The following quotation is from Brown=92s Gas Book 1, (August 1995) by=
George
Wiseman, Eagle Research, PO Box 145, Eastport, ID, 83826, USA:
"Chapter 9, Theory of Brown=92s Gas (p.18)
=85.We have already discussed how, in an electrolyser, the water was easily
split, using electricity for the force and some electrolyte as a catalyst at
a low power level. