The Properties of Brown's Gas
The first property of the gas is the temperature developed by the flame. Hydrogen buming in a pure oxygen environment should theoretically obtain the temperature of 4915C. The Brown's gas flame can sublimate tungsten which occurs at a temperature of approximately 5900C. Holes can be bumed through refractory bricks, ceramic tiles can be pierced by the flame, and steel can be welded to brick.
In contrast, Brown's gas can also be used for applications with lower temperature requirements. Aluminum welding which occurs at approximately 700C can be handled by the flame equaliy well. lt would appear that a species of atomic hydrogen and a species of atomic oxygen are present in the flame and engage in a reaction with the substance being heated.
Another property of the flame is that it can concentrate into a small area, the flame itself tapering to a very fme application point. Various functions can be performed without the interference of the widespread dispersal of the applied heat.
The second remarkabe property of Brown's gas is demonstrated when the reverse reaction occurs. In the
Initial reaction, one unit of water yields approximately 1866.6 units of Brown's gas. When the volume of gas is ignited using a spark, the expected explosion does not occur. lnstead, a low-decibel ping is noticed, and a volume reduction of 1866.6 units of vacuum plus one unit of water occurs.
In effect, this net implosion (not explosion/implosion) produces a near perfect vacuum almost instantaneously without any moving parts being involved.
The third remarkable property of the gas is its safety aspect. The stoichiometric hydrogen and oxygen gas mixture known as Brown's gas can safely be produced and stored. The storage of the gas under pressure is in complete contradiction to the procedure employed for the safe handling of conventional hydrogen and oxygen gases.
To mix hydrogen and oxygen in the past was impossible and unknown; and the compression of these gas mixtures up to 100 psi was completely unknown. The mixing and compression of these gasses were totally revolutionary and absolutely novel achievements never accomplished before.
The mixing and compression of these gasses in my generator is a reality and is commercially available in many countries. Because of the high volume of the gas, I am continuing my experimentation to liquefy this gas mixture which will represent low volume, extremely high energy with only water as a residue. I hope this can be achieved.
The Electrolytic Cell and the Process
Brown's gas is the electrolysis of water using the patented electrolytic cell with the resultant gases of atomic and molecular hydrogen and atomic and molecular oxygen produced within the cell, mixed and compressed in stoicbiometric proportions of 66.6% hydrogen with 33.3% oxygen. The Brown's gas generator can produce gas at almost any rate using electrodes in series.
The electrodes themselves consist of inexpensive ordinary mild steel. The efficiency produced is up to 95%, the highest of all electrolytic cells in the world, and the second highest of all machines and devices converting electric energy to mechanical or thermal energy.
The conversion of altemating current to direct current may be as high as 90% leaving the maximum efficiency of Brown's gas at approximately 93% from an ancillary source.
The raw materials for the production of Brown's gas are water and electricity. One kwh DC of electricity
produces 340 liters of gas approximately. The cost of Brown's gas in comparison with bottled oxyacetylene oroxyhydrogen is many times—times, not percent, cheaper.
Safety of Brown Gas
Many countries' explosive departments have approved the manufacture and use of Brown's gas after extensive testing.
Brown's gas burns with a clean flame and the electrolyzer supplies the gases at 40 to 100 pounds per square inch (PSI). The flame contains hydrogen and oxygen and no other elements; so the product that is burning is water. The gas burns with a variety of nozzle sizes and presently can have a flame length of up to 400 mm. The flame is an exothermic reaction either with water as an end product in some applications or disassociated hydrogen and oxygen in other applications. lt is extinguished by reducing the gas flow at the handle, and this is accompanied by a popping sound.
Australia’s New South Wales Department of Explosives and many other countries have approved the manufacture and use of on-demand generation of Brown's gas. After continued testing, they have approved it as completely safe. Brown's gas is safely stored, with little reassociation in the control cell of the generator, releasing electrical potential and acting like a fuel cell.
Welding with Brown's Gas
The immediate commercial value of Brown's gas is totally apparent. Professor Brown's companies will produce for the commercial and domestic markets a range of generator equipment suitable for gas welding, soldering, bronzing, and cutting. In fact, a complete welding unit is under design which will have the optional facilities of AC and DC arc welding, and automatic arc welding. This process involves buming a combustible gas with air or oxygen in a concentrated flame at high temperature. The purpose of the flame is to heat and melt the parent and fill a metal at the joint.
Gas heating is the means for fine cutting, metal spraying, bronze welding, brazing and soldering. Acetylene is the most important hydrocarbon in the welding industry. lt is almost universally used as the combustible gas because of its high flame temperature. This temperature, estinated to be about 3200C, is far above the melting point essential for welding. One disadvantage to acetylene is its danger if it is not handledcarefully, and it is polluting to the atmosphere.
Professor Brown's gas is a new and highly competitive alternative to many commercial fuel gases.
Flame Characteristics of Brown's Gas
The flame produced when Brown's gas is ignited under 40 to 100 pounds per square inch of pressure is
initially colored yellow due to some alkali (approximately one part to one million) coming over on start-
up. But this quickly reverts to the neutral blue cone with a long extension. There are several distinct
regions called "mantles" within the flame's sheath.
The remarkable property of this flame is that it is NOT formed as a set of explosions, but is formed as a set of implosions!
Consequently, the conventional theory of combustion products, as accepted in worldwide established teachings on physics and electrochemistry, must be completely revised.
The central blue cone is the region separating the inner sustained vacuum from the continuously forming implosion products, and it is in this narrow band that the novel combustion situation is sustained. The
temperature limit of the applied flame is governed by the element being heated by the flame.
The outer mantles surrounding the blue cone region prevent oxygen from interfering in this combustion process. In fact, the mantles about the central hot region form an inert zone as supplied in modern TIG and MIG weldings.
Interactive Combustion Effect
When the flame is applied to aluminum, there isn't the immediate reaction of white heat as obtained when it is applied to brick. Instead, the flame may be shown to produce water on the aluminum by condensing the steam in the mantles on this heat conductive surface. The reasons for this low temperature reaction are two fold:
1) Firstly, because the flame temperature is not high in its natural state; and
2) Secondly, because aluminum is a good conductor of heat.
In addition to a broad range of welding applications, Brown's Gas International Corporation is developing business plans to enter markets involving gas for welding and flame cutting.
Flame cutting is done today by preheating a spot on ferrous metal to its ignition temperature and then burning it with a stream of oxygen. Acetylene is widely used as a fuel because of its hot and adjustable flame. As the metal is burned and eroded away, the torch is moved steadily along the path of the cut. A uniformly wide slot called the curve is cut by the jet of oxygen. Today's technology requires a high degree of skill to get good performance in flame cutting. The gas and oxygen pressure, position of torch, intensity of flame heat, cutting speed, and type of tip are important variables in the cutting results.
Initial preheating tends to burn a hole in metal, so a cut is started right from the line of cut and usually outside of the edge of the plate where ignition is quick.
Flame cutting of some high alloy steels, such as stainless steel, and many nonferrous alloys is difficult with oxyacetylene because the alloying elements such as cbromium and nickel oxidize along with the base metal. Many of these oxides do not melt at attainable temperatures and form an insulating coating on the parent metal that hinders progress of the cut. Oxidation does not occur with Brown's gas on stainless steel and other non-ferrous alloys. For this and other competitive advantages, Brown's Gas International Corporation expects to be highly competitive in broad areas of welding and flame cutting.
OtherApplicationsfor Brown Gas
Other applications for Brown's gas include:
1. Underwater Cutting
Brown's Gas International anticipates broad applications in underwater cutting and welding using Brown's gas due to its unique underwater welding and cutting properties.
2. Metal Spraying
3. Welding, Brazing, Soldenng
4. Tungsten Cutting
Tungsten alloys up to 12 to 14% may be cut readily, but higher percentages of tungsten make cutting difficult. In the last decade tungsten has evolved from a rather specialized aerospace material into a wide range of other applications. Tungsten is used in many areas where technology has taken temperature strength requirements way beyond the capabilities of lower temperature melting materials. Brown's Gas International Corporation believes that following additional research, Professor Brown's gas may represent an important contribution to industrial processes involving exotic metals.
5. Stainless Steel Cutting
Stainless steels, chrome nickel, and straight chrome are virtually impossible to cut by normal cutting procedures because chromium oxide is formed and prevents continued action of the cut. There are methods being developed to overcome this problem. Brown's Gas International anticipates a highly competitive entry into this market area. Tests indicate no oxidation results in the use of Professor Brown's gas mixture.
6. Domestic and Industrial Waste Disposal
The high temperatures developed by the process have many applications. The growing problem of toxic and general waste disposal is a source of potential development. Large town incineration facilities would be practical because of the low cost of producing the gas. The use of Brown's gas as a means of converting noxious hydrocarbons into heat energy and leaving as residue basically solid material is a solution to domestic waste, the dream of many an Urban Authority.
7. Coal to Oil Conversion
8. Hydrogen Production
9. Aerospace Applications
10. Refractory Applications
The ceramic industry, the brazing of bricks and tile, and other processes requiring high temperature provide potentially significant outlets for the application development of Brown's gas. For example, brick samples have been treated with the flame producing a decorative brown coating. This leaves the surface abrasion-proof, nonabsorbent and unaffected by heat and cold.
Fusion bonding is also possible with the temperature that is generated. The fixing of steel elements directly to brickwork or concrete would be of great advantage to builders and engineers. Continued research and development, with ongoing awareness of the principles involved will almost certainly extend the applications for the gas beyond those discussed. The theory behind the formation of the gas and the interaction between the components of the gases and the materials heated is still in its infancy.
One of the unique applications of Brown's gas is implosion. When a volume of Brown's gas in a
metal container is detonated by a spark, the resulting implosion is a contraction of volume on the order of approximately 1860 to one.
It is convenient to redefine the contraction that occurs as an implosion in contrast to an explosion as both are dynamic processes. One of the numerous, unique properties of this new gas mixture is that in contrast to the conventional meaning of the word implosion – when air rushes inside the rupture, rendering the whole device useless – when Brown's gas is detonated, a nearly perfect vacuum is instantly created allowing this to employ atmospheric pressure as a source of power.
Another absorbing prospect is to utilize Brown's gas as the agent to produce a cheap vacuum as a source to trigger atmospheric pressure as a source of energy. The use of the phrase as a source of energy is deliberate. Suppose Brown's gas is attached to a heat source; then it will readily expand. Implosion of this expanded gas will utilize atmospheric pressure. Truly, the possibilities have worldwide applications in pumping and in the development of an atmospheric implosion motor.
IMPLOSION as a single reaction is only possible with Brown's gas and is impossible with other substances... and the contraction that occurs is revolutionary in character. Applications are atmospheric motor (stationery and transportable). A simple way has been found for making a vacuum so atmospheric pressure can be employed as a source of energy.
12. Pumps, Desalinators, etc.
The preceding list is not exhaustive nor fully descriptive nor is it meant to rank in order of importance any of the applications.
Nuclear Radiation Reduction/Dilution
There is a very unusual effect which can be utilized for nuclear radiation disposal. After the special reaction which melts two different metals, the radiation could not leave the molten material, but by implosion, it is pulled into the material. The material which remains has very little radiation and sometimes none at all.
The existing knowledge about heating radioactivity states that radioactivity is dispersed into the surrounding air. But under the Brown's gas implosive condition, the reverse occurs which decreases the radiation from a reading of 1000 on the Geiger counter to a reading of 40. These experiments have been replicated time and time again in many places. This could be very much improved if we utilize liquefied Brown's gas. This will be done in future research when I have the interested party to a joint venture providing the necessary capital. As I pointed out before, it is not a theory, but practical experiments exist.
This new technology which is a modified Brown's gas reaction for the decreasing of nuclear radiation is something the WHOLE WORLD NEEDS.
This is a significant discovery for present and future generations. Naturally, this challenges many existing businesses which will be resisting – but not for long. Many nuclear institutions and scientists have tried to object to the evidence that Brown's gas has reduced nuclear radiation in tests observed by scientists here in the United States and abroad. They will ultimately have to accept the reality that it works.
