believe is why they use Shielding gas). I don't think he makes any other claims about this arrangement, though. Not in the patents, at least.
There was once a discussion of how other compounds can form in such a device, like H2O2 and H2O3, but those discussions have probably been thrown in the memory hole... — Omegatron 00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Images of watertorches

  • "Images: I don't consider "For images of water torches see <some URLs>" to be encyclopedic style. Also the images don't tell much about oxyhydrogen.": Some people would want to know what watertorch equipment looks like, and, as those images are copyright, I must link to them, not copy them into Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Copy one into Wikipedia. We have every right to use them in our articles. Don't let the "not free enough" crowd scare you. — Omegatron 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to use the image off my website, but I don't want to post it myself cause of conflict of interest. Its on "The Company" page available in the main navigation. Maybe the product label can be blurred to maintain a modicum of anonymity to avoid promoting the actual product. I think an image will greatly enhance the quality of this article, but I want to image to be NEUTRAL and not promote any particular product. Maybe a carefully chosen patent image will suffice to express the the series cell design. Noah Seidman (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you willing to provide it under a free content license? — Omegatron 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I will contact the owner of the image and respond promptly; I don't see any reason such an image should be restricted by copyright. Its like a picture of a car or any other appliance. Otherwise I will also do some searching for an explicit patent image descriptive the the cell design and arrangement. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
All photographs have copyright. In order to put it on Wikipedia, the person who took the photo needs to license it freely or it needs to be used with a fair use rationale. Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags — Omegatron 03:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I myself publish the image on my website. I know that many other people on the internet also publish the same image, and all publishers likely do not receive explicit permission. I feel that the image in question falls under fair use rational. I think the Santilli Chromatography photo has been posted on Wikipedia using fair use rational; the same rational can be used in this instance. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The images that I linked to ([2] [3] [4] [5]) do not seem to show a maker's name clearly, and thus seem to satisfy Noah Seidman (01:34, 4 January 2008)'s specification. Many Wikipedia pages link to external images instead of copying them because of copyright. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I wouldn't mind linking to them, but it would be more aesthetic to include an image directly. I feel that all of those images fall under fair use rational to show the general public actual items are have been constructed. Although most of those images are way out of date, and some of the torches depicted aren't even manufactured anymore. these are newer images that are of products still in production. [6] [7] [8] Noah Seidman (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Heres an image of the hy-drive 18 wheeler fuel enhancement system. [9]. Heres an image of the CHEC HFI 18 wheeler fuel enhancement system. [10]. Heres an image of Go Green Fuel's fuel enhancement system. [11] Noah Seidman (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Series Cell Image

From The referenced patent is figure #2 that depicts the series cell, single output design. Figure #2 Noah Seidman (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuel Enhancement Image

This image is mine, and I authorized GFDL image licensing if its appropriate to post. Enhancement Image Noah Seidman (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Those Who Judge

I have recently added a generous amount of citation. I would like to share the following personal quote.

  • "Those who judge before conducting substantive investigation are irrational, condescending, and generally lack integrity" Noah Seidman (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, please don't put quotes in italics. Short quotes should be "in quotation marks", and long quotes should be a blockquote without quotation marks:

long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here long quote here

— Omegatron 01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Patent Application Citation

I cannot find the appropriate means for referencing a patent application, rather than a granted patent. The reference to my patent application only shows up in PDF format, and not in the general USPTO search. This is because it was not granted, but it is indeed a publicly published document searchable in the USPTO patent applications database. Noah Seidman (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Heres a link to the patent application in the USPTO database. [12]. If someone know how to cite this correctly please adjust citation #22 accordingly; your assistance is greatly appreciated. Noah Seidman (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

{{US patent application}} — Omegatron 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikify

Noah, please fix your quotes according to the WP:MOS#Quotations, don't duplicate references, etc. Please learn to format things nicely. We shouldn't have to clean up after you.

First instance of some reference.<ref name="US patent 1234567">Reference text</ref>

Later instance of the same reference.<ref name="US patent 1234567"/>

— Omegatron 01:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation duplication fixed. Removed all dubious claims. Removed reference to George Wiseman books to preempt conflict. Removed italics on citations. Added blockquote to design section. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
George Wiseman is now reasonably referenced. There is nothing extraordinary. Noah Seidman (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Updates

Noah Seidman (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Contra I'm really perplexed where all this going. Now a number of bold claims ("new gaseous and combustible form of water", the 100% efficency claim) are provided, sourced of course, but being silent on the general non-acceptance of these claims. --Pjacobi (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, regarding Noah's "Those who judge...": If this technology is really able reach the claimed efficency gains, it after a thorough examination of the all relevant sources get its own article instead of being saved from AfD into this article. But I really have no idea how get an independant expert doing an investigation of this.
I think this content belongs in oxyhydrogen. Oxyhydrogen encompasses all of the included material. Oxyhydrogen is the umbrella concept. Noah Seidman (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
But I'm dead sure that Santieri's Magnecules are pure snake oil -- if he would be able to specify a reproducable experiment even only hinting a new form of water, he would have his Nobel prize by now instead of being regarded as a black sheep of the scientific community.
--Pjacobi (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"But I really have no idea how get an independant expert doing an investigation of this". I used mostly quotation so that all the material can point back to a specific article, or patent. Anyone can research this, the entire list of references is present. I have no opinion on Santilli at this time; his theories have caused a mess that I have had to cleanup, explain, and clarify. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"new gaseous and combustible form of water". This is just the name of a journal article publication. Its a title. Its used as a reference for a couple of quotations, nothing more. I have added doubt to the HHO section. "A new gaseous and combustible form of water" is now cited as a doubted claim. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way; Santilli magnecules are just a "theory". Frankly a theory is only as good as the "tests it predicts". This article has come a long way, and is extremely important to clarify this whole "run your car on water" crapola. The introduction to Brown's Gas clarifies the mistaken difference between the water fuel cell and Brown's Gas electrolysis. Its really very simple, its just a matter of putting all the informational puzzle pieces together. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What I agree is snake oil is that Santilli claims to manufacture the very item he "theorizes" to exist. This is extremely fishy. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no "100%" efficiency sourced; the image you are most likely referring to is the table data. Also note that this is an academic publication that anyone can purchase from the SAE for review purposes. The image description specifically says "100%" increase in mileage. Which is specifically for a hydrogen reformer operating at 80% efficiency, not 100%. Nothing nothing nothing can operate at 100% efficiency. Its simply not LOGICAL. Take a second look at the table data, it says a 50% reduction in fuel consumption, which is equivalent to a 100% increase in mileage. You do realize that a 100% increase in mileage is only "doubling" the mileage. This isn't magic, there is no free energy BS here. This is efficiency. This is lean air/fuel mixes. Add Brown's Gas to the air intake, lean the air/fuel mix, and retard the timing. Maybe a little modification to the engine system to improve longevity, and further mitigate potential corrosion. Maybe a teflon lining on the inside of the air intake system can help. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note that I have added three more journal articles to the Hydrogen fuel injection page. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Independent expert

I have no idea why an independent expert would want to investigate this. Fuel Enhancement is only a means of increasing gas mileage. Its only a means of reducing pollution. I have proven its notable and verifiable with all the references, therefore anyone can retrieve, purchase, copy or download the actual material that has been cited. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The almighty statement: "If this is soo great why isn't it huge? Why isn't everyone using it?". My answer is "because no body cares" Noah Seidman (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If this is so great, why isn't everyone using it? becomes a fascinating self-referential recursion loop, should large numbers of skeptical people ask this question. A similar problem occurred with the Wright brothers in the early 1900s, when Scientific American refused to investigate their claimed success.
Why would SciAm refuse to send a reporter? The SciAm management was sure that, if the Wright's claims were real, then other magazines would already be sending reporters, and the story would be all over the newspapers already! Think about it: if all newspaper and magazine reporters only will investigate an amazing event if OTHER magazines have first investigated the event... then no reporters are sent at all. Well, in the case of the Wright Brothers, a bee-keeper's newsletter author did go and watch the flights. Amazingly enough, he was the only one. Even the local newspapers in the same city (Dayton) refused.
So why is Oxyhydrogen so unknown and obscure? Perhaps it's because the professionals all refuse to look at it on the grounds that all professionals refuse to look at it. Nobody will take it seriously until someone takes it seriously. A recursive feedback loop! Perhaps someone should name this phenomenon, and add it to the list of Logical Fallacies. --72.55.203.215 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for General Comprehension

Gas mileage is directly proportional to the amount of fuel injected into the engine. If you change from a 15:1 air/fuel ratio to 30:1 you are injecting exactly 1/2 the fuel per engine revolution. If you inject 50% less fuel then your fuel supply will last 2x as long. Making your fuel supply last 2x as long is a 100% increase in mileage. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is all this going

The purpose of this article is to be a well referenced, third party source of information. This article is not for my benifit, its for the benifit of everyone. People can only make good decision by being well informed. This article is designed to clarify a highly ambiguous field. This article separates the "BS" from the "science". This article uses third party academic publications, and patents to reference important information. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Me

I added all this information and sources to show everyone that this isn't a fantasy. This is not original research. I admit that much of the more recent internet activity is purely pseudoscientific, but the roots of Brown's Gas technology are thoroughly expressed in academic, patent, and book based literature. I am rational, I do not believe things that cannot be proven via logical experimentation. I do consider "theories", but do not "believe" them without a modicum of evidence. I do consider the referenced material, in this article, to be evidence.

Learning Methodology

  • Hear the theory
  • Gather the references, and associated contextual information
  • Conceptualize
  • Theorize
  • Experiment
  • Potentially draw conclusions

This is my rational. It is not purely scientific, but I am only 24, and need something to believe in. Because of my thousands of hours of involvement, I do get "insulted" by resistance, but I completely understand. I understand that I have a unique comprehension of a stereotypical, and controversial technology. I greatly appreciate when a devout skeptic actually reads the referenced material. I have put so much time and effort into this article not to prove people wrong for spite, but to help them understand something that can make a profound difference in their life. All I can hope for is people taking a "second" look at the material. Think about it with the "slight" possibility that all the referenced material does make sense.

This article is a story beginning in 1966. Don't dismiss the dutiful work of soo many people. Hear their story.

Is it completely impossible that most of my ideas are correct? (rhetorical) Noah Seidman (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Substitute Fuel

Im not quite sure where to place this material. The hurdles, and pitfalls of the hydrogen economy need to be explicitly expressed. Brown's Gas is not economically viable as a substitute fuel for the exact same reason as hydrogen. Its much more economical, and conservative to utilize the electricity directly. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Took care of of it in the Brown's Gas introduction. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Analysis" sections

I'd consider the analysis sections to be mostly encyclopedic, or to put it more mildly, out of place here. I addition they should be sourced, but if a quick scan doesn't mislead, the equations are all rather trivial. --Pjacobi (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the equations can detract from the content of the article. Do you think that a couple of more informative equations should remain? Or should all of them be removed? I think the Math Talk and Efficiency Analysis sections are important; although they don't have a source other than the mathematical analysis. Is mathematical analysis considered original research? Noah Seidman (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Propose them for inclusion at Talk:Electrolysis. I don't see anything specific to Oxyhydrogen -- let alone Brown's Gas -- in the equations. I'd even think, that they are of highest importance, where electrolysis is used on a industrial scale, e.g. Hall-Héroult process. --Pjacobi (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Should I remove the Math Talk and and Efficiency Analysis sections to further wikify? I think talking about the efficiency of the series cell design is important because it is one of the more fascinating aspects to Yull Brown's design. Noah Seidman (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the Math Talk section, but upon reconsideration the two mathematical equations remaining are simply a description of the cited material, therefore they are relevant to this article. The Efficiency section is also good because it is an important characteristic of Yull Brown's design. I will consider removing/modifying more material if we have some input from other editors.Noah Seidman (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Enthalpy

It's been a while since I took Chemistry, but there was a listing of energy release of the reaction, which I put a cite tag on, and it's not even there anymore. Here are some references:

