From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paper on Brown's Gas with References and Chromatographic Data[edit]

There is a number of people talking about the 'Brown's Gas' or HHO or Oxyhydrogen having had some actual laboratory work done on it and this paper is available: [[1]] The conclusion made in that paper (and yes it has a full and detailed set of references) is that when the electrolyser is operated with AC or pulsed current the gas generated is of a different composition, according to analysis spectrometry, there is indeed both diatomic oxygen and hydrogen as well as some small amount in the monoatomic ionised state, but also an electrostatic/plasma modified state of water in which the hydrogen bonding is neutralised with electrons and there is unmodified water, as well as detectable peaks of what the author says is the expanded state. Having watched numerous videos showing various types of torches, there is no question that those claiming to be showing a brown's gas torch are definitely showing something different to the equimolar electrolysed diatomic oxygen/hydrogen, the pure hydrogen gas mix burns a tiny white flame that throws heat 5x or more distance of the visible white flame, whereas there is other ones that show distinctly a golden orange/yellow flame that when applied to metals rapidly heats them to white hot. A test of acetylene versus brown's gas versus electric arc showed that the oxides of tungsten generated by a browns gas flame contain a different oxide composition that resembles the arc generated oxides. It is one thing to rightly reject clearly nonsensical or fraudulent claims made by people who don't even know what quantum energy levels in oxidation states are, and another to look at a white hydrogen flame made by a DC electrolyser versus the yellow/orange flame made with devices running lower voltage AC current without the obvious difference being noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The paper you cite is not peer reviewed, and is published on a fringe science web site. We cannot use unreliable sources and original research. VQuakr (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Welds steel? I don't think so[edit]

Where is the proof that this can weld steel? It's probably very inefficient due to low specific heat. This is another borderline fact on this webpage. It may braze and do some welding but it isn't efficient.-- (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It would weld steel, for sure it wouldn't be efficient, but it would do it. Assuming a proper oxygen hydrogen ratio. It would definitely work for aluminum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

These are the melting points of metals. [1] [2] [3]

While the temperature of burning oxygen and hydrogen is higher then steel. [4] [5]

While there is a lot of fringe science around hho generators. An hho generator by itself would probably not create an appropriate mixture but would require an addition of either hydrogen or oxygen to reach high temperatures. [6]

I don't understand how something can be a borderline fact? It is either a fact or it is not. In this case it is clear that a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen can be mixed and ignited to a temperature greater then steel. It also has a clear history of being used for welding in the past. ^ P. N. Rao (2001), "24.4 Oxyhydrogen welding", Manufacturing technology: foundry, forming and welding (2 ed.), Tata McGraw-Hill Education, pp. 373–374, ISBN 978-0-07-463180-5 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC) (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Applications (addition) Supplemental Fuel[edit]

(Source provided)

HHO (Hydroxy) gas was used as a supplementary fuel in a four cylinder, four stroke, compression ignition (CI) engine without any modification and without need for storage tanks. Its effects on exhaust emissions and engine performance characteristics were investigated. HHO system addition to the engine without any modification resulted in increasing engine torque output by an average of 19.1%, reducing CO emissions by an average of 13.5%, HC emissions by an average of 5% and Specific Fuel Consumption by an average of 14%.(source link)

I have found a report that proves not only that a supplemental HHO gas will reduce emissions and reduce fuel use, but that it also has another commonly used 'nick-name' which could be also be added to this page.NeiallsWheel (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

To further expand on this great information that is already linked and citable ,I would like to call into question the sentence under citation 16. ""Additionally, the number of liters per minute of gas that can be produced for on-demand consumption through electrolysis is very small in comparison to the liters per minute consumed by an internal combustion engine""
Can anyone name any car that burns a liter a minute? Just one? Any kind, year, make or model. I ask this because I can not think of any single car or truck that burns liters in minutes. The comparison then is irrational in that , the truth is no egnine that gets such aybismal fuel economy.
Regardless of whether the engine was burning refined pretrol , disiel , or propane, or oxyhydrogen. More over if an on demand hydrogen unit can produce liters per minute then how many gallons per hour is that? How hot does it burn and if it burns hotter than petrol or propane does that effect engine proformence? Are their any hybrid combinations utilizing oxyhdrogen? These questions can be answered with a few quick internet searches but said answers are not found on here yet.
I believe the article and topic in general would be better served by removing the sentence I brought up and the irrational citation supporting it. It place of the misleading illogic The linked citation offered convays a more honest and enlightening cyclpedic contribution. (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Please review WP:OR. The "liters" in the section to which you refer would be air, not petrol. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


This paragraph is worded in a strange way. I am not familiar with the so called "fringe science", so that may be why this is here...but I would say something along the lines of:

"Theoretically, the energy released by the combustion of oxyhydrogen is the same as the energy required to generate it (by electrolysis or any other means).In practical systems however, there will always be some loss of energy in either step, and the combined generation and combustion of oxyhydrogen will have a net loss of energy."

and maybe a link to the article on thermodynamics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^ ^ Calvert, James B. (2008-04-21). "Hydrogen". University of Denver. Retrieved 2009-04-23. "An air-hydrogen torch flame reaches 2045 °C, while an oxyhydrogen flame reaches 2660 °C.
  5. ^
  6. ^