Detonation of Pure Hydrogen
William Carlyle
Hello,
William the Tinkerer here (again). If a spark was introduced into a tank
of pure hydrogen (no air or O2) at room temperature, would the tank
explode?
And: according to what I have read about Brown's Gas, it is monoatomic (H)
hydrogen and (O) oxygen. Yet other literature contends that H will only
last about a third of a second until it recombines with itself and
stabilizes at H2.
Can anyone enlighten me?
William the Tinkerer
Bill Ward
"William Carlyle" <nets...@tcsn.net> wrote:
>If a spark was introduced into a tank
>of pure hydrogen (no air or O2) at room temperature, would the tank
>explode?
Hi, William
No, the tank would not explode, unless the spark itself carried
enough energy to rupture the tank. Since there is no oxidizer
present, no chemical reaction can occur.
> And: according to what I have read about Brown's Gas, it is monoatomic (H)
>hydrogen and (O) oxygen.
That is an apparently unsupported assertion by some of the BG fans.
I'm unaware of any credible evidence that substantiates it.
>Yet other literature contends that H will only
>last about a third of a second until it recombines with itself and
>stabilizes at H2.
Accepted theory says monatomic H is very unstable and will quickly
recombine to H2. If it _could_ be stabilized, it would make a super
rocket fuel.
> Can anyone enlighten me?
Well, it all depends on which you find more credible, the vast body
of research going back over 150 years, or the claims of a few fringe
experimenters that can barely keep from blowing themselves (and
their neighbors) up.
I suppose there's always a possibility that the fringies are right
and the accumulated body of scientific evidence is wrong, but that's
not the way I'd bet.
I don't want to discourage you from experimenting to find out for
yourself, but please make sure you understand enough about what is
going on to avoid injury.
I think this NG would be a dandy forum to discuss any experiments
you have in mind, as there are a number of people with good
backgrounds who would likely be delighted to help.
Regards,
Bill Ward
PS - Stand by for the opposing view - it should be right up.
Michael Hannon
Bill Ward wrote:
> "William Carlyle" <nets...@tcsn.net> wrote:
>
> >If a spark was introduced into a tank
> >of pure hydrogen (no air or O2) at room temperature, would the tank
> >explode?
>
> Hi, William
>
> No, the tank would not explode, unless the spark itself carried
> enough energy to rupture the tank. Since there is no oxidizer
> present, no chemical reaction can occur.
>
> > And: according to what I have read about Brown's Gas, it is monoatomic (H)
> >hydrogen and (O) oxygen.
>
> That is an apparently unsupported assertion by some of the BG fans.
> I'm unaware of any credible evidence that substantiates it.
>
I'm unaware of any credible evidence that it is an assertion by some,or any, BG fans-
please provide evidence of claims by those you claim exist who say that
Aethergas (BG) is a mixture of monatomic hydrogen and oxygen.
> >Yet other literature contends that H will only
> >last about a third of a second until it recombines with itself and
> >stabilizes at H2.
>
> Accepted theory says monatomic H is very unstable and will quickly
> recombine to H2. If it _could_ be stabilized, it would make a super
> rocket fuel.
>
> > Can anyone enlighten me?
>
> Well, it all depends on which you find more credible, the vast body
> of research going back over 150 years, or the claims of a few fringe
> experimenters that can barely keep from blowing themselves (and
> their neighbors) up.
More unsubstantiated, highly opinionated, non-objective, and even derisive,
conjecture.The Norinco Fire Arms Company, which, by the way, is considered the largest
manufacturer
of small firearms, not only in China, but in the entire WORLD, is making Aethergas
(Brown's gas) generator/welders, and selling them, and has been for quite some time
now, which produce a gas whose properties you have been calling fraudulent for about
one year now, Mr. Ward, yet there has never been a claim against them for fraud, and
and plenty of visible substantiation (none of which you have any knowledge of, since
you have never even seen the flame from one of their generator/welders, nor have you
seen any data from the testing of them) that what is claimed of their
generator/welders, as in
http://www.usr.com/a/algaeguy/60022.shtml
highly indicative of temperatures only associated with monatomic hydrogen flames,
and the INVENTOR of the original patented welder/generator (1966, 1967), William
Rhodes,
of the Univ. of Arizona, (who did, in fact, go well more than one step further than
you have ever gone, Mr. Ward, by at least actually being in the presence of such a
generator/welder, turning it on, and operating it) perform laboratory testing of the
gas his patented torch, concluded the same, and is, in fact, referring to the gas as
having a quantity of ATOMIC (monatomic) gases present.
> I suppose there's always a possibility that the fringies are right
> and the accumulated body of scientific evidence is wrong, but that's
> not the way I'd bet.
>
> I don't want to discourage you from experimenting to find out for
> yourself, but please make sure you understand enough about what is
> going on to avoid injury.
>
> I think this NG would be a dandy forum to discuss any experiments
> you have in mind, as there are a number of people with good
> backgrounds who would likely be delighted to help.
None of whom are willing in any way to lift a finger to coduct any of the testing,and
who, despite VISUAL EVIDENCE already provided, plus statements by
people who HAVE actually tested the gas, including its inventors and researchers,
and those here who have actually done their own testing and have stated results
which confirm the claims, totally deny the veracity of ANY of those results,
despite the fact that NONE OF THEM has ever even SEEN one of the generators,
yet still claim to have "good backgrounds" in the gas's phenomena.
So far, not one of them has even attempted to conduct themself in an objective fashion
is assessing that evidence, while they ALL offer derisive commentary about something
they have never even seen, nor have any objectively derived evidence whatever proving
any scientific foundation for that derision.
It is an objective fact, however, that anyone who attempts to verify any of the claims
about the gas is, as has been stated in Mr. Ward's own "scientific opinion," "fringie
experimenters that can barely keep from blowing themselves (and their neighbors) up."
Obviously an objectively derived scientific opinion based on rigorous testing,
impartial analysis, and thorough understanding, of a gas none of them has ever seen,
has any test data on whatsoever, nor of which they have even been within 100 miles,
in their entire lives.
OHannon
Don Lancaster
William Carlyle wrote:
> Hello,
> William the Tinkerer here (again). If a spark was introduced into a tank
> of pure hydrogen (no air or O2) at room temperature, would the tank
> explode?
>
>
> William the Tinkerer
Bill's response is technically correct, BUT...
Please MEMORIZE section 6.4.1 of http://www-osma.lerc.nasa.gov/lsm/lsm6.htm
Or read any hazmat book. DOT or NFPA are good sources.
All mixtures of hydrogen in air over a 4 to 75 percent range can burn.
All mixtures of hydrogen in air over a 18 to 59 percent range can explode.
All mixtures of hydrogen in oxygen over a 4 to 90 percent range can burn.
All mixtures of hydrogen in oxygen over a 15 to 90 percent range can explode.
The needed spark energy is utterly miniscule. It is comparable to the amount of work
done by dropping a grain of rice from a height of one quarter of an inch.
Assuming the tank holds "pure hydrogen" is fraught with peril.
DON'T EVEN THINK IT!!!!!!!
A substance that is "too lean" gets safer with leaks and contamination.
A substance that is "too rich" gets MORE dangerous with leaks and contamination.
A pressurized container holding hydrogen and oxygen anywhere in a 15 to 90 percent
mixture range is, by definition, a bomb. Ask any hazmat specialist.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics Press 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
Voice phone: (520) 428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com
Visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Know your acronymns: url = utterly rancid location
net = not entirely true
www = world wide wait
Michael Hannon
This may all be true for H2+O2 mixes, Mr. Lancaster.
However, or maybe I should say HOWEVER,
the product of the Rhodes/Brown/Wiseman generator/welders,
Aethergas (Brown's gas), is easily capable of detonation at mixtures
of less than 1% concentration in air, and even 0.5 %,
and the energy yield is much greater than with the diatomic mixtures
you discuss.
Since the pure gas always implodes, the danger level in a system
used without proper preparatory procedures is increased as well,
because it can first generate a backflash which is capable drawing air into
any temporary or permanent storage volume it is held in,
which will then fuel a detonation in that volume
and all at extremely difficult to control, and predict, velocities.
The only known safe means of preventing backflash/detonations
is a substantial liquid barrier (backflash arrestor) between the source of the gas
and its output, as described in the Rhodes and Brown patents,
and George Wiseman's books on the gas, where the gas is actually broken up into small
bubbles, each separated by an highly non-flammable liquid, so that
if one bubble of gas ignites, it will not spread the flame,
and the total volume of gas in the system at any given time
while in operation is kept to a minimum.
