Browns Gas

[Messo7]

It is worth it if it is produced using solar, hydro, and wind energy.

[Perter43]

Yes.. Browns gas is the oxygen hydrogen mix ..water broken back to the gases which produced it.

[BlameRepublicans]

SCAM ALERT.

[pspuria81]

i am amused at the comments from rarosera, i think your missing the point of the video and what it can do for us currently, just by saying things like u did to make urself SOUND like u know everything doesnt prove that you do

i have seen other videos that ran cars on hydrogen, even a mythbusters episode

[rarosera]

@pspuria81 How did you arrive at the impression that I don't accept the claims made in this video? I've been advocating Brown's gas aswell as the work of Stanley Meyer for years, so read more carefully next time.

[pspuria81]

@rarosera apperently the way you commented gave me the impression that you didnt believe it being possible, perhaps rewording what you're trying to say might help get other people on the same view.

excuse the shorthand typing

[rarosera]

@pspuria81 I think what you read was only part of a long discussion with someone poo-pooing Brown's Gas, where I was explaining how conventional education usually fails to yield real groundbreaking knowledge due to the vested interests in things remaining the way they are.

[adam3141]

Hydrogen burns at around 2200C in oxygen. 10 000 degrees C, Total BS.

[rosskstar]

whoever sweated the copper had no idea what they were doing

[rarosera]

/watch?v=YLwJ8T7kWvY&feature=r­elmfu

[rarosera]

By the way, in case you've never heard this story before... There were once two brothers who although bright attended high school but left with no diplomas. They had not read the science books so did not 'understand' why it was impossible for something to do something against the laws of science. These brother's grew up and although originally reported as being bluffers (HOAXERS?)eventually became known worldwide as Orville and Wilbur Wright, inventors of the aeroplane. Nice huh?

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera What does the Wright brothers not going to high school have to do with this?

They used science & physics in their experiments.

The did not break the laws of science to fly their plane. They reported as hoaxers by people trying to beat them to a viable flying machine. Like Dr. Samuel Langley who had a grant & media backing.

This gas is simply hydrogen mixed with oxygen as water is cracked.

Thats why No Tanks because it would EXPLODE.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 Wow... You really ARE a bit, er... stupid aren't you? How did you arrive at the thought that the wright brothers did not attend high school from the statement, "attended high school but left with no diplomas" Really, HOW did you come to that conclusion? Justify what you wrote right now, you stupid prick.

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera My comments on the Wright Bros have nothing to do with how this gas works.

YOUR point was they were not educated in Science but created flight, this somehow relates to the bozos in this video in your example.

If you believe that this gas is any more than a mixture of Hydrogen & Oxygen then YOU are the one thats stupid.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 You made the mistake of writing that the W Bros didnt go to high school, now live with it, coward. You know, for someone called 'Texmurphy' your grasp of the english language is pretty poor. Is English NOT your native language? I ask this because you seem confused as to what the word 'created' means. Also, the word you wanted in your last sentence is 'anything' not 'any' - 'any more' means 'no longer' which cannot correctly be followed by 'than' and remain in context. TROLL.

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera Yes I ment to say didnt graduate High school but that does not have anything to do with the argument.

Your simply trying to deflect your ignorence of Science & how this gas works by trying to Troll me on a statement.

You do nothing but call names & change the discussion, thats what a Troll does, look it up.

This gas is nothing more than Hydrogen & Oxygen in a mixture. Thats why you cant store it safely in a container. It is explosive.

It does make a nice flame , nothing more. 

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51

"Ignorance of science"... Humm... by what 'science' are you quantifying the term 'created flight?' "nothing more than Hydrogen & Oxygen in a mixture" - Hmm... What is water?

'Cannot be stored in container because it's explosive.' Hmm... What about Butane gas? Is THAT explosvive? Can THAT be strored in a container despite its explosiveness? Man, proving you wrong at every turn is like shooting fish in a barrel. If you're not really a troll then you're a deluded halfwit

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera Lots of questions, I see why you dont understand this subject.

Water is not a gas but a liquid.

Butane gas does not contain its own oxydizer, it is just a fuel such as gasoline. ( a spark inside of the tank will not ignite it)

If you mix oxygen & gasolline in a container, it becomes a potential bomb.

If you took elemental Hydrogen & Oxygen tanks then mixed them in the torch head you would get the same flame.

