Spoken like one of those guys who told the Wright Brothers,..."If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings."
"Spoken like one of those guys" who understands potential energy.
Spoken like one of those guys who told the Wright Brothers,..."If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings."
No, spoken like one of those guys who knows physics and chemistry, as well as the techniques and hallmarks of con men.
But hey, you go right ahead and send this guy your $7000, so I can laugh at you when it doesn't deliver what he promises.
And I wrote that before I went to look at the "scientific paper" on their website. It's complete gobbledygook. It frequently confuses watts with watt-hours (something a freshman physics student would get an "F" for). It claims a lab "measured the specific weight" of their magic substance as "12.3 grams/mole", when that's entirely the wrong units for specific weight (specific weight is measured per *volume*, not molecule count), *and* that value would imply that a substantial amount of mass is vanishing into thin air (instead of mysteriously *appearing* as they incorrectly say), since water in any form or any rearrangement of its atoms will have a molar weight (*NOT* "specific weight", which is something else entirely) of 18 grams/mole. They then go on to incorrectly calculate the "specific weight" of a *mixture* of different molecules (that's a no-no) by figuring the *average* molar mass, which makes no sense whatsoever. Then they do an apples-to-oranges comparison and subtract the bogus average molar mass of the mixture from the alleged molar mass of their magic gas to "show" that mass has somehow "increased", when all they've really shown is that if you juggle numbers in a nonsensical way you'll get nonsensical and meaningless "answers".
Then there's this lulu:
The first remarkable feature is the efficiency E of the electrolyzer for the production of the gas, here simply defined as the ratio between the volume of HHO gas produced and the number of Watts needed for its production. In fact, the electrolyzer rapidly converts water into 55 standard cubic feet (scf) of HHO gas at 35 pounds per square inch (psi) via the use of 5 Kwh, resulting in the remarkable efficiency of 55/5,000 = 0.001 scf/W, namely, an efficiency that is at least of the order of ten times the corresponding efficiency of conventional water evaporation, thus permitting low production costs.Um, "water evaporation"? I thought they were claiming some sort of *electrolysis*. Did they just admit that all they're doing is producing water vapor, or are they just too stupid to understand the difference between evaporation and electrolysis? Furthermore, an "efficiency" of 0.001 scf/W ([sic] -- yet again they're cluelessly shifting back and forth between watts and watt-hours -- this one should have been "W-h" not "W", because it makes no freaking sense the way it's written) is truly crappy, not the "remarkable efficiency" they spin it as -- if you used a standard hotplate, you could evaporate over a hundred times that much water per watt-hour of energy. And while they're trying to spin 5 Kwh as a tiny trickle of energy, it's *huge* -- it's the amount of energy you'd use to run a space heater for HOURS. Imagine that kind of drain on your car's electrical system...
And so on. The whole paper's a word salad of fancy-sounding terms and numbers which make no sense when you take the time to actually read them.
Here's another howler from their website:
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, [...]Man, where do I start? First, if it's "infinitely stable", then it won't react at all, but they're claiming it does, so it's not infinitely stable after all. Then they say it "sublimates" -- um, no it doesn't. They say it's a gas -- gases can't sublimate. Sublimation is the name for the process which occurs when a SOLID turns into a gas without going through a liquid state in between (like the way dry ice evaporates directly without melting into a liquid). There's no way that they can produce a gas and then have it "sublimate" -- this makes no freaking sense.
As for the "demos", there's plenty of ways to rig them. I note that the two car "tests" involved a direct injection into the engine's intake ports. Given the short length of the tests (50 miles), which would involve only two gallons of gas consumption for the car *without* any assistance, it would take only a gallon or two of conventional fuel smuggled into the engine from one of the mysterious tanks in that big box-of-junk they claim is their mystery generator in order to boost the "fuel efficiency" of the car by 50% to 100%.
As for the welding trick, if they injected excess oxygen into their mix (beyond what their fuel actually consumed when completely burning), the flame itself could be relatively cool (depending on what they were actually using for fuel), but the moment it touched something that could be oxidized, the heat of the flame would trigger rapid oxydation of the material, and it would fiercely flare up like, well, something burning in pure oxygen. Ta daa!
Actually, no one ever said that to the Wright Brothers. The comment is much much older than that, going back to the time of Otto Lillienthal and his hang gliders, that provided the basic science and principles of Heavier-Than-Air Flight.
All the engineering was in place for powered flight by the mid 1890s. There was no doubt that within the next 20 years, someone would build a powered aircraft. All that was missing was a (relatively) lightweight power source. This came from auto/motorcyle development, and once it became practical, it was simply a bet as to who would do it first, the Wrights, Glenn Curtis, Karl Jatho, Alberto Santos-Dumont, or Louis Bleriot.
This is a different situation. The early flight pioneers based their engineering on proven, well known scientific theories that had been demonstrated hundreds of times in manned gliders. The questionable ‘Browns Gas’ has no theory to back it up, such as a description of the ‘Browns Gas’ molecule, it’s atomic compostion (how it’s put together different than water), etc.... If it simply separates hydrogen and oxygen, those element’s properties have been well known for quite a long time, and they do not match the behavior of ‘Browns Gas’. How about a mathematical formula on how the ‘Browns Gas’ produces energy? There are none, not even on the Patent Applications.
With all due respect to Dr. Brown, the Emperor still has no clothes on....