It should be noted, however, as well, that a well sealed
and vacuum/pressure tested system, when evacuated to
23 in, or better, of steady guage vacuum, will hold the gas, when introduced,
in a pure enough state that without leaks, will not detonate,
but consistently, and reliably, implode only.
I have yet to witness any detonations in such a system to date,
after well over a hundred implosions within systems,
and not a single detonation, after proper initial evacuation,
when no subsequent leaks occurred.
In other words, it only becomes a bomb if proper procedures are not applied,
or if an accidental compromise of the system occurs -
but that can be said of the vehicles we drive, the fuels we use for heat,
the water heaters in our homes, and the fuels used in any camping equipment, or
torches of any kind, including home handyman's propane torches, etc,
all of which are potential bombs, and that includes
that Bic you flick to light your cigarette -
it as well, under improper use,
can blow up in your face.
If I had been using the gasoline I use in my car
instead of Aethergas, and an explosion had taken place
with IT, in the proximity I was to the tank,
I would be six feet under right now,
and look like a well-done barbecued hot dog.
OHannon
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Bill Ward wrote:
>> "William Carlyle" <nets...@tcsn.net> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> > And: according to what I have read about Brown's Gas, it is monoatomic (H)
>> >hydrogen and (O) oxygen.
>>
<Bill Ward wrote:>
>> That is an apparently unsupported assertion by some of the BG fans.
>> I'm unaware of any credible evidence that substantiates it.
>>
<Michael Hannon wrote:>
>I'm unaware of any credible evidence that it is an assertion by some,or any, BG fans-
>please provide evidence of claims by those you claim exist who say that
>Aethergas (BG) is a mixture of monatomic hydrogen and oxygen.
No problem. Here's two claiming it has monatomic H:
<Begin first Deja News quote>
From: Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: 1996/12/20
Message-ID: <32BAEA...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
[More Headers]
I think you should seriously look into Brown's gas
(monatomic hydrogen)
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
production via George Wiseman's books (International Tesla Society).
Mr.
Wiseman has also created a voltage source that can be adjusted to
produce
H2 at high efficiency. What you discover about Brown's gas will
cause you
to question its validity, but, I can assure you that it is real, and
that
Brown's gas welders are in production and legal for sale in this
country,
passing the required safety standards. Do a search on Brown's gas
-it's
well worth the effort.
[...]
<end first Deja News quote>
*****************
<Begin second quote>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen (electrolysis -> water) powered cars!?
From: Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: 1997/04/09
Message-ID: <334C05...@worldnet.att.net>
Article Segment 2 of 2
(Get Previous Segment)
(Get All 2 Segments)
<snip>
George
Wiseman, a practical, no-nonsense man who has been working on BG for
years now, calls BG an "aether gate," and you can laugh at that if
you
like, but if "aether" is considered in the equation, the
conservation of
energy is maintained, and when NASA and other such facilities and
people
discuss "aether," I stop laughing, which I did several years back.
Tesla
invented radio, scalar waves, and everything else he invented, using
"aether theory," and it has come to be far from a joke in today's
physics. Unexploited energy in water? Unexploited energy everywhere
-
the potential energy quantum physics says is in every point in
space,
and BG (monatomic H, in particular)is one gate for it. How else
^^^^^^^^^^^
could a
flame made from separated water produce 11,000 deg F in an instant?
Plasma, aether, and a new branch of physics.
Michael
<end second quote>
Perhaps you know the author? Is he credible?
Archival regards,
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon
http://www.usr.com/a/algaeguy/60022.shtml
http://www.jeffry.com/bwt_c_bg.htm
can be accessed, with photos of various phenomena, and a shot of a small BG welder
The BG implosion vacuum demonstartion photo and caption are particularly interesting.
OHannon
Michael Hannon wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
> "William Carlyle" <nets...@tcsn.net> wrote:
>
> >If a spark was introduced into a tank
> >of pure hydrogen (no air or O2) at room temperature, would the tank
> >explode?
>
> Hi, William
>
> No, the tank would not explode, unless the spark itself carried
> enough energy to rupture the tank. Since there is no oxidizer
> present, no chemical reaction can occur.
>
> > And: according to what I have read about Brown's Gas, it is monoatomic (H)
> >hydrogen and (O) oxygen.
>
> That is an apparently unsupported assertion by some of the BG fans.
> I'm unaware of any credible evidence that substantiates it.
>
I'm unaware of any credible evidence that it is an assertion by some,or any, BG fans-
please provide evidence of claims by those you claim exist who say that
Aethergas (BG) is a mixture of monatomic hydrogen and oxygen.
> >Yet other literature contends that H will only
Harry H Conover
Bill Ward (bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:
: Perhaps you know the author? Is he credible?
Bill, by now any regular to this newsgroup already knows the
answer to that question!
Seems that Michael has, to quote the Bard, "been hoisted on his
own petard." It also bring to ming the old admonition that if you're
taken to fantasy and lies, you need an excellent memory --
something that Michael demonstrably lacks.
ROTFLOL!
Harry C.
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<275 lines for one URL!!>
Michael, please learn to trim your posts for bandwidth. That could
have been 10 or 20 lines.
Also, I found a better ref for the source of the BG = monatomic H +
O claim:
<begin Deja News quote>
Subject: Re: Total Vacuum
From: Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
Date: 1997/03/15
Message-ID: <332B88...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
[More Headers]
Robert Erck wrote:
[snip Robert Erck post]
[Michael Hannon wrote:]
Dear Bob,
Thanks for your response. A couple of things - this isn't H2
and
O2 - it's monatomic H and O, and in this particular case, it does
not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
create water vapor, the reaction has no significant heat generated,
[...]
Michael
<end Deja News quote>
Any questions?
Regards,
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon
What are you referring to, Mr CONover?
Credibility isn't exactly your forte,
and it isn't Mr. Ward's either, particularly since
the both of you like to talk a lot about things you have no experience,
or working knowledge of, without backing it up with anything but
utter, non-experiential opinion.
Now, I'm headed for Europe in March to discuss
Aethergas technology with people who do more than
just flap their mental jaws about phenomena they
have no knowledge of whatsoever,
(something for which you and Mr. Ward
are now becoming more infamous daily)
and I'm being sent there under the auspices of someone
who has more international credentials,
and has helped more people in his life,
than you and Mr. Ward ever will, combined.
So, keep flapping that bloated, self-congratulatory jaw of yours,
Mr. CONover -
it'll keep you busy while the rest of those
who are actually DOING something about energy
related to hydrogen as a quite viable fuel
proceed with their respective business-at-hand.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
More interesting garbling of facts, Mr. Ward, and quite
the weasley example of your modus operandi in this NG.
The statement was NOT that Aethergas (BG) contained monatomics,
but that is was IS NOTHING ELSE
"William Carlyle" <nets...@tcsn.net> wrote:
And: according to what I have read about Brown's Gas, it is monoatomic (H)
it CONTAINS atomic gases - it says that it ......................."IS"
atomic gases, which is an entirely different matter, isn't it),
to which YOU then replied:
"That is an apparently unsupported assertion by some of the BG fans."
The posts you then provide as evidence, in respoonse to my request,
SAY NO SUCH THING.
You have yet to show one quoted post in which Aethergas (Brown's gas)
"is monoatomic (H) hydrogen and (O) oxygen," which you stated is
"an apparently unsupported assertion by some of the BG fans."
Let's see the VALID, posts,
CONSISTENT WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATION,
and not some vague, inaccurate facsimile of it, Mr. Ward
(vague facsimiles are the earmark of the
"mirror science" you are becoming infamous for here,
in lieu of real, clear, objective science you fail to practise)
as you are offering as proof.
We're still waiting for a VALID response to my request.
OHannon
Bill Ward wrote:
> Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Bill Ward wrote:
>
> >> "William Carlyle" <nets...@tcsn.net> wrote:
> >>
> <snip>
>
> >> > And: according to what I have read about Brown's Gas, it is monoatomic (H)
> >> >hydrogen and (O) oxygen.
> >>
>
> <Bill Ward wrote:>
>
> >> That is an apparently unsupported assertion by some of the BG fans.
> >> I'm unaware of any credible evidence that substantiates it.