The argument however is Free Energy, not the above.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 Hydrogen & Oxygen in a mixture is also known as water (I was just highlighting your hamfisted use of the english language). If you make anything pressurised into an ignition based explosive it becomes a potential bomb, yes, bravo for knowing that. , You've either glossed over or simply missed the point of Brown's Gas - which is the splitting of the bonding between hydrogen and oxygen of water, converting water into your 'elemental hydrogen and oxygen' - ergo combustible.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 But you still haven't answered by what science you are quatifying the term 'created flight'? The Wright Brother's created planes, gliders, and lots of other things, but birds knew all about flight since way before the Wright Bros were born. So tell me, what 'meaning' of the word CREATED are you using? Is it some extra special biblical meaning or something? Does your dictionary have the word BIBLE there right next to the word Dictionary? That would explain so much...

[rarosera]

"Water is not a gas but a liquid." Who are you correcting here? Did I say water was a gas? No, I don't think so, I think that's another thing you've misinterpreted, like you did with the Wright Bros, equating 'went to high school but left without diplomas' with 'did NOT go to high svhool' - which in laymans terms is kinda the OPPOSITE of what 'went to highschool' means. Didn't you say... "You do nothing but call names & change the discussion, thats what a Troll does, look it up." QED

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera "Who are you correcting here?" YOU

You compared so called "Browns Gas" to water, a liquid.

Its not a misinterpretation. What did you mean by that comparison?

You are again Trolling the discussion by arguing semantics instead of the subject.

My so called "highschool" mistake you keep ragging on is no worse than mispelling school as you just did"

Only a Troll would keep pointing that out.

Let me know what you know about how Free Energy works.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 "You compared so called "Browns Gas" to water, a liquid." Fine, show me. Show me where I wrote whatever it is that you're interpreting as comparing Brown's Gas with water. Cut/paste the offending line. (make sure you don't shoot your argument in the foot with this, huh?) And then, when you have failed to do that how about you respond to my accusation about what kind of science you are using for the term: 'CREATED' flight.

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera OK here is a direct quote from your post 1 day ago.....

Ignorance of science"... Humm... by what 'science' are you quantifying the term 'created flight?' "nothing more than Hydrogen & Oxygen in a mixture" - Hmm... What is water

This is in response to my statement that Browns Gas was nothing more than Hydrogen & Oxygen in a mixture

YOU did a direct comparison of Browns Gas to Water in this statement

Please quit getting off subject by semantic arguments or concede you know nothing

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 You know where i said "(make sure you don't shoot your argument in the foot with this, huh?)" it was really so that you didn't go and do something as stupid as to use my pointing out that  'Hydrogen and Oxygen in a mixture' is also what WATER is, and try to twist it to your interpretation as if I'd said that gas was a liquid. No, I said that water IS hydrogen and oxygen in a mixture. Are you arguing this? Are you saying that water is NOT hydrogen and oxygen in a mixture?

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 "YOU did a direct comparison of Browns Gas to Water in this statement" - Correction, I did a direct comparison of 'hydrogen and oxygen in a mixture' to water, which YOU interpreted it as being a comparison of gas and water. You did this to avoid conceding that your 'nothing more than' statement was fatuous, now I am exposing you on this aswell as what science you are using to define the term 'created flight'. I am pinning you down on semantics 'cos you not use words good.'

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera "YOU interpreted it as being a comparison"

BULLSHIT,your response was to my statement that

"Browns Gas was nothing more than Hydrogen & Oxygen in a mixture"

You made an idiotic statement & are trying to cover it up Troll

My created flight statement would be interpreted by any other normal person reference to Human Flight

We have limited space in these posts so shortcuts you know

Stop the semantics,get to the Science if you know any

Glad ur doing this cause people see your a Troll

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 No, halfwit, I have made my point clear, yours however, are all a mish mash of nonesensical fatuous terms like 'creatad flight' and 'gas is not liquid' because you don't know how to use the english language very well, in fact, you use it in a very uneducated way. that's nothing to do with me, and pointing it out is not trolling, Changing the subject saying 'gas is not liquid' or 'what does the W Bros not going to high school have to do with this'... etc etc iS TROLLING!

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera "No, halfwit" - Troll Talk

'creatad flight' - learn to spell

You see how easy it is to pick out mistakes instead of arguing the point?

Hammering one misuse of a word is Trolling

Pointing out your mistake of a comparison of liquid water to disassociated water is not Trolling as you claim.