The response was so alarming and confusing that a former Congressman from New York, Dan Haley,
decided to conduct his own inquiry into the situation.
His observations and findings were written in his report published in PLANETARY ASSOCIATION for CLEAN ENERGY, INC., JULY 6, 1993 issue. That report is as follows:
(The following report was originally in The Planetary Association for Clean Energy Vol. 6, No. 4., July 6, 1993, and then reprinted in Infinite Energy Vol. 4, Issue 20 1998 pp 40, 42, in addition to being reprinted in this Extraordinary Science article.)
Transmutation of Radioactive Materials with Yull Brown's Gas
96% Radioactivity Reduction
By Daniel Haley, Former Chairman
Joint Coinmission on Energy, New York State Legislature
On August 6, 1992, a team of five observers led by officials from the San Francisco field office of the Department of Energy (DOE) visited Southwest Concrete Products in Ontario, California for a demonstration of the effects of Brown's gas on radioactive materials. This visit resulted from a request to the DOE by former Congressman Berkeley Bedell.
Months later, the DOE field office summarized their conclusions on the experiment they witnessed.
Admitting lower radiation levels were achieved, they attributed the phenomenon to two causes: 1) "dispersal within the molten matrix" – encapsulation, and 2) "different geometric configurations" – different shape.
The author, Alex Dong, director of the Environmental Research and Waste Management Division, declared, "Nothing in this demonstration, before or after, provided quantitative evidence that radioactive materials had been destroyed.", and that "This office does not intend to pursue the subject further.".
One of the five observers was upset by the handling of the low-level radioactive material (cobalt-60) during the experiment and, upon leaving, called the Los Angeles office of the California Department of Health Services, which sent an inspector the same day to inspect the premises. Southwest Concrete Products put on the same demonstration for the Health Services inspector, whose office sent a letter a few days later on what had been observed.
Since neither of these letters confirmed the destruction of radioactive materials, early in 1993, I [Dan Haley] called Russ Roberts, whose name was on the DOE letter. He returned my call, joined by Gary Callahan, who seemed to be the senior of the two and who stated that he had organized the visit to see the Brown’s gas demonstration.
Both Roberts and Callahan stated that they were sure that radioactivity had been released into the environment, and that they had stood far back from the experiment behind something in an attempt to shield themselves. Since their letter had granted that the Geiger counter radioactivity reading had been reduced, I asked them by how much and they said it had been reduced by an order of 3 or 4; I pressed them for specific numbers, and they told me that the initial reading was 1000 counts/minute and that after the experiment, the reading was 40 counts/minute. They seriously defended, against my skepticism, their concept that by changing the shape of the radioactive material, Brown could have lowered its Geiger counter reading. In addition, as stated in their letter, they said that radioactivity had been encapsulated within the material.
After talking with them, I called Bob Dzajkich at Southwest Concrete Products. He told me that he showed exactly the same experiment that was demonstrated to the DOE group to the Health Services inspector, who before and after the experiment took Geiger counter readings around the room, finding that, "essentially no cobalt-60 was dispersed into the environment – that is, the heating and test chamber and immediate area around the test chambers were contamination free." This statement demolished the DOE people's verbal assertion that radioactivity had been released into the ambient air – one wondered why they didn't take such readings instead of relying on their assumptions.
Bob Dzajkich further told me that when he read the DOE letter asserting encapsulation, he decided to see if they were right. He took Geiger counter readings of the material left from the experiment, ground it to dust and then took Geiger counter readings of the dust. He found that the readings had not changed at all.
Thus, radioactivity did not go into the air since the Health Services inspector measured it before and after the experiment. In addition, as determined by Bob Dzajkich, radioactivity was not encapsulated inside the material, or "matrix," as the DOE called it.
Thus, their theories of encapsulation and dispersal into the ambient air do not hold water. This leaves only the DOE notion that changing the shape of a radioactive substance could reduce its radioactivity to support their conclusion that, "Nothing in this demonstration, before or after, provided quantitative evidence that radioactive material had been destroyed." Of course, this is a statement of the obvious: Nobody said that material would be destroyed, but that radioactivity would be destroyed; that they refused to state.