> >>
>
> <Michael Hannon wrote:>
> >I'm unaware of any credible evidence that it is an assertion by some,or any, BG fans-
> >please provide evidence of claims by those you claim exist who say that
> >Aethergas (BG) is a mixture of monatomic hydrogen and oxygen.
>
> Perhaps you know the author? Is he credible?
>
> Archival regards,
> Bill Ward
Michael Hannon
More interesting garbling of facts, Mr. Ward, and quite
the weasley example of your modus operandi in this NG.
The statement was NOT that Aethergas (BG) contained monatomics,
but that is was IS NOTHING ELSE
"William Carlyle" <nets...@tcsn.net> wrote:
And: according to what I have read about Brown's Gas, it is monoatomic (H)
hydrogen and (O) oxygen" (it does not say that ^^
it CONTAINS atomic gases - it says that it ......................."IS"
atomic gases, which is an entirely different matter, isn't it),
to which YOU then replied:
"That is an apparently unsupported assertion by some of the BG fans."
Perhaps you need to go back and study your Set Theory
a little better (along with a few complete course in objective
thinking), because you appear to lack the capacity to
follow one thought in an objectively consistent logic here
with another.
IF the gas IS monatomic gases,
it logically CANNOT CONTAIN DIATOMICS AS WELL.
IF it DOES,
then it is NOT monatomic gases, which is another complete
set.
The SET of monatomic gases,
BY DEFINITION,
CANNOT contain DIATOMICS,
which CANNOT EXIST in the monatomic set,
anymore than the monatomic set can exist
in the diatomic set.
Do you understand this?
I hope so.
If you say that a door IS closed,
it doesn't mean that it's partly (say, 20%) closed.
The posts you then provide as evidence, in respoonse to my request,
SAY NO SUCH THING ABOUT AETHERGAS.
You have yet to show one quoted post
in which it is stated that Aethergas (Brown's gas)
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip pathetic attempt to weasel out of his earlier statement>
>You have yet to show one quoted post
>in which it is stated that Aethergas (Brown's gas)
>"is monoatomic (H) hydrogen and (O) oxygen,"
>which you stated is
>"an apparently unsupported assertion by some of the BG fans."
>Let's see the VALID, posts,
>CONSISTENT WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATION,
>and not some vague, inaccurate facsimile of it, Mr. Ward
>(vague facsimiles are the earmark of the
>"mirror science" you are becoming infamous for here,
>in lieu of real, clear, objective science you fail to practise)
>as you are offering as proof.
>We're still waiting for a VALID response to my request.
It seems our posts crossed in the server, but I'll repost for your
convenience:
<begin Deja News quote>
Subject: Re: Total Vacuum
From: Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
Date: 1997/03/15
Message-ID: <332B88...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
[More Headers]
Robert Erck wrote:
[snip Robert Erck post]
[Michael Hannon wrote:]
Dear Bob,
Thanks for your response. A couple of things - this isn't H2
and
O2 - it's monatomic H and O, and in this particular case, it does
not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
create water vapor, the reaction has no significant heat generated,
[...]
Michael
<end Deja News quote>
I'm curious to see exactly how you try to wiggle out of that one.
It's pretty hard to interpret any other way.
Remember, Deja News is watching you.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon
Bill Ward wrote:
No wiggling needed, Mr. Ward - that's your department, not mine.
I still see NOTHING which states that Aethergas is made exclusivelyof
monatomic gases, even in that statement.
The fact remains that without monatomic gas content in Aethergas,
it is no longer Aethergas, but stoichiometric 2H2+O2, and its initial
(not secondary) implosive qualities do not exist in the strictly
diatomic state.
Monatomic gases must be present for initially non-explosive
recombination
to take place. At that point, a question arises as to what happens with
the
diatomic gases present, once the implosive reaction begins.
I will take the words of Dale Pond as my guide here (he's been
experimenting
with the gas for quite a while), and say that due to the extent of
vacuum created,
which is much greater than that created as a secondary reaction after
the explosive
recombination of diatomic gases, that some type of momentum towards
implosion
takes place with them as well.
But without the monatomic gas content (which, by the way, isn't all that
difficult
to conceive of considering the fact that any container with the gas in
it has not only
nascent gases, but diatomics, and water vapor, as opposed to your ragged
insistence
that all atomic gases in a mixture, particularly one which in all
probability they comprise
WELL less than 100% of the mixture, and singularly, even less, act just
like they would in a container in which they each singularly comprise
100% of the content, as in the electrolysis
of water into SEPARATE containers (one for H and the other for O), in
which they have NOTHING ELSE to bump into but other atoms identical to
themselves.
Probabilities change in such partial volume mixture circumstances, Mr.
Ward. There are so many possibilities as to what is going on in such an
environment that studies are warranted,
as vapor and gases come into contact, right in solution, before they
even reach the water's surface, as well as excitation levels in atomic
gases, due to pulsating voltages, which may hinder their combination
into diatomics - none of which you would choose to consider at all.
It's of course, very convenient to believe that all gases (no matter how
they are produced) in mixtures act the same as they do when in pure
states, but extremely hard to prove with no data, and no experience with
the gases, and their mixtures, in question.
I do, however, see how what I said close to a year ago, when I was still
innocent to the
extent to which the "bastions of science" in this NG such as yourself
would go to
dissect and vivisect people who come into this NG to your own ends, and
therefore
must clarify what I said then, for obvious reasons now. I never believed
at that time,
or before, that Brown's gas was 100% monatomic gases, nor do I now. I
have stated enough times in this NG that THEORETICALLY, 100% is the
ideal, but that, from my own volumetric measurements of gas production
from my own generators, the figure is typically no more than 30% atomic
gases. I have never said otherwise.
I will say again that at the time, and subsequently, any reference to
monatomic gases in Aethergas are at those levels, and I have never said
otherwise -
and will add that it is indeed, as I said in that early post, the
monatomic gases which cause the IMMEDIATE IMPLOSION of Aethergas, as
opposed to the SECONDARY IMPLOSION
which may or may not take place with H2 and O2 alone if the reaction
container absorbs the heat generated in the initial EXPLOSION when the
diatomic bonds are broken, and energy is released as heat in the
reaction.
I think it's becoming clear why you have a real problem
understanding the subtleties involved in phenomena related
to a gas mixture you have no working experience with,
particularly when you think you know something which
you really don't understand because of your lack of experience
in any way, with Aethergas (Brown's gas).
Why, as someone who is suppossedly scientifically minded
(yet apparently lacking in any desire to remain in any way objective
regarding your conceptualizations, perceptions, or commentary)
you continue arguing about something you know nothing about,
as though you had any objective right to do so, is hard for anyone
who is trying to find any objectivity in your comments to see.
What I do see, however, that is you have removed all evidence of the
mess you made of trying to come up with something in the
OTHER replies you made to the same request from me,
and, as I said before, we are still waiting
for a VALID reply to that request..OHannon
Weasel
bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward) writes:
> Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <snip pathetic attempt to weasel out of his earlier statement>
Hey! I don't think I like being invoked as a verb!
Anyway, I have to agree with Bill here. Michael, you *have*, in fact,
asserted that a sizeable proportion of Brown's Gas is monatomic,
and dismissed suggestions from folks here as to how one might go
about testing that hypothesis. At least have the courage of your
convictions to stand by that, or graciously admit that you were in
error.
Regards,
--Tom
Bill Ward
Weasel <weasel@.spamfree.televar.com> wrote:
>bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward) writes:
>> <snip pathetic attempt to weasel out of his earlier statement>
[Weasel wrote:]
>Hey! I don't think I like being invoked as a verb!
<snip>
Sorry, no offense intended. :-> The line should instead read:
"<snip pathetic attempt to hannon out of his earlier statement>"
I wonder, is a hyperextended petard painful?
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >You have yet to show one quoted post
>> >in which it is stated that Aethergas (Brown's gas)
>> >"is monoatomic (H) hydrogen and (O) oxygen,"
>>
<snip>
[Bill Ward writes:]
[In Deja News quote, Michael Hannon wrote:]
>> Dear Bob,
>> Thanks for your response. A couple of things - this isn't H2
>> and
>> O2 - it's monatomic H and O, and in this particular case, it does
>> not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> create water vapor, the reaction has no significant heat generated,
>> [...]
>>
>> Michael
>> <end Deja News quote>
[Bill Ward wrote:]
>> I'm curious to see exactly how you try to wiggle out of that one.
>> It's pretty hard to interpret any other way.
{Michael wrote:]
>No wiggling needed, Mr. Ward - that's your department, not mine.
