ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th May 2006, 10:00 AM   #1
calladus
Critical Thinker
 
calladus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 331
Denny Klein - Fuel from Water - Is this a scam?

One of my co-workers send me information on a Denny Klein who has just applied for a patent on a water to fuel technology.

He says he's discovered a 'new property' of water (which I take as a buzzword for 'fraud'). He calls his discovery HHO (as apposed to H2O)

The problem is that I don't know near enough chemistry to figure out if this guy is talking out of his hat.

Anyone want to look at this guy's claims?

His patent application number is: 20060075683 and can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/np2hn from the USPTO search function located at:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html

There's a Wiki that contains a Fox News video at:
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:...#Video_Feature

And Klein's web site is at:
http://hytechapps.com/


I guess it's time to crack open my old Chemistry text book.
__________________
Calladus
calladus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 10:05 AM   #2
ChristineR
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,189
HOH is more correct way of writing it, as its actually a hydrogen atom bonded to a hydroxide ion. I like hydrogen hydroxide better than the more common "dihydron monoxide."
__________________
Avatar (c) Neopets.com
ChristineR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 11:09 AM   #3
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,514
It sure sounds like a scam!

A few excerpts from their web site ...

When the H2O Model 1500 Aquygen™ Gas Generator is used as a gas welder, Aquygen™ Gas can weld, cut, braze, solder, metal clad and fuse materials such as ceramics, metals, cermets, glass, plastics and inter-metallic materials together, such as metal-to-metal, metal to glass, ferrous to non*ferrous, and dissimilar metals to each other, which is a true fusion process heretofore unavailable.

How one could weld metal to glass to plastic to cement is beyond me. I have never even heard of such a thing being theorized.

Our technology centers on the ability to generate a unique type of hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture (a "unique gas", which we call "Aquygen™" gas) on demand from a lightweight, compact machine that uses the water electrolysis process as its underlying technology basis.

This unique gas is infinitely stable until it comes in contact with a select target media. Then it sublimates, causing a molecular surface exchange of certain elements, reacting with such excitation as to cause temperatures of up to 10,000° F, the temperature of our Sun's surface, which is currently the limits of our ability to measure.


An infinitely stable gas? That sure is weird.

Also, their fuel is apparently nothing more than a special mix of hydrogen and oxygen; but I have no idea (nor does the web site spell out) how this mix can reach such high temperatures without the use of some very, very specialized equipment.

Finally, they are selling 'Licenses' so that one can become a dealer for their company. One often sees this trick on scam web sites.
__________________
On 10 JUN 2014, 'Gaeten’ claimed that it was Satan who provided the Ten Commandments to Moses. “This is not God who gave the Moses law to Moses but Satan, and the reason why he did that is because he wants people to go to hell.”
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...6#post10065066

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 11:38 AM   #4
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,212
I also don't have any special insight into what they are talking about but if one wanted to make something sound like a scam, this sight might be a good source of ideas.

This from the site:
Quote:
The ability to create this stable, unique gas on demand from a water electrochemical generator is of great strategic importance, especially because (1) it offers a workable energy level per pound of fuel that is ten-to-twelve times that of gasoline; (2) when combusted/ignited, it causes no hydrocarbon effluents such as NOX, nitrites, nitrates, etc., and (3) its by-product from combustion is pure, environmentally-friendly water.
According to several web sites burning hydrogen produces about three times as much energy as burning gasoline per equivalent mass. So the energy density (by mass) of their gas is about three times higher than pure hydrogen. The other claims are a little dodgy also. Burning hydrogen doesn't produce hydrocarbons because hydrogen doesn't contain carbon but burning hydrogen in the air does produce NOX (which I don't believe are classified as hydrocarbons). If their gas consisted of a mix of hydrogen and oxygen it wouldn't produce NOX when it was burned because the hydrogen was being burned in a pure oxygen environment. But if they were doing that then one would expect the energy density of their gas to be much lower.