My writing might not satisfy you but I do know Physics. Perhaps you have read no science books as you Claim the Wright Bros did not. That is why you have no understanding.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 So tell me why you said 'created flight' when what you meant was something other than 'created flight'?

So, you claim to know physics but don't know english? That's fair enough - english isn't my first language, is it yours?

So, now it's "comparison of liquid water to disassociated water" AND "YOU did a direct comparison of Browns Gas to Water" but STILL you don't offer your argument. So, what are you doing?

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera Why did you spell it 'creatad flight' when you ment to spell it "created flight"?

You said the Wright Bros "They had not read the science books ", well if they attended HS then they DID read Science Books didnt they?

Your attempts at misdirection does not hide your ignorence of the Science involved here.

You also lie, I did NO comparison of BG to water, YOU did.

I said BG is simply Hydrogen mixed with Oxygen from Cracked Water. Read it again

Stop you Trolling & discuss the subject

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 Why did I misspell the word you used incorrectly? Because my finger hit the wrong key. hence it was a typo. There is a difference between a typo and a word wrong in syntax, and if you had a fuller grasp of English you'd know this. Now tell me, in the early 1880s, when Wilbur attended school, what books did they study? Tesla published his rotating magnetic induction field principle in 1882 - do you think that they had that book in every library in the US and every HS?

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 "You also lie, I did NO comparison of BG to water, YOU did." REALLY? You wrote,"This gas is nothing more than Hydrogen & Oxygen in a mixture." I wrote, "What is water?" pointing out your terrible grasp of english - as water is H2O (two hydrogen one oxygen) and BG is HHO (two hydrogen one oxygen). If you'd said BG is 'dissasociated water' to start with you would have shot your agument in the foot - so you tried to obfuscate the issue. Now it's biting you in the ass, live with it.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 So all your squirming and wringing of hands is caused by your own fatuous statement that 'BG is nothing more than H and O in a mixture,' and when I point out that water IS H and O in a mixture you then try to rescue your fatuous statement by saying 'dissasociated water' and 'craked water' - why not just concede that your argument is dead instead of digging deeper?

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera If you would have READ my initial statement you would not be so confuse. I said BG is nothing more than H & O in a mixture. The statement is not fatuous or dead, but true,

I defy you to prove otherwise.

If you crack water, allow it to mix together = BG, how is that different than mixing it later?

Take a take of H & one of O, mix them in the correct proportions & you have BG.

Burn it & you get a flame.

Guess who uses it?

NASA in the Space Shuttle.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 Would it be fatuous if this was a vid about sandwiches and you stated that they are 'nothing more than' filling between slices of bread? Yes, of course it would. And given that this vid tells you EXACTLY what BG is, your statement IS fatuous. BUY A DICTIONARY. And It's your argument that's dead (your difficulties are due to poor english again; a statement cannot be DEAD, an argument CAN). But you won't admit it even though wikipedia tells you you're wrong.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 So, now that you've learned from wikipedia that NASA uses 'cracked water' (sic) have you learned anything about your original opinion on 'the water powered car'? /watch?v=S44eRCr-O7o You argued with me about this elsewhere, adamant that it was all BS and hoaxes and 'conspiracy theories.' Well, you live and learn, huh? I think you'll find this is checkmate - thanks for the game.

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera "NASA uses 'cracked water' , Wrong, Bulk hydrogen is not made thru cracking water.

Stop with the attitude like you know something by asking if I "learned" something.

You probably didnt know the Shuttle used that method of propulsion.

What the hell are you talking about, checkmate?? Do you live in a dream world?

OK I GET IT. You know that you have no argument & are making an asshole of yourself, so you act like you bested me, then quit.

You better stick to your ART.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 It is checkmate. You have no idea what I do or don't know, what I read on wikipedia before YOU did - hence why I knew what I was talking about whereas you were going from old school lessons. If you'd paid attention to the Stan Meyer clip I sent you you would have heard that NASA was in talks with him, and hey presto, they start using hydrogen and oxygen... You don'r even recognise a checkmate when you see it. You can try to continue, but the game is over. ps. look up (sic). byeeee

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera "You have no idea what I do or don't know"

I KNOW you dont know shit about Physics.

Anyone who says burning Hydrogen is an E=MC2 reaction is clueless.

Ha Ha Ha, I still cant stop laughing at that.

"NASA was in talks with him, and hey presto, they start using hydrogen "

He He, another good one. Rockets were using H&O long before Meyers.

You actually think NASA started using it for fuel because of Meyers.

Ha Ha Ha...