>I still see NOTHING which states that Aethergas is made exclusivelyof
>monatomic gases, even in that statement.
^^^^
Then you can't read. The phrase, "this isn't H2 and O2 - it's
monatomic H and O...", explicitly limits it to monatomic only.
<snip major load of hannonisms>
>What I do see, however, that is you have removed all evidence of the
>mess you made of trying to come up with something in the
>OTHER replies you made to the same request from me,
>and, as I said before, we are still waiting
>for a VALID reply to that request..OHannon
Give it up, Michael. You said it, you denied it, and you got caught
fair and square. Readers can easily review Deja News and see for
themselves. Don't further embarass yourself by continuing to deny
the obvious. It's over.
On the bright side, at least you haven't lost any credibility.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Weasel
Not so terrible. Still, while 'tis the sport to have the enginer
hoist on his own petard, being hoist on someone else's is a
bit much.
"Will mangle Shakespeare for food",
--Tom
Michael Hannon
You can claim it all day, Mr. Ward, but it aint going to fly.
I was the guy who said it, and I'm say again, that I have
never EVER claimed that Aethergas (Brown's gas)
was 100% monatomics.
But go ahead and keep misinterpreting in order
to support your own inability to think clearly-
you seem to be a master of it, judging by your
past performances, particularly since this thread
has now become predicated upon your defending
your misinterpretation, misdirection, and envaglement.
OHannon
OHannon
Bill Ward wrote:
> Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> >You have yet to show one quoted post
> >> >in which it is stated that Aethergas (Brown's gas)
> >> >"is monoatomic (H) hydrogen and (O) oxygen,"
> >>
> <snip>
>
> [Bill Ward writes:]
>
> [In Deja News quote, Michael Hannon wrote:]
> >> Dear Bob,
> >> Thanks for your response. A couple of things - this isn't H2
> >> and
> >> O2 - it's monatomic H and O, and in this particular case, it does
> >> not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> create water vapor, the reaction has no significant heat generated,
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Michael
> >> <end Deja News quote>
>
> [Bill Ward wrote:]
> >> I'm curious to see exactly how you try to wiggle out of that one.
> >> It's pretty hard to interpret any other way.
>
> {Michael wrote:]
>
> >No wiggling needed, Mr. Ward - that's your department, not mine.
> >I still see NOTHING which states that Aethergas is made exclusivelyof
> >monatomic gases, even in that statement.
> ^^^^
> Then you can't read. The phrase, "this isn't H2 and O2 - it's
> monatomic H and O...", explicitly limits it to monatomic only.
>
> <snip major load of hannonisms>
>
> >What I do see, however, that is you have removed all evidence of the
> >mess you made of trying to come up with something in the
> >OTHER replies you made to the same request from me,
> >and, as I said before, we are still waiting
> >for a VALID reply to that request..OHannon
>
Michael Hannon
Bill Ward wrote:
> Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> >You have yet to show one quoted post
> >> >in which it is stated that Aethergas (Brown's gas)
> >> >"is monoatomic (H) hydrogen and (O) oxygen,"
> >>
> <snip>
>
> [Bill Ward writes:]
>
> [In Deja News quote, Michael Hannon wrote:]
> >> Dear Bob,
> >> Thanks for your response. A couple of things - this isn't H2
> >> and
> >> O2 - it's monatomic H and O, and in this particular case, it does
> >> not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> create water vapor, the reaction has no significant heat generated,
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Michael
> >> <end Deja News quote>
>
> [Bill Ward wrote:]
> >> I'm curious to see exactly how you try to wiggle out of that one.
> >> It's pretty hard to interpret any other way.
>
> {Michael wrote:]
>
> >No wiggling needed, Mr. Ward - that's your department, not mine.
> >I still see NOTHING which states that Aethergas is made exclusivelyof
> >monatomic gases, even in that statement.
> ^^^^
> Then you can't read. The phrase, "this isn't H2 and O2 - it's
> monatomic H and O...", explicitly limits it to monatomic only.
I can read, Mr. Ward.The question remains - CAN YOU?
I am the person who made that statement -
I should know what I was saying - not you.
The statement DOES NOT STATE
that Brown's gas is composed of 100% monatomics.
It states that the cause of the initial implosion
is caused by monatomic H and O, which immediately implode,
because they do not rewuire the breaking of diatomic bonds first
in order to recombine, and are, in fact the very basis of
the DIRECT implosion involved in Aethergas recombination,
where the vacuum is particularly clean and high,
with insignificant amounts of water vapor present
(as opposed to the secondary implosion which takes place
when diatomic H and O are recombined into water
in a container, where the INITIAL reaction produces heat,
and ONLY THEN has the possibility of imploding, and where
the partial vacuum created contains a high percentage of water vapor).
I said it, Mr. Ward - not you.
I should know what I meant -
not what you wish I meant,
in this single instance, in order to
substantiate your once again erroneous interpretations
of phenomena you have no working knowledge of..
OHannon
>
>
> <snip major load of hannonisms>
>
> >What I do see, however, that is you have removed all evidence of the
> >mess you made of trying to come up with something in the
> >OTHER replies you made to the same request from me,
> >and, as I said before, we are still waiting
> >for a VALID reply to that request..OHannon
>
John M. Feiereisen
In <6a1e6i$9...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward) wrote:
>Sorry, no offense intended. :-> The line should instead read:
>"<snip pathetic attempt to hannon out of his earlier statement>"
Has anybody else noticed that Michael now admits that 2H2+O2 can
appear to implode, when he previously insisted it couldn't? Here's
just one instance where he insisted that 2H2+O2 explodes, while he
insists Brown's gas implodes:
:Subject: Re: Total Vacuum
:From: Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
:Date: 1997/04/02
:Message-ID: <3342B4...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
:Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
<snip>
:But first I'd like to know what
:diatomic H and O your teacher used to cause an implosion that stayed
:imploded - I'm fully aware that implosion is part of the combustion
:process with H2 and O2, just before it explodes, but if you let the
:process complete, explosion is the result, so, you're going to have to
:play this one straight, you worm, not like your usual methods.
Compare this to what he said below:
:Subject: Re: Detonation of Pure Hydrogen
:From: Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
:Date: 1998/01/20
:Message-ID: <6a2tsn$a...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
:Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
<snip>
:It states that the cause of the initial implosion
:is caused by monatomic H and O, which immediately implode,
:because they do not rewuire the breaking of diatomic bonds first
:in order to recombine, and are, in fact the very basis of
:the DIRECT implosion involved in Aethergas recombination,
:where the vacuum is particularly clean and high,
:with insignificant amounts of water vapor present
:(as opposed to the secondary implosion which takes place
:when diatomic H and O are recombined into water
:in a container, where the INITIAL reaction produces heat,
:and ONLY THEN has the possibility of imploding, and where
:the partial vacuum created contains a high percentage of water vapor).
So, it does appear as though Michael is capable of learning, as much
as he may resist it.
It should be interesting to see how he hannons out of this one.
Oh Michael, how's that leg?
--
John M. Feiereisen feierejm(at)utrc(dot)utc(dot)com
Michael Hannon
John M. Feiereisen wrote:
> In <6a1e6i$9...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
> bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward) wrote:
>
> >Sorry, no offense intended. :-> The line should instead read:
>
> >"<snip pathetic attempt to hannon out of his earlier statement>"
>
> Has anybody else noticed that Michael now admits that 2H2+O2 can
> appear to implode, when he previously insisted it couldn't? Here's just
> one instance where he insisted that 2H2+O2 explodes, while he insists
> Brown's gas implodes:
> :Subject: Re: Total Vacuum
> :From: Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
> :Date: 1997/04/02
> :Message-ID: <3342B4...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
> :Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
> <snip>
> :But first I'd like to know what
> :diatomic H and O your teacher used to cause an implosion that stayed
> :imploded - I'm fully aware that implosion is part of the combustion
> :process with H2 and O2, just before it explodes, but if you let the
> :process complete, explosion is the result, so, you're going to have to
> :play this one straight, you worm, not like your usual methods.
Candidly, this is, in fact an earlier misconception on my part,and looking
back on it, I wonder what state I was in when I wrote this,
because it makes no sense.