So amongst the properties of their gas are:
1. burning it produces pure water
2. it has three times the energy density of pure hydrogen

So from this we can conclude that their gas isn't hydrogen or a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen because the energy density is so high and that their gas is hydrogen because burning it produces water.
davefoc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 11:55 AM   #5
TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
 
TobiasTheViking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,923
total woo
HHO == HOH == OHH == H2O

There is no difference

it is like saying:
I've found a new property of water (2*2*4), instead of combining it as usual water (2*2*4) we combine it like this (2*4*2) and thus get AMAZING NEW ABILITIES.

In case you haven't done math in some time 2*4*2 == 2*2*4.

Same difference.

Total woo.
__________________
He pricked me with his prick that prick - NobbyNobbs
Endearingly Obnoxious - Rebecca Watson
TobiasTheViking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 12:16 PM   #6
patnray
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,008
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
This unique gas is infinitely stable until it comes in contact with a select target media. Then it sublimates, causing a molecular surface exchange of certain elements, reacting with such excitation as to cause temperatures of up to 10,000° F, the temperature of our Sun's surface, which is currently the limits of our ability to measure.[/i]
I'd be interested in knowing how a gas sublimates since sublimation is the process of changing directly from solid to gas without going through a liquid phase (like dry ice).

And we can surely measure temperatures hotter than the sun's surface...
__________________
Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
A powerful and moving story of a strong and courageous woman’s struggle to free herself from a culture that treats women as property. Despite repeated death threats from religious zealots, she campaigns tirelessly for the rights of Muslim women. A tearful, chilling, yet inspiring, tale of personal triumph and dedication to free expression.
patnray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 12:26 PM   #7
Alkatran
Muse
 
Alkatran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 559
Originally Posted by patnray View Post
And we can surely measure temperatures hotter than the sun's surface...
No kidding. Even if all our 'thermometers' maxed out at some value, we could just measure from further away and extrapolate the real value. GAH!
__________________
Don't pay attention to this signature: it's contradictory.
Alkatran is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 06:32 PM   #8
Meffy
Anthropomorphic Skunk
 
Meffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,232
Originally Posted by patnray View Post
I'd be interested in knowing how a gas sublimates since sublimation is the process of changing directly from solid to gas without going through a liquid phase (like dry ice).
Maybe this is a new kind of sublimation -- conversion into subtle matter. I'd have preferred sublime matter but I've never heard of any such thing.

Then again... *googles* Ah. I should've known. Every time I try to come up with an idea too far-fetched to have been thought of before, I fail. Sublime matter seems to be involved in spiritualism. :-S

Righty then, conversion into sublime matter it is.

(BTW, back in the days when football fields were made of real grass, turf was a kind of sublime matter.)
Meffy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 06:49 PM   #9
anor277
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by TobiasTheCommie View Post
total woo
HHO == HOH == OHH == H2O

There is no difference

it is like saying:
I've found a new property of water (2*2*4), instead of combining it as usual water (2*2*4) we combine it like this (2*4*2) and thus get AMAZING NEW ABILITIES.

In case you haven't done math in some time 2*4*2 == 2*2*4.

Same difference.

Total woo.

As written H-H-O would be a distinct chemical entity from H-O-H, even if their chemical formulae are the same. Only problem is that the H-H-O molecule is unknown. If Denny Klein has isolated this species he will probably be hailed as the inorganic chemist of the century.
anor277 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 10:35 PM   #10
Timothy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 545
Originally Posted by calladus View Post
One of my co-workers send me information on a Denny Klein who has just applied for a patent on a water to fuel technology.
Please remember that the existence of a patent application has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of any claim.

If I wanted to, I could pay the bucks and show you a similar patent application for my quantum-levitating-psychic-astrological-orb-generator-and-combination-wand-for-turning-lead-into-gold.