My impression after speaking to them for an hour on the phone was that these DOE fellows must have decided that if they attempted to report favorably on the resuits of Brown's experiment – something they "knew" to be impossible – that they would be ridiculed. Even then, unlike the Department of Health Services, it took them nearly three months to decide what to state.
After talking with the DOE people and examining their letter and that of the Health Services Department, and after talking with Bob Dzajkich, my observations are that: 1) radioactivity was not released into the environment, 2) radioactivity was not encapsulated, and 3) by the process of elimination, only the DOE notion that "changing the shape of a radioactive material can reduce its radioactivity" is left to account for the drastic drop in radioactivity readings from 1000 counts/minute to 40 – according to the DOE figures. This I find too bizarre to accept.
Therefore, I conclude that in Yull Brown's demonstration to the DOE Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Division of August 6, 1992, transmutation of radioactive material was accomplished –resulting in a drop in Geiger readings from 1000 counts/minute to 40 counts/minute – a 96% reduction of radioactivity or, inversely, resulting in a radioactive waste residue of about 4% of the original pre-treatment radiation level (or less when accounting for natural background radiation levels). – Daniel Haley
(The following was appended to Infinity Energy’s reprint of the above report by Daniel Haley.)
The Canadian government's Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel issued in March 1992 Final Guidelines for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on the Nuclear Fuel Waste Man-
agement and Disposal Concept. Such environmental impact statements (EIS) will have to be prepared by the proponent, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Under the guidelines, the EIS must discuss the capability of possible alternatives in order to address the risks to the health of humans and human communities, and to the work site and the natural environment. Of pertinence to the case of Dr. Yull Brown's proven method, the EIS would have to include "consideration of the transmutation of nuclear fuel waste".
"lt has been my good pleasure to witness experiments done by Dr. Yull Brown in which it appeared to me that he significantly reduced the radioactivity in several nuclear materials. Under the circumstances, I believe it is very important for our federal government to completely investigate Dr. Yull Brown's accomplishments in this area." — Hon. Berkeley Bedell, Former Member of U.S. Congress
(End of Infinity Energy’s appendix to Haley’s report.)
Humanity’s Common Ground
The resulting experiments with Brown's gas treating and reducing radioactivity (1000 rads to 40 rads, for example) done on many occasions are pushing the ‘experts’ to accept the findings.
0R, if they reject these fmdings, perhaps they have some ulterior motives. The ulterior motives are too
numerous to describe here. I merely refer you to an article in the December 14, 1992 issue of U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT describing "...waste, fraud, and contaniination at America's nuclear weapon plants." This expose details the cover-up of the incredible quantity of radioactive wastes proliferating at these sites and the horrendous costs the Department of Energy estimates will be needed to bury and encapsulate the nuclear waste, using concrete and steel to encapsulate, trucks for transport, and men and energy to truck this waste to another spot, burying it in another location which now will ultimatelybecome a radioactive wasteland. The exclusive cover story is entitled: A Two Hundred Billion Dollar Fraud.
An official from the Department of Energy testified at a Senate Hearing in Washington, DC, May 1993, that the costs for this cleanup had escalated to an estimated TRILLION DOLLARS, and he described this situation as the "...worst problem facing humanity."
Brown's gas is the solution. There are some important points regarding the use of Brown's gas and technology for the nuclear destruction/cleanup of the radioactive material:
The cleanup can be accomplished at the site where the material is now located eliminating the transporting to distant locations for proposed burial.
Each nuclear power station could be decontaminated and no future radiation "waste" material would be stored or accumulated.
3) There should a special generating plant inside the nuclear power station where the nuclear waste will be destroyed, creating extra electrical energy, and totally utilizing all radiation – including that resulting from its destruction.
4) The radiation chambers of nuclear power stations absorbed with extremely high radiation can be cleaned – extending the life of the nuclear power stations.
5) There is a great possibility with further experimentation to de-radiate or remove radiation from people who have absorbed radiation and have become ill, as well as from all other elements and the earth which have absorbed radiation.
I am looking for the organization with some humanitarians who will understand how big this project is, and that with limited resources, it is almost impossible for me to continue. I am looking for the help in research and finance to joint venture with my corporation and colleagues.