> Compare this to what he said below:
> :Subject: Re: Detonation of Pure Hydrogen
> :From: Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
> :Date: 1998/01/20
> :Message-ID: <6a2tsn$a...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
> :Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
> <snip>
> :It states that the cause of the initial implosion
> :is caused by monatomic H and O, which immediately implode,
> :because they do not rewuire the breaking of diatomic bonds first
> :in order to recombine, and are, in fact the very basis of
> :the DIRECT implosion involved in Aethergas recombination,
> :where the vacuum is particularly clean and high,
> :with insignificant amounts of water vapor present
> :(as opposed to the secondary implosion which takes place
> :when diatomic H and O are recombined into water
> :in a container, where the INITIAL reaction produces heat,
> :and ONLY THEN has the possibility of imploding, and where
> :the partial vacuum created contains a high percentage of water vapor).
>
> So, it does appear as though Michael is capable of learning, as much
> as he may resist it.
Life is a learning process, Mr. Feuerhosen.The next thing, you'll be
claiming that it was you and the
"courageous science types" who try to lay claim to being
the "science staff" who brought about some
miraculous transformation in my thought processes,
and now I'm "seeing the light" which you were so
"dedicatedly attempting to point me too all this time."I'm afraid not, Mr.
Feuerhosen.2H2 + O2, upon recombination into water, do not implode.
Read this again, so that it can sink into that granite brain of yours:
2H2 + O2, upon recombination into water, do not implode.
Pure Aethergas, upon recombination into water, always implodes.
I have witnessed it well over 100 times right in front of me.
The product of the recombination of 2H2 and O2 is primarily hot water vapor,
or steam,
which, when it comes in contact with the walls of the container, or other
means of sinking the heat energy from the vapor, MAY cause that vapor to
condense by giving up its heat to the sinking surface, and reverting into a
liquid state, at which time the vapor content in the container is reduced,
possibly creating reduced pressure in the container.
BUT this is a secondary change of state, not part of the initial reaction at
all,
and is not even reliable in many cases, because if the container is unable
to absorb
sufficient heat from the vapor to cause it to refert to a more compact
liquid state,
no implosion will take place.
Every ignition I had ever seen of separated water previous to my experiments
with Aethergas
invariably caused nothing but explosions, simply because the container in
which they took place
did not absorb enough heat to condense the resulting vapor back into
liquid, in order to reduce the pressure in the container to below 1 Atm. I'd
simply never seen it happen.
On the other hand, I have done repeated tests with Aethergas in which I have
ignited it in a pure state in a lightweight polyethylene bottle to which a
1/8" clear vinyl tube has been welded,
so that one open end of the tube is exposed to the inside of the bottle,
while the other end of the tube is outside the bottle, with its end sealed,
so that the entire containment of the closed bottle and tube are a sealed
unit, with the screw-on cap of the bottle sealed tightly to its lip.
I admit pure Aethergas into the bottle. In the tube there is 1" of water out
at the free sealed end, with 1/8" of air trapped between the sealed end of
the tube, and the 1" of trapped water.
on the other side of the trapped water in the tube is the pure Aethergas,
which fills the rest of the contaiment, from the inside end of the trapped
water, into the bottle containing nothing but the pure gas. When I ignite
that pure gas, the trapped water in the tube does NOT move towards the
sealed end of the tube at all, but immediately, and rapidly, travels in the
opposite direction, towards the bottle, while the bottle's sides are
buckling from atmospheric pressure
pushing on it, until it becomes so distorted in shape that the cap can no
loger seal it properly, and air begins to rush into it, causing the trapped
water in the tube to travel back to its original position near the sealed
outside end of the tube.
Try that with your 2H2+O2, Mr. Feuerhosen, and watch the trapped water
immediately head AWAY from the bottle upon ignition of the contained gas,
and then, possibly changing direction
afterwards, as the hot vapors give up their heat to the container walls.
Even then, I seriously doubt that you will ever get the bottle to distort
into such a collapsed state that its seal will be broken.
> It should be interesting to see how he hannons out of this one.
Interesting how of all things Mr. Feuerhosen chooses to do in this NG,it is
never real contribution, but most highly usual that he is here to take
a cheap shot at someone who IS trying to contribute, and he usually uses
something like the following to conclude his little "dig" that he's
obviously
spent some time researching into (you've obviously been burying your nose
in Deja News, Mr. Feuerhosen, in order to locate something I said last
Spring
with which to place your little "dig" here):
> Oh Michael, how's that leg?
Apparently my leg, despite the schrapnel still logging in it, and the
misshapen kneecap
(the Reno VA hospital systematically ignored even xrays of the damage until
I insisted)
are still, despite the damage, in better shape than that psyche of yours,
Mr. Feuerhosen,
which, for whatever reason, seems to have nothing better to do, despite the
fact that you are such an astute "man of science," than to pull up a passage
from months ago in order to toss
a bit of your infamous " munkey dung" my way.
Have you ever thought about doing anything else here -
like, perhaps, contributing something?
Any research into hydrogen as an energy source you'd like to discuss?
Feel free, Mr. Feuerhosen.
Surely, with all you claim to know about science,
you can come up with something besides a little petty insult or two
against someone who isn't even claiming to have
the extensive scientific knowledge you claim to,
but is trying to get to the truth about a gas
you have no working knowledge of at all,
and who has at least experimented with it,
rather than just ridicule it,
and those who are pursuing the truth about it
as best they can.
OHannon
Atul Deshmane
.
.
>
> Candidly, this is, in fact an earlier misconception on my part,and looking
> back on it, I wonder what state I was in when I wrote this,
> because it makes no sense.
>
> > Compare this to what he said below:
.
Not that all of us lay observers are keeping score. But Mr. Hannon
clearly escaped this one unscathed and made Mr. Feireisen look pretty
mean :-y . In the words of the pre-emininant philosopher,
"can't we all just get along"
All of the participants in these ongoing discussions with Mr. Hannon
(the clear underdog) are clearly doing more than discussing the facts.
I really miss the days when the usenet news groups were more focused.
I am sure that regardless of education, we all agree that excess
hubris (ego) is contrary to constructive discussion. And many of the
discussions are way too charged with ego.
John M. Feiereisen
In <6a6stg$o...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
<oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<The usual Hannon screaming snipped.>
>2H2 + O2, upon recombination into water, do not implode.
>Pure Aethergas, upon recombination into water, always implodes.
>I have witnessed it well over 100 times right in front of me.
Michael, all I ask is that you repeat the same experiments, in exactly
the same way, with a stoichiometric 2H2 + O2 mixture.
You rail on and on about your experimentation with Aethergas, but it's
been absolutely clear for years that Aethergas, Brown's gas, Rhode's
gas, or whatever you want to call it, is nothing more than a stoich
2H2 + O2 mixture. And all its 'magical' properties that have been
demonstrated are nothing more than misinterpretations of observations.
And it's magical properties that have *not* been demonstrated
(cleaning of radioactive waste, etc.) are nothing more than fantasy.
If you actually tried any experiments with 2H2 + O2 (I have), you
might be surprised that it behaves exactly the same as your magic gas.
If this magic gas were really different from 2H2 + O2, it'd have hit
the public eye decades ago. Substantial content of monatomic hydrogen
and oxygen at standard temperature and pressure would be BIG news. As
it is, the only pro-Aethergas info seems to come from crackpots on the
Internet who have little or no understanding of basic physics and
chemistry (or from scammers wanting to take advantage of the
gullible). (And please don't try to give it legitimacy by citing
Norinco. Hydroxy welders are legitimate. But they produce 2H2 + O2,
not monatomic 2H + O (or even a significant percentage of monatomic
gases).
Flame on, Michael, I know you will.
Phil. G. Felton
In article <6a6stg$o...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
oha...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> John M. Feiereisen wrote:
>
> > In <6a1e6i$9...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
> > bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward) wrote:
(deleted)
> 2H2 + O2, upon recombination into water, do not implode.
>
> Pure Aethergas, upon recombination into water, always implodes.
> I have witnessed it well over 100 times right in front of me.
>
> The product of the recombination of 2H2 and O2 is primarily hot water vapor,
> or steam,
> which, when it comes in contact with the walls of the container, or other
> means of sinking the heat energy from the vapor, MAY cause that vapor to
> condense by giving up its heat to the sinking surface, and reverting into a
> liquid state, at which time the vapor content in the container is reduced,
> possibly creating reduced pressure in the container.
> BUT this is a secondary change of state, not part of the initial reaction at
> all,
> and is not even reliable in many cases, because if the container is unable
> to absorb
> sufficient heat from the vapor to cause it to refert to a more compact
> liquid state,
> no implosion will take place.