All an application means is that someone took the time and expense to file an application. It appears as if this patent application was filed to be able to try to fool the gullible using the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Even a granted patent does not necessarily mean the device works. I've seen a patent for a perpetual motion machine, sufficiently cloaked in technical mumbo-jumbo. All it means was that the design, as stated, was original and did not infringe on a previous patent.

- Timothy
Timothy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 10:49 PM   #11
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,685
Sounds like a recycling of the old Brown's Gas claims that never went anywhere.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 11:00 PM   #12
Oldpossum
Scholar
 
Oldpossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 78
Compleate and utter woo......

Well maybe not compleatly, as there was once apon a time, a welding gas, known as Brown's Gas.
This gas was moderatly stable under normal operating conditions, but cylinders of this gas had an unfortunate tendency to wander into the realm of Exothermic instability, when their contents pressure fell below, iirc, 200 psi.

ie the cylinders had a nasty tendency to blow up, if close to empty.

Hence the very brief existance of the gas mixture for commercial applications, before it promptly disapeared back into obscurity.

Other than that minor defect, Brown's gas gave a very hot, clean flame, and was suitible to be used to weld/cut all sorts of material, and could even be used for welding/cutting ceramics/glass.
And you only had to invest in one cylinder, regulator, and hose!
So much more convenient to lug around that two seperate cylinders of oxygen and fuel!

And more to the point the only oxidation byproduct was.......












Water

Yes, Brown's Gas was a mix of 11% Hydrogen in Oxygen.
Oldpossum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2006, 11:41 PM   #13
Ririon
Cool cat
 
Ririon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,063
A product, too good to be true, that will probably kill any costumer... How Dilbert-esque.
__________________
Engineer by day, scientist by night.
Ririon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2006, 12:00 PM   #14
calladus
Critical Thinker
 
calladus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by Timothy View Post
Please remember that the existence of a patent application has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of any claim.
- Timothy
As the holder of a couple of Engineering patents, and from doing a lot of patent research, I can attest to that.

The only hard & fast rule the USPO seems to have, is no perpetual motion machines. However, they don't seem to have a problem with perpetual energy machines.

Patent's don't mean that something works, they just give the holder exclusive rights to sell their device for a period of time. Whether they sell a wonderful product or snake oil is up to them.
__________________
Calladus
calladus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2006, 02:13 PM   #15
Yuri Nalyssus
Graduate Poster
 
Yuri Nalyssus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,330
Originally Posted by ChristineR View Post
HOH is more correct way of writing it, as its actually a hydrogen atom bonded to a hydroxide ion. I like hydrogen hydroxide better than the more common "dihydron monoxide."
You're very blase about such a deadly chemical - see http://www.dhmo.org/.

Yuri
__________________
www.rationalvetmed.org/ - because nothing is as good as homeopathy...
Yuri Nalyssus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2006, 03:11 PM   #16
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,605
Originally Posted by anor277 View Post
As written H-H-O would be a distinct chemical entity from H-O-H, even if their chemical formulae are the same. Only problem is that the H-H-O molecule is unknown. If Denny Klein has isolated this species he will probably be hailed as the inorganic chemist of the century.
Define "isolated"?

I actually know of a way to study the isolated, gas-phase molecule (you can access it by photodetaching the oxygen anion-hydrogen cluster, although making that cluster requires pretty good cooling). Definately the isolated molecule. Definately not bulk material.
__________________
"Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay."

(Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2006, 03:15 PM   #17
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,605
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Also, their fuel is apparently nothing more than a special mix of hydrogen and oxygen; but I have no idea (nor does the web site spell out) how this mix can reach such high temperatures without the use of some very, very specialized equipment.
It depends on the heat capacity of the material. If the material in question has a low heat capacity, then it wouldn't be too much of a challenge to get the temperature up. Burning hydrogen is extremely exothermic, and is also very rapid (a hydrogen/oxygen mixture explodes much more rapidly than pure hydrogen). Therefore, if you can direct the combustion, you can get pretty hot.
__________________
"Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay."

(Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2006, 04:34 AM   #18
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,212
Based on some reading on various Brown's gas sites I think I understand the claims a little bit better.

As was suggested the site referenced claims are so similar to Brown's gas claims as to make it seem very likely that this is what they are talking about although for their own purposes they seem to have changed some of the terminology in an attempt to hide that fact.

There seem to be three common basic claims for Brown's gas:
1. Browns's gas consists of a stoichiometric of monatomic oxygen and hydrogen.
2. The Brown's gas electrolysis process produces this mixture of monatomic oxygen and hydrogen whereas a normal electrolysis process produces mostly diatomic oxygen and diatomic hydrogen.
3. The mostly monatomic gas produces substantially more energy when it is burned because the oxygen doesn't need to break down into monatomic oxygen before combining with the hydrogen to make water.

I don't know enough ehemistry to be able to comment on the above claims. It does appear that it is possible to make a mixture of largely monatomic oxygen. Apparently NASA has developed a process for that because they have developed a device for cleaining old paintings with a jet of monatomic oxygen. The idea is that monatomic oxygen is super reactive and it combines rapidly with some substances so as to remove them from the painting. In one demonstration they showed a jet of monatomic oxygen being used to remove lipstick.

I couldn't find anything on the web that talked about the increased energy produced by a reactiion with monatomic oxygen as opposed to diatomic oxygen. I also didn't find anything that addressed the claims that monatomic oxygen was produced by the Brown's gas electrolysis process that wasn't some kind of Brown's gas site.

Wikipedia had a somwhat skeptical overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_gas

Last edited by davefoc; 14th May 2006 at 04:40 AM.
davefoc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2006, 04:55 AM   #19
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 19,860
I would have thought that as soon as two oxygen atoms meet they will react and form an oxygen molecule.

Also be very hard to get oxygen atoms.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2006, 07:38 AM   #20
Meffy
Anthropomorphic Skunk
 
Meffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,232
Yowsah, I'm surprised/puzzled too.
Meffy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2006, 10:37 AM   #21
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,717
Lightbulb I am quite laughing here

The only monoatomic gas which exists in stable state I know of, are rare gas.
This is a simple question of their surrounding outer sheel. IIRC, O is S2S2P4, which with another O will make a nice sigma and Pi bond, but will certainly not be unreactive in presence of unbonded other Oxygens. Imagine 2 radical together in a gas....

Imagining this is a ionic gas in stable condition is even worse. O2- and H+ won't stay really alone in a gas bottle if you do not make a plasma. They will recombinate.

Plus the claim is quite LAUGHABLE :
Quote:
The new combustible gas is comprised of clusters of hydrogen and oxygen atoms structured according to a general formula H.sub.mO.sub.n wherein m and n have null or positive integer values with the exception that m and n can not be 0 at the same time, and wherein said combustible gas has a varying energy content depending on its use.
In other word the gas might as well be defined as a mixture of H2 (m=2, n=0) and O2 (m=0 and n=2) , with two O atomic clustered together (in an O2 molecule) and same for H clustered together in a molecule. There are no other gas configuration which are stable (even H2O would be quite liquid if I remmember correctly my phase diagram at high pressure and normal temperature).

In other word, since the claimant DID NOT WANT to say this is freakingly simple misture of H2 O2 molecule he came up with a verbiage which can muddle the meaning for a normal people (investor venture for example). Any true chemist recognize it for what it is. He make a lot of claim of structure with different weight (16,17 I bet he is doing mass spectroscopy which could explain it) but since I can't see any picture/figure especially NMR or infrared one I can't see how he came to the claim. Nonetheless having such structure in a gas at normal temp and high pressure without reaction would be quite surprising. ButI am ready to eat my hat if I am wrong, after all this is more than 15 years I did not do chemistery.