Not even sure how this is relevant, but now we at least have refs. — Omegatron 17:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Great additional refs. The calories produced is part of a blockquote from the 1911 encyclopedia, which did not mention enthalpy. I removed that enthalpy content because there was no verifiable source, but now with these new references there should be some relevant content for this article. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea, that minus sign is throwing me off too. Is it, or is it not a typo? (rhetorical) Noah Seidman (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts: a negative enthalpy would symbolize order rather than increasing disorder. Since the combustion of hydrogen forms a molecular structure the negative is reasonable. The combustion of gasoline, for instance, should have a positive enthalpy; the molecular structure are breaking down into simpler components, which is increasing disorder. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Enthalpy#Heats_of_reaction — Omegatron 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversion:

  • "a gram of hydrogen" = 0.99 mol of hydrogen atoms (standard weight = 1.00794 g/mol)
  • as a gas, this is 0.5 mol of hydrogen molecules (2 atoms per molecule)
  • when burned, it releases "34,116 calories" = 142.74 kilojoules [14]

142.74 kJ / 0.5 mol = 285 kJ for every mole of hydrogen molecules. If you're talking about an oxyhydrogen mixture, though, the actual value would be for every mole of hydrogen or oxygen, right? — Omegatron 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the actual value would be for every mole of hydrogen (285KJ / moles). Only hydrogen contributes to the net energy output; the oxygen acts solely as a facilitator. Therefore to actually consume 2 moles of hydrogen 1 mole of oxygen must be present to react. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the standard way to talk about this stuff. If you burn one mole of hydrogen molecules, you will release 285 kJ. But if you ignite one mole of oxyhydrogen gas (with 2 H2 molecules for every 1 O2), you would release 190 kJ.

Also there's the discrepancy between producing liquid water and water vapor. I don't know how people typically talk about this. — Omegatron 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go: Heat of combustion

The discrepancy is between LHV (120.971 MJ/kg = 241.942 kJ/mol) and HHV (141.9 MJ/kg = 283.8 kJ/mol). — Omegatron 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This article desperately needs to mention the fact that the amount of energy released by burning hydrogen or HHO must always be less than or equal to the mount of energy that was consumed to turn water into hydrogen or HHO in the first place. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Find a verifiable source, and add the material with an appropriate citation. Frankly what you are talking about is thoroughly discussed already in electrolysis. And anyone that understand electrolysis inherently understands that the output energy is less than the input. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A verifiable source? How about the first law of thermodynamics? — Omegatron 16:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I find that expressing the concept of 1'st law of thermo is much better than just saying "because of the 1'st law of thermo". You handled this perfectly in the intro of this article. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Hydrogen#Hydrogen_combustion — Omegatron 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Temperature of atomic welding

See Atomic hydrogen welding. I inserted the high temperatures from that into this, but then realized it might be a different process because of the pre-mixed oxyhydrogen.

Those refs give temperatures from 3400 to 4000 deg C for this process (why do they vary so much? see talk), but they also say that this is from hydrogen recombining into H2, not from combining with oxygen. The hydrogen acts as a "shielding gas", and so the hydrogen atoms only see each other, not the outside air, and only after leaving as molecules do they burn. It would presumably be different if there are oxygen (atoms? molecules?) in the mix. — Omegatron 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Which refs in particular? I have also seen varying reports on temperature; there is no way to form a conclusive opinion.
If the oxygen is acting as a shielding gas allowing the combustive formation of monoatomic hydrogen into diatomic hydrogen, wouldn't the diatomic hydrogen then combust with the diatomic oxygen? Its apparently a multi stage combustion process. The final stage is rather interesting; after the combustion formation of water energy will be absorbed creating steam. What is the relationship between the energy released from combustion, versus the energy absorbed in steam formation? (rhetorical). Noah Seidman (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What I find fascinating is the huge increase in relative efficiencies achieved in the SAE journal articles. To account there must be some extremely interesting chemical reaction going on in the fuel enhancement, and subsequent combustion process. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Atomic hydrogen welding — Omegatron 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see [15] — Omegatron 03:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Linear Heat