(deleted)
This is not true. The following is a description of standard laboratory
experiment I have done many times:
A quartz vessel in an oven at about 500 C is filled with a H2/O2 mixture at a
pressure which puts it between the 2nd and third ignition limits (ie it will
not spontaneously ignite). The mixture pressure is slowly reduced via a
capillary leak until the 2nd limit is reached at which time the mixture ignites.
Usually you see a weak flash and hear a slight 'click' sound and observe a drop
in pressure by about a third caused by the following overall reaction:
2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O (i.e. a volume reduction of 3 -> 2)
Note that there is no condensation of water in the vessel because of the high
temperature. Of course in a spark ignited mixture in a unheated vessel there
will be a further reduction of pressure due to condensation as pointed out
above.
Phil.
John M. Feiereisen
>Not that all of us lay observers are keeping score. But Mr. Hannon
>clearly escaped this one unscathed and made Mr. Feireisen look pretty
>mean :-y . In the words of the pre-emininant philosopher,
> "can't we all just get along"
Oh boy, you're right. Michael sure got the better of me with that
zinger, didn't he? :-)
>All of the participants in these ongoing discussions with Mr. Hannon
>(the clear underdog) are clearly doing more than discussing the facts.
It is utterly useless to try to carry on a serious discussion with
Michael. If we could get him to discuss the facts, we might start to
get somewhere. History has proven that's impossible with him, as he
is firmly entrenched in his fantasy world. So we might as well have
some fun (and maybe help some innocent bystander avoid blowing himself
up, like Michael has).
>I really miss the days when the usenet news groups were more focused.
>I am sure that regardless of education, we all agree that excess
>hubris (ego) is contrary to constructive discussion. And many of the
>discussions are way too charged with ego.
Agreed. Usenet seems to have become the '90s equivalent of CB radio.
Most of the good discussions have moved off to mailing lists.
Mr.Heli
Michael Hannon wrote:
>
snip
>
> Interesting how of all things Mr. Feuerhosen chooses to do in this NG,it is
> never real contribution, but most highly usual that he is here to take
> a cheap shot at someone who IS trying to contribute, and he usually uses
> something like the following to conclude his little "dig" that he's
> obviously
> spent some time researching into (you've obviously been burying your nose
> in Deja News, Mr. Feuerhosen, in order to locate something I said last
> Spring
> with which to place your little "dig" here):
>
Are you really complaining about people taking "cheap shots" at you!
Didn't you just say this not long ago?
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Ralph Johnston wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jan 1998 20:42:04 GMT, the maniacal doctor steve fox wrote
>> in his/her infinite wisdom.....
snip
>> OTOH, any one who posts on the usenet should develop a thick skin and
>> an open mind.....and a sense of humor.....
>>
> I agree, Mr. Johnston.
>Life is an adventure-
>not a personality contest.
snip
>
>OH
And you routinely post replies like this:
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
snip
>How about this one, Mr. Heli?
>FUCK YOU, moron.
>
>Who the fuck do you think you're fooling
>with this anal retentive nonsense?
>
>I suggest you go see "Scent of A Woman"
>with Al Pacino
>about a hundred times,
>and stop acting like a nit-picking mama's boy
>with nothing better to do with his time.
>
>Now, give Carl his glue back.
>
>OHannon
I think this is a case of "what goes around, comes around".
But you're not man enough to take it. If you treated others
with a little more respect, everyone wouldn't take "cheap shots"
at you when they had the chance. I would have thought that
at your age, you would have learned this!
Now, why don't you take your own advise and see "Scent of A
Woman". It might help you get in touch of your true inner
feelings. :0
Mr. Heli
Michael Hannon
John M. Feiereisen wrote:
> In <6a6stg$o...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
> <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <The usual Hannon screaming snipped.>
Another defamatory lie -
I wasn't screaming at all.
I use capital letters for extra emphasis only.
I have yet to even raise my voice in this NG.
> >2H2 + O2, upon recombination into water, do not implode.
>
> >Pure Aethergas, upon recombination into water, always implodes.
> >I have witnessed it well over 100 times right in front of me.
>
> Michael, all I ask is that you repeat the same experiments, in exactly
> the same way, with a stoichiometric 2H2 + O2 mixture.
>
I already did, Mr. Fireshorts -With 2H2+O2 ( made in the same generator as
the Aethergas, only using
a flat DC supply instead of a Wiseman supply).
The container gases exploded, blowing the cap off the bottle.
> You rail on and on about your experimentation with Aethergas, but it's
> been absolutely clear for years that Aethergas, Brown's gas, Rhode's
> gas, or whatever you want to call it, is nothing more than a stoich
> 2H2 + O2 mixture.
Really?Why - because you say so?
You have never offered ANY documented proof of that repeated assertion,
but you keep repeating it, as though it will somehow become
magically true if you do so, with no evidence.Obviously, you have never
been around the product,nor have you any intention of doing so.
Now, that's what I call real science -
adamant assertions on subjects about which
you have no knowledge whatsever.
I'm afraid that your type of non-objective, non-experienced,
opinionated argument will wash only in the shallowest
of sheltered "mirror science" alcoves, Mr. Feuerhosen
> And all its 'magical' properties that have been
> demonstrated are nothing more than misinterpretations of observations.
More unproven hogwash.Neither you, nor anyone else here,
has EVER provided ONE SHREAD of proof
that what you just said is objective fact,
NOTHING -
and when I say NOTHING has been provided here,
that is EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN
NOTHING.
Not one of you "science types" here has ever even SEEN
a real-life Aethergas generator, never mind seen actual test results,
All any of you keep doing here is repeating
the same defamatory discrediting remarks, with
NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT.
While now, not only is there Yull Brown who is making claims,
but William Rhodes, who invented the same gas and process,
over 10 years before Brown, has never met him, and never even knew he,
or his claims, or George Wiseman's own test results, existed,
stating similar results regarding the detonative properties of the gas,
just as I did, after being astounded at the combustive properties of the
gas in air
compared to ANY 2H2+O2 combustion I had ever seen, and stating his own
opinion
about the ATOMIC gas content of the mixture, after his own laboratory
tests,
TOTALLY AND UNKNOWINGLY INDEPENDENT of Brown and Wiseman's,
and you're still sitting there, never even having seen one single flame
from the product
of their generators, claiming that it is, without any question,
nothing but stoichiometric H2 and O2, and nothing more,
and that every test result, even from a totally independent source,
William Rhodes of Arizona State Univ.,
is just mistaken interpretation
of what you insist you and the other "science types" here know to be true
about a gas none of you has ever had one shread of evidence
on, yourselves, positive, or negative.
> And it's magical properties that have *not* been demonstrated
> (cleaning of radioactive waste, etc.) are nothing more than fantasy.
More hogwash, Mr. Feuerhosen.
> If you actually tried any experiments with 2H2 + O2 (I have), you
> might be surprised that it behaves exactly the same as your magic gas.
>
BULL SHIT, Mr. Feuerhosen.You are lying.
2H2 + O2 does not react a different temperatures with
different substances, as Aethergas does, neither does it
directly implode, without being dependent upon the
absorption of heat in its container, in order to possibly, and not always,
have nothing but a state-change secondary implosion which is
not a direct result of the recombination of the gases at all,
but a secondary thermal reduction in the water vapor produced in the
initial reaction.
If the container is unsble to sufficiently drop the temperature of that
vapor in time,
no implosion takes place at all, as I have already gotten in test results
given here,
where the gases produced hot water vapor which expanded (not imploded)
sufficiently to burst the seal of the cap on the same bottle in which the
same volume of Aethergas imploded, with absolutelyno initial thermal
expansion at all.
> If this magic gas were really different from 2H2 + O2, it'd have hit
> the public eye decades ago. Substantial content of monatomic hydrogen
> and oxygen at standard temperature and pressure would be BIG news.