If the claim from this guy were ture he would get a nobel immediatly (for non valente bond at those PVT conditions), and the whole world would pill money in his arms. Funny how no scientific came with this new form of water combustile but he could.

Even if this guy came with a GREAT way to make a mixture of H2+O2 , YOU CANNOT GET MORE ENERGY RECOMBINING WATER THAN YOU DID SPLITTING IT. At best this is a zero gain (you put as much as you get) and you only us O2 and h2 for storage (which is the most interresting application). So if he has such a great way of splitting water, why hide it behind new structure which do not follow valence rules (SIC) ??? THis is a SCAM.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2006, 09:46 PM   #22
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,212
It seems that the author of the site referenced in the opening post is probably full of crap. Exactly why he didn't mention the Brown's gas connection to his product isn't clear, but perhaps he felt that giving a new name to an old scam was a good idea.

But could there be anything to the Brown's gas claims?

It does appear to be possible to produce a stable stream of monatomic oxygen. From a NASA site:
Quote:
... In this apparatus, monatomic oxygen is generated in a dc arc in a mixture of oxygen flowing at rate of 0.1 to 0.2 L/min and helium flowing at a rate of 4.3 L/min. The role of the helium is to inhibit the recombination of monatomic oxygen into diatomic oxygen.

from this site: http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/June01/LEW16971.html

But in the NASA product it was necessary to surround the monatomic oxygen with helium. Could hydrogen serve the same purpose? I don't know but I couldn't find any confirming data for the idea.

And I did find this web site which seems to shoot down just about every aspect of the Brown's gas claims including its usefulness as a fuel for welding torches.

http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

One interesting thing I noticed from the site was that somebody had tried to explain the anomalous characteristics of Brown's gas as being caused by hydrinos. It would seem to be better before writing a research paper to explain a parituclar effect that one actualy have a real effect to explain. But Mr.
Ymamoto did not seem to be so constrained. He seems to have written a research paper to explain an effect which doesn't exist with a cause that doesn't exist. At least he had symetry going for him.





Last edited by davefoc; 14th May 2006 at 09:49 PM.
davefoc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2006, 10:42 PM   #23
Dilb
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 738
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
[size=2]It does appear to be possible to produce a stable stream of monatomic oxygen.
That's not stable, it just doesn't have time to recombine before it hits the painting. Trying to stop oxygen from reacting by using hydrogen would simply cause the hydrogen to burn.

The only stable monatomic gases are the noble gases, and even some of those can be made to react anyway, admittedly only with highly reactive elements. It's something like having a box full of magnets (->atoms) that you can shake around (->are moving with thermal energy). The magnets will automatically bond together, and there's no way to stop that over any reasonable length of time.
Dilb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2006, 11:41 PM   #24
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,717
Exactly

This is why in my own post I suppose we have a bottle of highly pressurised at stable temperature Gas. If you start having plasma, or latticed Ice, or what not other unstable condition, all bet are off. Hell, I should know because I studdied some strange compound in latticed dry ice using infrared specter, on what was at that time 15 years ago one out of 3 rare infrared long path spectrometer in the world (at least that is what the ad for labor in the university said...). And the previous year I had studied a way using gas of H2 and CH4 to get the temperature of a plasma and alpha constant, when we were fabricating diamond lens. Heck I even played with other more exotic element like sulfoxyde in latice.

You can do every kind of stuff in non stable condition. but as soon as you go back to a stable equilibrum in normal PST you are SOL. In other word this guy throw claim like "non valence bond" without explaining why in the hell electrolyse of water would suddenly start building new compound, and why those new compound are stable.

Verdict : SCAM.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2006, 12:11 AM   #25
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,717
Their scientific (unpublished) paper is even more funny

They have for example what looks like water vapor spectra with gas. Orbital which are localised like thoroid. As a quantum physiker I can only both laugh myself dead, and at the same time give a lot of admiration. This really look like a scientific paper. And can certainly lead somebody to think this is real. But a give away is figure 14. The H2 molecules. They look like small sphere together, but in reality the electron density does not look like that : it would looke like a big lump in the middle of the 2 H (for e- density) (for those which want to google for reference : google fo sigma bond in molecular dihidrogen).