I am sad you are quitting, I need a good daily laugh.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 True, you DO know shit about physics. You're not the first to be a laughing fool... It's pretty well understood in psychology that one of the first reactions of fools is to laugh when confronted with something they cannot perceive, like when presented with a new phenomenon, being able to perceive only what they 'believe' is happening rather than what is actually happening, so, laugh away... (the second thing fools demonstrate is confusion,when things are explained to them.)

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera I thought you said byeee?

YOU used E=MC2 as a reference for your argument, then on finding out you had absolutely no understanding of it, NOW I am the fool using physics.

You are once again trying to change the subject draw attention to the fact you know nothing.

"fools demonstrate is confusion,when things are explained to them."

Is this the CONFUSION you showed when I explained what E=MC2 actually ment??

So your telling me the world of Science is wrong & YOU are right? Ha Ha Ha

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 Look, you are a halfwit, and as a halfwit you will never understand that you helped me destroy your argument: that hydrogen and oxygen, or Brown's Gas, or WATER CANNOT be used as a fuel. First you stated H cannot be contained because too explosive, then you see that NASA uses it - so you must have been wrong, yet somehow, you can't see this. PS. E=MC2 is why BG has the energy it has, but of course, you don't understand this, thinking instead that it's a magical chemical burn.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 Alrightie then, here's game 2. "Anyone who says burning Hydrogen is an E=MC2 reaction is clueless." Yet somehow not as clueless as he who doesn't understand that E=MC2 applies to absolutely EVERYTHING that contains matter -that E=MC2 is a maxim, not a reaction, moron.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 "If you would have READ my initial statement you would not be so confuse. I said BG is nothing more than H & O in a mixture. The statement is not fatuous or dead, but true,

I defy you to prove otherwise." OK, here's me proving it is a fatuous statement. Definition of FATUOUS: 1. 'Foolish or silly, especially in a smug or self-satisfied way, 2.complacently or inanely foolish " Considering that this is a video explaining precisely what browns gas is, your statement is FATUOUS.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 I didn't say your statement was dead, I said your argument was dead - that 'water cannot be made into something to drive a car like Stan Meyer's' as not only is it now clear even to you, knowing that NASA uses it as a fuel - but more importantly and to highlight how much of a moron you are; an argument can be said to be dead, not a statement. A statement can be fatuous, unintelligent, redundant, foolish, moronic, but never DEAD. So, here I prove that you are both wrong AND stupid.

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera NASA does not use WATER as a fuel. You are mixing water with the gases of Hydrogen & Oxygen as you did in an earlier post.

The more names you call me the more you show that your a TROLL.

I am not giving you arguments or statements but FACTS. If you choose not to Believe what the rest of the world does then thats fine. You can live in your fantacy world if you like.

Now my bet is that you have Never done any experiments in what your claim you know.

Have you??????

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 For god's sake... Get a bloody dictionary or at least check with some spelling tool before regaling us with your ignorance, will you? This is getting really tedious, having to continuously correct you on spelling aswell as logic... What is FANTACY? Did you mean FANTASY? And learn about that little inverted comma thing called an APOSTROPHY It's used to show contraction, like when used to shorten 'you are,' to 'you're'. Pleb.

[Texmurphy51]

@rarosera I am glad your response is to rag on my spelling. This shows you have NOTHING as an intelligent comback to my statements & questions on the subject.

We are talking about Browns Gas here, not spelling.

I am going to end it here because you will keep doing nothing but TROLLING & I see you like it.

People who read your posts will see what an ass you have made of yourself.

I give you the last post to make yourself look like even more of a dickhead.

[rarosera]

@Texmurphy51 As long as you remember that getting a dictionary is not something you'll regret, whereas demonstrating that you don't have one IS something you will continue to regret, I don't mind being seen as a dickhead by someone like you.

[ausGeoff1]

@rarosera

Hahahahaaaa... this is so funny!

Rarosera says "And learn about that little inverted comma thing called an APOSTROPHY It's used to show contraction, like when used to shorten 'you are,' to 'you're'.

This clown really lays into other folks for their poor grammatical skills, and then MISSPELLS "apostrophe" himself!

I'm still laughing.

Glass houses. Stones?

[rarosera]

@ausGeoff1 Good point. I'm sure it'd strike deeper if english was my first language, which it is not, but thanks for pointing it out.

[ausGeoff1]

@rarosera

Ahhh... the standard fallback of the grammar pedant when they're caught out making errors themselves.