Judging by the fact that the largest arms manufacturer in the WORLD was
doing EXACTLY THAT (looking very seriously at Brown and his use of the
gas, decades ago) , and isliterally using the rights to manufacture what
you call a fraud from Yull Brown,
to manufacture welder/generators called "Brown's Gas" on the front control
panel,
without ANYONE calling their claims that those welders can weld aluminum
without inert gases, as well as many other claims that there is not one
other company which manufactures H2O2 welders makes, or can deliver on,
AND the fact that George Wiseman is in the final test stages of HIS OWN
VERSIONS of AETHERGAS WELDERS, which he plans to market in both
fully-assembled versions, and kits this summer, plus the fact that the
Chinese government is actively involved in selling OTHER of Brown's uses
of the gas in some very costly desalination plants, and other systems, AND
that the money being put into Aethergas (Brown's gas) development is
increasing daily, makes your claims that the world isn't paying any
attention a but ludicrous, and that includes Yull Brown's current
offerings of NUCLEAR WASTE REDUCTION generators, also being sold by those
idiotic Chinese governmentals, who are now going around the world
promoting the technologies based on Brown's work, despite the fact the HE
DIDN'T EVEN INVENT THE GENERATOR OR WELDER first, and despite the fact
that they have been using Brown's gas implosion desalination processes in
their Navy for years now.
> As
> it is, the only pro-Aethergas info seems to come from crackpots on the
> Internet who have little or no understanding of basic physics and
> chemistry (or from scammers wanting to take advantage of the
> gullible). (And please don't try to give it legitimacy by citing
> Norinco. Hydroxy welders are legitimate.
They are NOT Hydroxy welders, Mr. Feuerhosen.The label on the front of
EVERY Norinco Welder/generator
says "BROWN GAS."
You may consider Yull Brown a crackpot, but the largest arms manufacturer
in the world, Norinco, doesn't, and when Yull Brown stated:
"There is no other method capable of producing such a gas. Brown's Gas is
a new product and there is no literature describing its properties which
are
sufficiently different from a combined molecular hydrogen and oxygen gas
mixture, in 2:1 ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ proportion, to be
significant in industrial and commercial applications." Brown,
1979 ^^^^^^^^^^
Well, garldernit if Norinco didn't go ahead and believe the guy, and start
deveoping
the products they now make and sell, using his name.
Look for yourself:
http://www.btt.org/BROWN'S_GAS_WELDERS.html
> But they produce 2H2 + O2,
> not monatomic 2H + O (or even a significant percentage of monatomic
> gases).
Prove it.
Yull Brown is quoted as saying that you are wrong, just a few lines above
your assertion.
> Flame on, Michael, I know you will.
The only flaming going on here is you and your "science type" pals,who are
going down in flames trying to hold on to your unfounded
beliefs, like a buch of drug addicts, strung out on your views,
and in total denial of reality.
Read the claims at that BTT site, and tell us all here how you have
a generator which produces STRICTLY diatomic gases and is capable
of what the NORINCO BROWNS GAS welders are.
And then PROVE IT, Mr. Feuerhosen.
Don't just repeat your totally unsubstantiated assertions
against the NORINCO WELDER as being nothing but
a simple 2H2+O2 generator -
PROVE IT.
There are people here who have been proving otherwise,
even with small, primitive versions of those costly Norinco devices
which were designed by that crackpot Yull Brown, and thusly labelled,
as well as George Wiseman, and of course,
William Rhodes.
Michael Hannon
John M. Feiereisen wrote:
> In <34C754...@ford.com>, Atul Deshmane <ades...@ford.com> wrote:
>
> >Not that all of us lay observers are keeping score. But Mr. Hannon
> >clearly escaped this one unscathed and made Mr. Feireisen look pretty
> >mean :-y . In the words of the pre-emininant philosopher,
>
> > "can't we all just get along"
>
> Oh boy, you're right. Michael sure got the better of me with that
> zinger, didn't he? :-)
>
> >All of the participants in these ongoing discussions with Mr. Hannon
> >(the clear underdog) are clearly doing more than discussing the facts.
>
> It is utterly useless to try to carry on a serious discussion with
> Michael. If we could get him to discuss the facts, we might start to
> get somewhere. History has proven that's impossible with him, as he
> is firmly entrenched in his fantasy world. So we might as well have
> some fun (and maybe help some innocent bystander avoid blowing himself
> up, like Michael has).
>
> >I really miss the days when the usenet news groups were more focused.
> >I am sure that regardless of education, we all agree that excess
> >hubris (ego) is contrary to constructive discussion. And many of the
> >discussions are way too charged with ego.
Your posts are replete with object lessons in that department, Mr.
Feuerhosen.You have yet to substantiate any of the derrogation of the gas
with anything resembing objectively derived scientific fact,
or even any simple eyewitness-based experiential recounting.
It has been all nothing but your egotistical opinions
about phenomena you have never seen,
and have no background in,
based on your totally non-objective presumption
that just because you believe them to be true,
it entitles you to repeatedly make those totally
unfounded assertions and characterizations
about what you have never even seen.
As far as the group being focused,
I've been here for a bit over a year,
and in that whole time,
I've seen basically nothing much other than presumptive,
egotistical attacks upon people who enter the group
with innocent intentions, wishing to discuss topics
about which you and your fellow "science types"
actually have no working knowledge,
but some highly unscientific, non-objective,
opinions unsubstantiated by real factual evidence
which you attempt to impose upon everyone here as
scientific fact.
I would hardly call that "scientifically focused discussion."
> Agreed. Usenet seems to have become the '90s equivalent of CB radio.
> Most of the good discussions have moved off to mailing lists.
I'd like to see some of THEM, Mr. Feuerhosen.Why don't you post some of
those "good discussions,"
so that we can all become "illuminated" by the experience
of reading things you agree with, as opposed to reading your
ridiculing and derrogating what you are just plain unfamiliar with.
John M. Feiereisen
In <6a9i61$a...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
<oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>John M. Feiereisen wrote:
>> Agreed. Usenet seems to have become the '90s equivalent of CB radio.
>> Most of the good discussions have moved off to mailing lists.
>I'd like to see some of THEM, Mr. Feuerhosen.Why don't you post some of
>those "good discussions,"
>so that we can all become "illuminated" by the experience
>of reading things you agree with, as opposed to reading your
>ridiculing and derrogating what you are just plain unfamiliar with.
Michael, people like yourself are precisely why there's been such an
exodus from the open newsgroups to moderated newsgroups and mailing
lists. Any discussion of the merits (actually, lack thereof) of the
things you post prompts from you not intelligent discussion, but
rather name-calling, insults, and long tirades about conventional
science's inability or unwillingness to think the way you do.
(There's a darn good reason people you call 'mirror scientists' don't
think like you.) This juvenile behavior, coupled with your
well-proven track record (anybody can look at DejaNews) of a profound
misunderstanding of the science you consistently trash, makes it
absolutely impossible to take anything you say seriously.
You've already blown yourself up, damaged your house, and injured your
leg toying with this science you understand so little about. You're
going to kill yourself some day. Please don't take others with you
trying to convince them you know what you're doing.
Don Lancaster
numptyfuck wrote:
Such an experiment or experiments should:Could someone please *post* an experiment which has positive
or negative results, in standard scientific form? Including details
like whether is was distilled water used, how ionic concentrations
in the water if possible, a circuit schematic w/part numbers if
there is a wierd generator invovled, electrode types and part
numbes if possible, etc.
(1) Accurately measure the flame temperature of the
gas..
(2) Accurately show the precise composition of the
gas.
(3) Clearly and unambiguously show the differences
in properties from stokegas.
(4) Clearly and unambiguously show the differences
in generation from stokegas.
(5) Clearly resolve the monotomics question.
(6) Clearly show differences in condensation/reduced
pressure behavior from stokegas.
(6) Show the ratio of parahydrogen to orthohydrogen.
(7) Accurately measure the generation efficiency.
Naturally, it is the full and total responsibility of the proponents
to do this.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics Press 3860 West First Street Box 809
Thatcher, AZ 85552
Voice phone: (520) 428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com
Visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Know your acronymns: url = utterly rancid location
net = not entirely true
www = world wide wait
Michael Hannon
John M. Feiereisen wrote:
> In <6a9i61$a...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
> <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >John M. Feiereisen wrote:
>
> >> Agreed. Usenet seems to have become the '90s equivalent of CB radio.
> >> Most of the good discussions have moved off to mailing lists.
>
> >I'd like to see some of THEM, Mr. Feuerhosen.Why don't you post some of
> >those "good discussions,"
> >so that we can all become "illuminated" by the experience
> >of reading things you agree with, as opposed to reading your
> >ridiculing and derrogating what you are just plain unfamiliar with.
>
> Michael, people like yourself are precisely why there's been such an
> exodus from the open newsgroups to moderated newsgroups and mailing
> lists. Any discussion of the merits (actually, lack thereof) of the
> things you post prompts from you not intelligent discussion, but
> rather name-calling, insults, and long tirades about conventional
> science's inability or unwillingness to think the way you do.