I have to bow down, those guy made a wonderful paper. scammer make relly a good job.

PS: the article is funny and full of far more "problem" I just choose one which spring to my eye when skip-reading.

Last edited by Aepervius; 15th May 2006 at 12:31 AM. Reason: RTA : PS
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 12:05 AM   #26
Oldpossum
Scholar
 
Oldpossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 78
Now Brown's Gas supposedly being a mixture of Monoatomic Oxygen and hydrogen I had not heard of before, and as someone else has already pointed out, such a claim is compleate horse manure.
There is no way a monoatomic H or O is going to exist for more than a microsecond before combining with something in the environment, and if generated by electrolysis, this is most likely another H or O, to form the regular, stable diatomic gas.

The Brown's gas I have briefly (as humanly posssible) come in contact with was a mix of 11% H2 in O2, and was freaking dangerous stuff.
I go rid of it as soon as possible after a co-worker found a 7 m3 cylinder of it in an old lab, that someone long ago, had been using for some now forgotten experiment.
Oldpossum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2006, 11:47 AM   #27
nseidm1
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3
Without further X-ray analysis, the best explanation is that Brown's Gas consists of electrically expanded water. When water is electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen are produced, if the hydrogen and oxygen are allowed to recombine in the presence of conductive material it will form water and electricty, such is the operation of a fuel cell. Brown's Gas is the result of allowing hydrogen and oxygen to recombine while not in the presence of conductive material.
nseidm1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2006, 12:05 PM   #28
Ririon
Cool cat
 
Ririon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,063
Originally Posted by nseidm1 View Post
Without further X-ray analysis, the best explanation is that Brown's Gas consists of electrically expanded water. When water is electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen are produced, if the hydrogen and oxygen are allowed to recombine in the presence of conductive material it will form water and electricty, such is the operation of a fuel cell. Brown's Gas is the result of allowing hydrogen and oxygen to recombine while not in the presence of conductive material.
Welcome, but I'm afraid: NO. Sorry.
__________________
Engineer by day, scientist by night.
Ririon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2006, 12:21 PM   #29
gfunkusarelius
Critical Thinker
 
gfunkusarelius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 442
sorry if i have missed something obvious here, but i am just wondering, if this "fuel source" is totally bogus, what is this guy doing? is he a total fraud? is his "hybrid" car actually just a gas car with a coupl eof additions to make a layperson think "yep, its runnin on water." or is he just doing something that is easily explainable and not really useful? just curious because the news program was seriously scammed if he is just a trcikster.
gfunkusarelius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2006, 01:37 PM   #30
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,212
Originally Posted by gfunkusarelius View Post
sorry if i have missed something obvious here, but i am just wondering, if this "fuel source" is totally bogus, what is this guy doing? is he a total fraud? is his "hybrid" car actually just a gas car with a coupl eof additions to make a layperson think "yep, its runnin on water." or is he just doing something that is easily explainable and not really useful? just curious because the news program was seriously scammed if he is just a trcikster.
I think there are several questions that are part of your overall question:

1. Are this guy's claims basically the same as the Brown's gas claims.

It seems so.

2. Is there any significant Brown's gas claims that are true:

Probably not. See the responses from several people in this thread plus some of the links including this one:
http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

3. Is this guy committing knowing fraud or is he a dupe himself. I lean to knowing fraud. He didn't mention Brown's gas probably because he realized that those claims had been thoroughly debunked. His claims concerning his welding gear are easily tested and it seems unlikely that he would be unaware of the failure of those tests.

4. Is there any purpose for a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen?

A guy by the name of William A. Rhodes patented the concept eleven years before the Brown's gas patents. It does seem that a hydrogen/oxygen mixture can be used for welding, but I couldn't find anything on the net that sounded like a legitimate source that promoted Rhodes/Brown's gas mixtures for any welding purposes.

__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2006, 07:07 AM   #31
nseidm1
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3
My statement was not a question. It is based on my research observations, and an interpretation of research done by a Dr. Anders Nillson at Stanford University that has recently been mentioned in an article written about his work published in the Wall Street Journal on Friday March 10th on the front page. My statement is one of many competing theories that all have potential to explain how the properties of Brown's Gas (HHO, Hydrogen Based Fuel) come to be. More research is required to determine how its properties come to be, but it is undeniable that Brown's Gas can be used as a carbon fuel enhancer, and a torch fuel. As a torch fuel Brown's Gas technologies have been used in industry for the past several decades, and now using Brown's Gas as a carbon fuel enhancer is starting to catch on as well.
nseidm1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2006, 07:11 AM   #32
nseidm1
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3
Buy a Brown's Gas torch to find out why its impressive technology.
Put a Brown's Gas generator in a vehicle and tweak your air fuel mixture. See what happens to your MPG.

Dont look on the internet for what other people have done, do it for yourself.
nseidm1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2006, 07:26 AM   #33
JamesM
Graduate Poster
 
JamesM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by nseidm1 View Post
My statement was not a question. It is based on my research observations, and an interpretation of research done by a Dr. Anders Nillson at Stanford University
Perhaps you could expand on what aspects of Nilsson's work you think provides support for the concept of 'electrically expanded water' - I just looked up his recent publications and I couldn't see anything relevant.
__________________
"When we type away on discussion boards and post comments on our blogs, it feels like we’re sitting outside a pub in the evening sunshine with our attractive, cool friends – but we aren’t. That’s something we used to do before we got addicted to the internet." - Jon Ronson
JamesM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2006, 07:28 AM   #34
DALAYNE
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5
It seems to me that there are some of you out there who want to write this off as a scam without thinking about what he is really doing. Previous posts have made the point that it appears to be Brown's gas, and that it has problems exploding when storage tanks are low. The process that makes it viable is that he is not storing the gas, but using it as it is produced, thereby removing the risks. I don't expect this to be the one great thing that helps us not be dependent on fossil fuel, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. I sincerely hope that he is successful and continues his research in this field.
DALAYNE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2006, 09:03 AM   #35
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,212
Originally Posted by DALAYNE View Post
It seems to me that there are some of you out there who want to write this off as a scam without thinking about what he is really doing. Previous posts have made the point that it appears to be Brown's gas, and that it has problems exploding when storage tanks are low. The process that makes it viable is that he is not storing the gas, but using it as it is produced, thereby removing the risks. I don't expect this to be the one great thing that helps us not be dependent on fossil fuel, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. I sincerely hope that he is successful and continues his research in this field.
Hi DALAYNE and welcome to the forum,

Making Brown's gas on the fly instead of storing it seems not to be unigue to this guy's claims.

For instance:
http://www.energyoptions.com/tech/browns.html

I don't think anybody wants to write this off as a scam in the sense we wouldn't like to see evidence of a new physical phenomena or evidence of a process that can replace gasoline or evidence of a new useful invention like the welding machine described on the site.

However, there are numerous reasons to be skeptical of the claims from this web site. Among them:

1. Tie in to Brown's gas not mentioned and yet the claims and the approach are very similar. Why wouldn't this inventor credit those who have gone before?

2. The Brown's gas patent has been around since 1977 so there is nothing pariticularly new here and yet there are no devices based on Brown's gas except for the welding machines. But even the welding machines don't seem to have any significant industry useage or acceptance. Why not? The most likely explanation is that Brown's gas welders don't offer significant advantages over existing technology.

3. Claims of much larger than normal energy production or efficiency are relatively easy to verify by independent test labs. Where are the reports from independent test labs about this guy's claims of larger than normal energy production from the burning of his gas mixture?