"English is not my first language". Yeah, yeah, sure thing LOL.

May I suggest that if English is truly NOT your first language, then there's not really any point in your attempting to correct other native English speakers' written grammar?

[GregOrca]

@rarosera

As usual, pathetic BS from rarosera. The Wright bros read everything they could on the science of gases and flight experiments. They had access to extensive correspondence with Lawrence Hargrave, Otto Lillienthal and many others who had already built and flown heavier than air flying machines .

They used scientific method and performed wind tunnel tests to experimentally verify or correct calculations.

rarosera is a lame troll ignorant of basic science.

[rarosera]

@GregOrca Greg, you missed the point again. THEY WERE NOT FORMALLY EDUCATED IN THE SCIENCES - which is why they had sufficient flexibility and curiosity to try things out and hence LEARN from trial and error, whilst the world of academia was saying IMPOSSIBLE and NOT trying in the first place. So get your facts straight. You say chemtrails impossible, I say, like the Wright Bros, watch and learn fool! BTW, didn't you poo-poo the water car? Yet here you are seeing the basics without realising

[GregOrca]

@rarosera

No, you don't get it.

They used scientific method. That is all that is required.

Because you don't understand science you don't understand what they did.

The whole point of science is that anyone who uses scientific method can make major discoveries.

It has nothing to do with formal education ! That's why a humble untrained gardner made some of the most significant scientific discoveries in history. Do you even know who I'm referring to?

[rarosera]

@GregOrca 'That is all that is required?' No my moronic friend,, you also need that very 'unscientific' thing called IMAGINATION - The Wright bros used 'the scientific method' of trial and error with no peer review or theories to work from. In other words, NOT the scientific method that you speak of. But you are no scientist, you can't review carcinogens in sunscreens and have no analitical skills which require imagination. You are a self-glorified PUPPETEER - nothing more.  Grow up!

[WrongBirthday]

browns gas can neutralize RADIATION....the world need this ASAP

[JTO500]

patents like these and one that give you many more m.p.g. ..all these patents held by oil companies , car companies ,etc. should be release..to save out planet .. NOW,,,please put all these and any knowledge to make them on the free inter net.. for all to make and use,,NOW .. illegal or not ..let us use them ..NOW 

[RonaldBlair]

but it costs more to make it than regular gas- (I think)

[Tsanko87]

The real name of Yull Brown is Ilia Valkov, he is bulgarian, but we are stupid nation and never esteem the great people :(

[mastermusicianxv]

it doesnt actually melt it thats why you can pass it over skin and it will be warm or cool the touch it breaks it down on a molecular level thats why you can melt steel and tungsten like butter

[windson7]

nevermind wrong video lol

[anom01y]

I run it in my car and it works...

gotta modify a few things though..

(ie. 02 sensor)

[magselloff]

This is complete nonsense. This is just oxyhydrogen. Water was first electrically broken down into this "amazing new gas" in 1800. The energy required to generate the oxyhydrogen always exceeds the energy released by combusting it. It does not take much googling to see that the claims for HHo gas are outrageous.

[Vallecaucanisimo]

@magselloff And yet I keep on finding stuff like this all over the place. As soon as I heard it I was like no way.... But people want to believe.

[mmabagain]

What's up with the slut at 4:10??

[herps4life]

there all worng it wasnt invented in 1996 or 1980 yes yoll brown did make its known but there was a moded model-t made to run off of it in the the early 1900s

[adethelemon]

Who's the babe who appears at 4mins.13secs?

[thebubber11]

@adethelemon mercedes terrell

[Schutzstaffel604]

its not backyard experement a scientist in toronto canada around 1996 invented it

[whalepoop]

of course it's been suppressed by the oil-o-garchy

they kille Stanly Meyers over it

they shelved Pons and Fleischmann for it

easy to do with twelve volts

SUPPLEMENT WITH HYDROGEN!

[spencnaz]

Too bad your link to the site is 'shutdown due to a network violation".

[msfattytroll]

so heres the part where I pretend to be really smart and know alot about chemistry

1) there is no such thing as HHO gas, that is, if they mean to say its is one single molecule (ie a H-H-O bonded molecule, as opposed to the standard H-O-H(water)) that in and of itself is impossible and a blatant lie, hydrogen can only make a single bond with another element (so the middle hydrogen would NOT be able to bond with both an oxygen atom and another hydrogen atom.