> (There's a darn good reason people you call 'mirror scientists' don't
> think like you.) This juvenile behavior, coupled with your
> well-proven track record (anybody can look at DejaNews) of a profound
> misunderstanding of the science you consistently trash, makes it
> absolutely impossible to take anything you say seriously.
This is seriously funny, Mr. Feuerhosen.
I'd advise you to look at YOUR RECORD in Deja News,
before you even THINK about considering mine.
Despite your supposed "credentials," you have consistently
made assertions of the most outrageous nature,
without any foundational basis other than your beliefs,
and have thought nothing of it. You don't even know
what the word "objectivity" means, because if you did,
you NEVER would have made those assertions in the first place;
yet you continue to blindly make more daily, with NO PROOF
of what you say whatsoever.
In the case of Aethergas,
YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS,
and despite that FACT, you continue to discuss it
as thoough you had been working with it daily,
when, in fact, you have absolutely no real, authentic information
on what the flame looks like, never mind what it is capable of.
You've never been near it, and don't know anyone who has,
and refuse to acknowledge the experimental results
stated by ANYONE WHO HAS.
What kind of foolishness is this,
for someone who claims to be a "science type?"
You're much more of an "science conjecture type,"
or a "egotistically bigoted opinion type"
than any real, "objectively minded science type."
But you're so egotistically obstinate regarding your
inadequately-founded opinions that
you couldn't let reality in to save your life.
> You've already blown yourself up, damaged your house, and injured your
> leg toying with this science you understand so little about. You're
> going to kill yourself some day. Please don't take others with you
> trying to convince them you know what you're doing.
My, my, my, Mr. Feuerhosen -
you really should be on the writers' staff of
"General Hospital."
> --
> John M. Feiereisen feierejm(at)utrc(dot)utc(dot)com
Let me make you aware of something of which
you seem highly ignorant, Mr. Feuerhosen (something you
should already be aware of as an experimental scientist,
but seem not even to have a clue about,
judging by what you just wrote) -
experiment in unknown areas ALWAYS has risks -
it goes with the territory, and for you NOT TO KNOW THIS
is a sign that there is a very good chance that you have never been
involved in this type of research at all, but take
99% of what you call "knowledge" from books, and not from real life,
dealing with the unknown areas of science which need exploration.
What SKIING, HANG GLIDING, FLYING, and FIREARMS enthusiasts do,
and many other activities, are more dangerous, and can involve
danger to many more people than what I have been doing.
Look at the deaths on ski slopes -
are you telling skiers to stop skiing?
These people aren't even researching something
which could be of great benifit to all of us -
they are PLAYING, with no goals except self-gratification,
and endangering themselves and others.
ANYONE who has worked in experimental areas like Aethergas
HAVE, and WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE, accidents.
REAL LIFE HAS RISKS, Mr. Feuerhosen -
it is only the takers of those risks
who bring real progress to mankind,
while people like you, the hangers-on, who come afterwards,
waiting for someone else to take all the risks and ridicule
for the sake of their discoveries, and human progress,
who don't have the stomach, not only for facing danger,
but for even taking a chance at ridicule by their "peers,"
by following their own perceptual discoveries,
which don't agree with the norm.
Several people died in the construction of the tunnels
which now connect England and France, Mr. Feuerhosen.
They gave their lives to change the world just a little,
despite the fact that EVERY safety precaution was kept by the crews,
including close governmental scrutiny of all procedures.
Accidents happen in REAL LIFE, Mr. Feuerhosen -
that's why so many people like yourself are afraid of it,
and prefer to armchair criticize rather than take the risks,
trying to hide their own gutlessness behind their ridicule
of those who have the courage to lead REAL LIVES.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
It seems that Mr. Lancaster is just chock FULL of
instructions on "what should be done,"
while having nothing at all to offer of what he did himself,
yet he hilariously offers whole segments in nationally published
articles explaining phenomena he has never even been witness to,
and which he continues to discuss, with no foundation in fact
whatsoever.
Just another "armchair scientist," Mr. Lancaster?
You've got every qualification for it.
I particularly like your explanation in "Tech Musings"
( "Investigating Brown's Gas,...(blah, blah)
in the Feb. issue of "Electronics Now," of claims regarding
the lack of heat generated during electrolysis, particularly since
you have never lifted a finger to see the actual, authentic,
real world experiential truth regarding it for yourself:
(pg 26) "Claims that any electrolysis cell "stays cool" are
easily explained in the endothermic generation region
between 1.23 and 1.47 volts. (Blah, blah, blah...)"
How would you possibly know, Mr, Lancaster?
Have you ever even SEEN such a generator,
operating or not?
My first experiments with generating the gas were
early last year, and involved temprature readings,
voltage and current readings, and gas output,
from the same cell, using a de-ionized water and lye solution,
as described in my posts with Bill Ward in this NG at the time.
I used a pair of digital multimeters and a Soltek 20 Mhz scope
to monitor the voltage and current.
The straight DC voltage and current were both within 5% (MAX)
of the Wiseman circuit's DC-offset half sinewave power output,
while the GAS output from the Wiseman circuit ON THE SAME CELL
was approximately 30% greater volume in the same timeframe,
while the cell did not rise in temperature AT ALL while the Wiseman
circuit
was powering the cell, and the same cell rose in temprature
substantially,
while outputting LESS GAS, when powered by the flat DC supply.
The DC-offset half sinewave coming from the Wiseman supply
was outputting 2+ volts average(it may not have been true RMS,
but it wasn't exactly off the 30% it would have had to have been
in order to hit the region YOU claim it had to be in -
I was monitoring the wave on my scope the whole time.
IN BOTH CASES, THE CELL WAS OPERATING ON
SLIGHTLY ABOVE 2.0 VOLTS (~2.1v), and nowhere NEAR
1.23-1.47 V, on virtually identical, rock-steady current levels.
But you wouldn't know anything about the REALITY of
what is going on in one of these cells,
because you have NEVER EVEN SEEN ONE.
operating, or not.
These parameters have been repeatedly tested not only by me,
but by George Wiseman,
(who knows as much about the gas
as you DON'T, Mr. Lancaster), and others..
You know absolutely nothing about its actual, authentic phenomena,
but like to write about it as though you lived inside the generator.
Armchair science. Mr. Lancaster -
you're quite an "expert" at it.
Apparently, and very interestingly,
your publishers pay well for that kind of "science."
I wonder why.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Look up my posts around the subject "Implosion" initially, and slightly
before,
in Deja News - some simple experiments were done by me then, in which I
used bothe a flat DC supply, and what is called a Wiseman supply, which is
full-wave rectified wall AC, current- limited, and voltage-limited, by a
capacitor in-series, before the rectifier.
The results I got there have remained consistent with all subsequant
testing of six differrent sizes of Aethergas generators, as well as George
Wiseman's published results..
OHannon
numptyfuck wrote:
> >More unproven hogwash.Neither you, nor anyone else here,
> >has EVER provided ONE SHREAD of proof
> >that what you just said is objective fact,
> >NOTHING -
> >and when I say NOTHING has been provided here,
> >that is EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN
> >NOTHING.
> >Not one of you "science types" here has ever even SEEN
> >a real-life Aethergas generator, never mind seen actual test results,
> >All any of you keep doing here is repeating
> >the same defamatory discrediting remarks, with
> >NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT.
>
> Not to restate the obvous, but both sides here have missed this.
>
> Could someone please *post* an experiment which has positive
> or negative results, in standard scientific form? Including details
> like whether is was distilled water used, how ionic concentrations
> in the water if possible, a circuit schematic w/part numbers if
> there is a wierd generator invovled, electrode types and part
> numbes if possible, etc.
>
> No need to scream at each other, or laugh. Just post an proper
> experimental report, and I'm sure that myself and others would
> gladly attempt to recreate an experiment, or point out possible
> problems.
>
> --
> Steve Manley
> sma...@nyx.net
> http://www.nyx.net/~smanley
numptyfuck
>More unproven hogwash.Neither you, nor anyone else here,
>has EVER provided ONE SHREAD of proof
>that what you just said is objective fact,
>NOTHING -
>and when I say NOTHING has been provided here,
>that is EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN
>NOTHING.
>Not one of you "science types" here has ever even SEEN
>a real-life Aethergas generator, never mind seen actual test results,
>All any of you keep doing here is repeating
>the same defamatory discrediting remarks, with
>NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT.
Not to restate the obvous, but both sides here have missed this.