4. A patent for a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen predates the Brown's gas claims and that patent holder, (Rhodes), doesn't believe there is anything to the claims for Brown's gas.

5. The nature of the guy's claims suggest devices with the potential to be extremely valuable. Why hasn't a major company picked up on the guy's claims and attempted to exploit them?

This is a site I came across promoting Brown's gas welding machines but it seems to have a comprehensive list of links to sites on the web that have to do with Brown's Gas:
http://www.eagle-research.com/Links/BG/bglink.html

Last edited by davefoc; 18th May 2006 at 09:13 AM.
davefoc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2006, 09:04 AM   #36
Ririon
Cool cat
 
Ririon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,063
Originally Posted by nseidm1 View Post
Buy a Brown's Gas torch to find out why its impressive technology.
Put a Brown's Gas generator in a vehicle and tweak your air fuel mixture. See what happens to your MPG.

Dont look on the internet for what other people have done, do it for yourself.
So... You electrolyze water in your car. That takes energy. And it is not 100 % efficient. Then you burn the hydrogen (and oxygen? ) in your car engine. That is certainly not very efficient, so you will not be close to getting back the energy you just used to make the hydrogen and oxygen. Add to that the weight you have added to your car by installing the system.

This is dangerous, hurts your fuel efficiency and can damage your car engine. That is what I found out without using the internet. It has no positive side that I can see whatsoever and several negative sides even before we start talking about cost. What am I missing?
__________________
Engineer by day, scientist by night.
Ririon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2006, 09:42 AM   #37
macgyver
Bacontologist
 
macgyver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 317
Trying to improve efficiency is admirable in internal combustion engines, but I'm not sure how that's going to be accomplished without re-engineering the engine for this new HHO/carbon fuel mixture? Otherwise, how is this any different than say NO2 injection?

Perhaps if energy during braking was somehow captured and used to produce the gas?

I've read that one of the problems with Brown's gas is that it has a tendency to oxidize what it comes in contact with (not surprisingly). This makes it useless as a welding fuel because the resulting welds are brittle. I can only imagine a similar occurance within the combustion chamber as well, unless some form of modification is made (ceramics perhaps?).

I have a lot of suspicion around a simple "plug and play" approach....how do modern Oxygen sensors and air/fuel computers react to this new fuel mixture?
macgyver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2006, 09:56 AM   #38
ChristineR
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,189
Mythbusters tried it, and the car wouldn't even run. Of course they may not have "tweaked" it right.
__________________
Avatar (c) Neopets.com
ChristineR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2006, 06:49 PM   #39
Dilb
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 738
Originally Posted by nseidm1 View Post
My statement is one of many competing theories that all have potential to explain how the properties of Brown's Gas (HHO, Hydrogen Based Fuel) come to be.
The problem is that there's nothing to explain. It's a mixture of diatomic hydrogen and oxygen. Every property is perfectly understood within classical thermodynamics. Futhermore, your "theory" so grossly misunderstands fuel cells and basic chemistry that it's utterly rediculous.

The best explanation, which is usually presented to little children as a science demonstration of why oxygen is good for burning things, it that combining oxygen and hydrogen gives you an explosion.
Dilb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2006, 12:06 PM   #40
Hindmost
Illuminator
 
Hindmost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,317
This guy has been using techno-babble that would make Douglas Adams proud to try to fool people into buying his machine. Chemistry and thermodynamics will not support Brown's gas or Aquygen™ Gas claims. Water cannot be split into hydrogen and oxygen with electricity and then recombined into water without losing some energy in the process. Entropy still rules. And chemistry won't allow HHO to even form. I think he used to claim govt/oil company conspiracy to keep this away from the public. This has standard woo engraved in its claims. If you still believe in the claims, take a thermodynamics class and a basic chemistry class. Your money would be better spent.

glenn
__________________
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Carl Sagan
Hindmost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.