Talk:Brown's gas

message: For a future article... — Omegatron 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: "But Brown's gas is the same thing as oxyhydrogen!"
: Then we should have an article called Brown's gas that says, "Brown's gas is claimed to do this and this, but is actually the same thing as oxyhydrogen."
: The AfDs and Deletion Reviews concluded with deletions, but without prejudice against recreations of HHO gas and Brown's gas (which are claimed to be different things) if they are well-written, referenced, neutral, and scientifically accurate.  But it's going to be a crackpot magnet, so let's collect all the references and information on the talk page, first. — Omegatron 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all hoaxes should be documented, and am a little disappointed that this article was deleted. Paul Studier 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To say that Brown's Gas is the same as Oxyhydrogen would be WP:OR. Noah Seidman 18:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "Abstract" of Yull Brown's patent clearly states that Brown's Gas is common ducted oxyhydrogen Noah Seidman 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well actually its not in the "Abstract", but I do believe that the most recent Brown's Gas article stated "common ducted" Noah Seidman 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-emptive argument 

message: * Oppose merge with oxyhydrogen.  Even if they're the same thing, this is notable enough to be a separate article. — Omegatron 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article (if it deserves to exist) should describe the alleged phenomena of Brown's gas different from oxyhydrogen. I think, at least, the oxyhydrogen article should have some mention of Brown's gas and/or HHO gas. I'm not sure what the difference between those two is, the claimed properties of Brown's gas and HHO gas being similar. The way, the truth, and the light 13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you read the HHO journal article, it refers to Brown's gas by name and says they're not the same (see Talk:HHO_gas#Comments), so it wouldn't be neutral of us to put them in the same article, even if they were actually the same substance.  I don't think there should be anything in oxyhydrogen about this except a See also link. — Omegatron 14:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: * Can we find anyone else doing something similar to the atomic welding?  It seems legit, converting electrical energy into heat energy through a chemical reaction, but I'm not an expert.  The patent says that when  molecules are split into 2 H, the atoms absorb 101,000 calories per gram mole.   absorbs 117,000.  On recombination into water, this extra energy is converted into heat (supposedly).  Chemists?
* The patents seem mostly legit, but did Brown make dubious claims outside of the patents?  If not, where did they originate?
* This page says that the flame has little radiant heat. Why would this be?  They also show the same "holding the torch tip" and "waving your hand in the flame" demonstration as the HHO gas people.
* Watch the Dan Haley video very carefully and write down everything he says.  It's pretty unintelligible in parts, so I just added a brief summary. — Omegatron 17:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: Has anyone tried to place their hand even close to an oxyhydrogen flame? The thing is HOT, its basically a perfect hydrogen flame, and Corning uses hydrogen to make glass products (ie. requiring thousands of degrees). Hmmmm, how can you hold your hand right next to a common ducted oxyhydrogen flame as seen in the widespread videos? Does it appear hot? Obviously someone will return with the statement "wishful thinking", to that person I urge them to try the following experiment: place your right hand next to a oxyhydrogen flame, and then your left hand next to a common ducted oxyhydrogen flame. I look forward to the outcome of this experiment. Noah Seidman 04:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People with "common" sense and not some other sense will know when the hand is in front of a flame or not.  The video suggests this.  Or simply suggest that the video itself is a hoax.  Now if one says that the video must have been photoshopped, I feel really sorry for that person.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot 

message: Everyone argues that oxyhydrogen is H2 and O2!! Therefore chromatography of oxyhydrogen would show AMU peaks at 2 and 32. The Santilli HHO article shows chromatography peaks at AMUs other than 2 and 32, such as peaks at 5, 12, 14, and 15. Is this paper a lie and was it conjured? Is the chromatography data a forgery? Noah Seidman 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument is not applicable to any Brown's Gas article that may emerge because: It reflects my opinion that the GC data is representative of Brown's Gas. Noah Seidman 16:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chromatography