[msfattytroll]

2)if they mean to say its a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas created by electrolosis (which is possible), the ridiculous amount of electricity used to create it completely outweighs the benefits of its use.

3) i really hate to be so cliche but if if it sounds to good to be true, it is. and on the off chance that this was true and possible it would be the single greatest discovery in the energy field of this century and most machines would run on it.

[flare951]

Actually, its fairly efficient, and if you run it off solar, guess what, its really efficient. and i hate to be cliche, but if hho was a huge breakthrough, do you think oil company's would allow their monopoly's to be crushed by backyard experiments?

[msfattytroll]

i can't tell if you're being serious but on the off chance that you are, consider this

its not a question as to whether or not the oil companies would allow their monopolies to be crushed by a discovery like this because the fact that videos like this are on places like youtube, where they can be seen by however many millions of people, shows that thay are flase claims.

[mahalow69]

yeah .. just like how the federal reserve hasnt been brought down even though several people now know their agenda .. who do you think owns the mass media .. what about the other patents that are held by the oil companies and are being sat on .. what about how the streetcar system was bought out and dismantled by the people who has vested interest in the automobile industry... no big business loves you and wants technology to benefit mankind .. as long as it benefits them financially

[Mohawk0072]

Also,What about the 9 trillion unaccounted for by the federal reserve?Kinda like the pentagon and the 2 trillion:) What about the guy who invented a way to extract hydrogen from water compact enough to install on a car?He was conveniently deaded after refusing big bucks to stop what he was doing.

[vishi1968]

Please note that this is called Brown's Gas and discovered by Yoll Brown. It never got much recognition as long as he was living. But he actually did his researches in China and Brown Gas Torches were available in 1980s. It is possible to melt Tungsten using Brown's gas. Even nuclear wastes can be treated with it to reduce their radioactivity.

Please do not try to comment on any aspect with your limited knowledge of chemistry.

[a90351cleveland]

@vishi1968 u can melt tungsten with it??????? HOLY SHIT

[EgadsNo]

@vishi1968 People centuries ago knew this was a waste of time and resources. Its clean if you have green electricity to start but it still wastes almost half of that energy, secondly melting tungesten means nothing- you can do that with any combustible gas delivered at the right pressure (at appropriate volume) for the mixture... You sound like you are trying to take over his work of bilking rubes out of money.

[mrcatfacefrog]

@vishi1968whether on a comment or through a pm can you help me out with HHO? Why do people who think are so smart glance over this? Mostly physicist who r actually smart, they dont care. I see the talk online - they debate first about HHO's existance, saying things about monoatomic H gas bein too reactive with errthin. Then some finally talk about it4welding (some still are debating it doesnt exist??) - but say its basically nevr used it so modern must be better; and that weldings all it can do.

[Casowsky]

Don't give this dude shit, he knows what he's on about. Even if there is next to nothing to actually know... it's high school chemistry for heaven's sake. You can't have a gas composed of 2 single hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom in a mixture. The hydrogens would be covalently bonded as an H2 molecule. So all you have is hydrogen gas mixed with oxygen gas... no new breakthroughs here as I can make this 'evolutionary' gas myself in my kitchen sink with a nine volt battery!

[cannibaltime]

I wonder if they have try cutting heavier metals such as Cobalt or uranium.

[keebordcowboy]

you suckers. this is a Yull Brown invention and he got patent for this. one patent in USA filed July 19,1974, and published on March 29,1977. The original patent is aplied in Bulgaria filed Aug 03,1974, and published on Jan 25,1980.

All others are hoax and fraud. This dickhead Danny Klein or whatever they call him is a imposer.

Brown gas is Yull inventions.

[EgadsNo]

If only Yull Brown was alive today to see all of you talking about him- he would have bilked you all, he was a charlatan/conman. His honorary degree came from a university started in his friends kitchen, he claimed to be an electrical engineer when he was a electricians apprentice.

Also none of you seem to understand flame temperature- You do not just give a ambient temperature, if you do not know the volume being consumed and what reaction is going on it is useless info.

[shurdi3]

@keebordcowboy plus i feel like it's good to say that that's not his original name but he changed it after the guy who helped him migrate

[Lokivoid]

Its a plasma cutter people hate to break it to you but you can use Co2/argon/No2/o2 in those things infact any inert gas will do. They dont produce any combustive/kinetic force its just heat induced via ionization of gas.

[spinctah]

Leo Simpson says Yull is a total douche.

[awa411]

cool. this is the real step.. we cant wait for totally water based fuel