Also, the high temperatures are predominantly in the direction of gas flow. There is little temperature laterally and behind, hence the, at this point humorous, hand next to the flame videos. Quite a fascinating property, with no substantive information to stand on yet. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this different from other torches? — Omegatron 03:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Its not different, although the ratio between direct, and indirect heat released is likely greater for oxyhydrogen. It is apparent that substantially less energy is released in the lateral and anterior directions as compared to other torch gases. Noah Seidman (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it the gas or the torch configuration? — Omegatron 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It is likely the gas, as I am not aware of any common ducted electrolyzers currently manufactured to utilize an electric arc in the torch. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I mean the torch and flame geometry itself, not the arc. — Omegatron 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have used a regular oxy-acetylene torch head with the same effect achieved. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In other words, you've used oxyhydrogen gas in an oxy-acetylene torch head, and the head was cold, but when you use oxyacetylene, the head is hot?
Yes. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Don Lancaster says the flame is high temperature, but relatively low energy. Not sure if this has anything to do with it. — Omegatron 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Brown Vs. HHO

Rhodes filed his patent before 1960, and Brown received his patents in 1977, and 1978. These patents have long expired. Is the information in expired patents considered public domain? Noah Seidman (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe all patents are in the public domain, with a few exceptions, as soon as they are published.

In accordance with the original definition of the term "patent," patents facilitate and encourage disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good. If inventors did not have the legal protection of patents, in many cases, they would prefer or tend to keep their inventions secret. Awarding patents generally makes the details of new technology publicly available, for exploitation by anyone after the patent expires, or for further improvement by other inventors. Furthermore, when a patent's term has expired, the public record ensures that the patentee's idea is not lost to humanity.

— Omegatron 13:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If a common ducted electrolyzer is manufactured according to Brown's patents, without the electric arc feature, is it producing Brown's Gas? Or to be precise, would the gas be called common ducted oxyhydrogen rather than Brown's Gas?
Klein's patents says HHO is produced in a single output electrolyzer missing the electric arc feature. Would an electrolyzer manufactured according the Brown's patent, minus the electric arc feature, therefore constitute HHO production? Noah Seidman (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Klein's electrolyzer is based on public domain information published in Brown's patents. Is the info in Brown's patent still public domain, or is it protected by Klein's patent? This is specifically with regard to the "common ducted" feature. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You're assuming that there's actually something to the claims that "Brown's gas" is different from oxyhydrogen, which is different from "Klein's gas". I'd start from just looking at the patents themselves, and decide that Rhodes, Brown, and Klein invented electrolyzers and torches, not types of gas. Instead of talking about "Brown's gas", we should really be talking about "Brown's torch".
But the names "Brown's gas" and so on are common, so we have to describe them and what they mean.
On patents, read up on it yourself.  :) I believe the whole point of the patent system is so that people put their designs into the public domain and, in exchange, are granted a temporary monopoly on their creation. Then anyone else can improve on that public design and get their own patent on the improved design, and so on, with all of it benefiting society. — Omegatron 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Clear, and understood. Well observed. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coatrack

Sorry for interrupting, and even more sorry for not having the time (not to speak of motivitation, online library access, and eventually money) to address the problems with this article myself. As I've said more than once, I'd like to give this a fair hearing, but my resources are limited.

By now this a article is a textbook example of Wikipedia:Coatrack, it is nominally about "Oxyhydrogen", a boring, uncontroversial plain-vanilla topic, but most of its content is about Brown's gas with some Aquaguyen and Santilli thrown in. A topic often related to perpetual motion machines, investor (and consumer) fraud, and junk science.

At this point of time, it would be more honest, to spin off that conten to Brown's gas and endure the deletion discussion which may arise (I specifically promise to not directly or indirectly nominate it for deletion), instead of "hiding" the content unter an unsuspicious lemma.

--Pjacobi (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Create a relevant vote. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We decide things based on good reasons, not votes.
I think it needs to be higher quality before we subject it to the inevitable AfD that a split would bring.
And now that we know more about the subject, I think a split to Water torch might be more appropriate. To my knowledge, Brown didn't claim to have invented a gas, but to have invented a torch. — Omegatron 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Your knowledge is correct. Noah Seidman (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)