Dear readers, here is some correspondence from the 'free energy' egroup:   --------------------------   >>--- In free_energy@y..., George Wiseman <wiseman@e...> wrote: >>We work hard to dispel the Myth that BG can power vehicles.   >One major missing fact is missing from Bob Parks story. >How many joules of electricity does it take to electrolysise the water.   This is exactly right. This is where people have gotten 'taken' in the past, because they didn't understand the relationships between how much power it takes to make BG compared to how much usable power you can get out of it. We get such questions a lot. We work hard to dispel the Myth that BG can power vehicles. It is true that internal combustion engines run extremely well on a diet of pure BG (which is explosive used this way). However, with the most efficient technology I know, the amount of power required to produce the BG is still several times more than the power the engine can produce while operating on BG.   Our retail machines operate at about 3 watt-hours per liter of Brown's Gas STP. This has been independently tested by a renowned research lab in Toronto. This is measuring the TOTAL power drawn from the wall and contains all power supply inefficiencies. This is considerably more efficient than the obsolete technology promoted by Dennis Lee, which (according to my tests) runs close to 6 watt-hours per liter of BG.   NOTE:   Brown's Gas can be used to increase the efficiency of combustion of carbon based fuels. This has been well proven with many studies, many of them by NASA. A tiny amount of BG, created by the engine's alternator can improve combustion efficiency so significantly that the power used is more than made up for by the power gained. Typically this gain was somewhere about 5%, not enough to get excited over. With our innovations, people can expect 10% gains; this is enough to be interesting. This technology can increase the efficiency of external combustion too.   >Right. Converting electrical energy to mechanical energy by >electrolyzing water and then feeding the resulting hydrogen to an >internal combustion engine is always going to be inefficient because >of the heat conversion step. Electric motors do the job far more >simply, and at very high efficiency.   Exactly. Further, although Brown's Gas can be used to create a very pure vacuum, mechanical vacuum pumps (driven by electric motors) do so several times more efficiently. So I add 'potential' applications that simply use vacuum, like food dehydration, to the 'impractical' list.   >So, while we're dispelling myths about "Brown's Gas", how about >dispelling the persistent myth that it consists of monatomic hydrogen >and monatomic oxygen? Even when pure, monatomic hydrogen and oxygen >are both *far* too reactive to be stable at anything approaching >standard temperatures and pressures, much less when mixed with each >other.   I'd love to prove or dispel this myth. So far, tests have been inconclusive. Gas spectrometer does show bumps at 1 and 16, indicating monatomic hydrogen and oxygen. We also find a substantial bump at 18, (indicating water moisture) in a gas that was dried. So far, the only thing I can say with certainty is that we are producing about 30% more gas volume than we should, assuming diatomic hydrogen and oxygen according to Faraday equations. 1 liter of water (from our electrolyzers) will make about 1200 liters of BG STP. Since we cannot explain this consistent anomaly, we are examining any theory we come across, without prejudice, till we can actually find out what's going on. I suspect it won't take too much longer, maybe a year or so.   Brown's Gas has been used commercially since the early 1960's, mostly in the jewelry industry as micro-torches. We are the first to make a large commercially viable machine, highly efficient and user-friendly at a reasonable cost. So this is the first time there has been a serious reason for testing to find out gas characteristics. In the meantime, what is actually happening doesn't really matter. What matters is that it is practical for our customers, doing what it is advertised to do.   >I am not a part of the conspiracy suppressing free >energy. I hate seeing this pipe dream sold to people >who spend the rest of their lives chasing ghosts of >someone who had free energy. I can give you stories >of people greatly injured by chasing this pipe dream.   Brown's Gas gets a lot of negative publicity because it is being promoted by entities that do not fully disclose it's disadvantages with the advantages, generally promoting Myths. We are doing our best to find the places that Brown's Gas is clearly a superior option to existing market choices, then provide the knowledge and equipment for people to take advantage of those opportunities. There are many astonishing applications that are NOT Myths and are being proven by independent testing.   >One other minor point about Brown's gas. If it really >implodes. Why doesn't it stop the piston suck to the >top of the compression stroke and stop.   That is a semi-Myth. BG is implosive only in very specific, nearly impossible to achieve situations. Consider it explosive. After an explosion, in a sealed container, there will be a net vacuum as the oxygen and hydrogen convert to water, reducing volume by about 1800 times. There has been proposed an 'atmospheric' engine, where BG makes a vacuum in the cylinder and atmospheric pressure pushes the piston up to the head. While this would 'function', it isn't practical, because the power needed to create the BG is many times more than the power you'd get out of the 'implosion' engine.   NOTE:   A BG flame burns with what I call a 'net' implosion, creating a very long thin flame as it makes a 'tunnel' in the air. The flame is exploding, then imploding, on a continuous basis, creating a net vacuum that draws in nearby smoke.   >So-called "Brown's gas" is nothing more than a stoichiometric >H2-O2 mixture.   That is our position at this time, until we have proof otherwise. However, testing has shown that the available energy in the gas is higher than using bottled H2:O2. Again, an anomaly we have not figured out but a boon for our customers.   > It's not even a particularly good for welding, as >acetylene yields much more energy per unit from the breaking of its >triple bond.   This comparison is apples and oranges. True, acetylene yields (if I remember correctly) about 20 times more heat, (mostly in radiant energy) per volume of gas. However, in our testing, Brown's Gas flame has several advantages over any other carbon-based torch fuel. Some examples below:   On a BTU to BTU basis, BG heats materials faster and hotter than acetylene. BG seems to heat the material 'directly' instead of wasting large amounts of radiant heat.   BG exhaust is pure water (usually steam), totally nonpolluting and environmentally compatible.   BG does not burn oxygen from atmosphere (taking operator oxygen) and can burn in blind holes or vacuums.   BG is created 'on-demand' so no storage of torch gas bottles is needed. And, except for cutting thick iron, no oxygen bottles are needed either. Cutting thin materials can be done with just the flame, no 'preheat' oxygen needed.   BG can be created at a fraction of the cost of all bottled torch gasses. It's only costs are water and electricity.   BG can cut iron faster than acetylene, using about 30% less oxygen.   Except for iron, BG welds far faster and easier than any other torch gas. However, when it comes right down to it, no torch gas (including BG) can compete against electric welding techniques. People don't weld with torches if they have arc.   BG is a superior TORCH gas, that's why we call our machines 'WaterTorches'. Our competition calls their machines Water Welders, which I think causes people to assume application at which BG cannot compete. As a TORCH fuel, BG cuts, solders, preheats, brazes, flame drills, flame polishes, plasma spray, etc. far faster, cleaner, easier and less expensively than ANY other torch fuel.   So the statement (above) that BG isn't particularly good for welding is true, in my opinion, but not because of the energy available by breaking atomic bonds (compared to acetylene). Except for iron, BG actually welds materials (like copper, aluminum, cast iron, quartz, etc.) faster (with the same sized torch tips) than acetylene.   Note: BG can't make good welds in iron because it tends to oxidize the weld. This disadvantage is actually an advantage because few people actually weld iron with any torch fuel (they use arc); people use torch fuels to CUT iron, where the oxidation effect of BG causes it to cut iron faster than any other torch gas.   So, BG is extremely marketable, once we were able to substantially reduce the price of the machines. In addition to the use as a torch fuel, many other practical applications are now being developed, all because it is now affordable.   > So what makes it different for "Brown's Gas" vs. regular electrolysis?   Brown's Gas electrolysis is usually more efficient than traditional electrolysis because the BG electrolyzers are designed NOT to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. When you separate the gasses, the very apparatus required to do so causes additional resistance in the machine, which lowers efficiency.   Our electrolyzers use a modified form of an electrolyzer design called 'bipolar', where each plate actually produces both hydrogen AND oxygen, while acting as cell separators. This technique (combined with Capacitive Amperage Limiting technology) allows us to make quiet, simple, low cost, smaller, lightweight, extremely efficient high voltage and low amperage electrolyzers.   > How many watt hours of energy can be recovered >from a liter of "Brown's Gas"?   That depends on the means of energy recovery and (at this time) is entirely standard. Assume using a stoichiometric 2H2:O2 mixture.  

READER COMMENTS (top)   >Mr. Wiseman - > >Thanks for your very informative manuals. A few paragraphs in the bubbler >revision manual caught my eye where you describe double mileage just by >venting the >pickup's dual tanks with 1/2" lines up to the air cleaner. I've removed >the tank on my test car and would like to know where and how you plumbed >into the tank. Thanks >a lot for your time.   That was done on a fuel injected vehicle. Using a simple water heated heat exchanger, I heated the fuel that was being returned to the fuel tank and then took the resulting vapors into the air cleaner.   I put the vapor-out hoses in the fuel tank filler tube (you want the vapor -out to be as high as possible to prevent fuel being pulled up), then I put in a liquid-vapor separator, then a backfire filter. In some applications I needed a fuel pump (signaled with a float switch) to pump the fuel out of the liquid-vapor separator. Finally, you need an electronic air-fuel controller to cut back on the fuel used by the regular fuel system when vapors are available.   This simple technique often doubled my mileage. While I don't have a book specifically on this, the technology to do it exists in my books.   --------------------   >George this looks very similar to your devices... So I thought I would >send it your way for a look see by you. >THANKS for all of you efforts That I never see.... but know that you do ! >Marv https://www.utexas.edu/admin/opa/news/01newsreleases/nr_200101/nr_pollution010108.php (link has gone ) 

COMING UP (top)     December/2002 will feature Electric Vehicles *********************************************************************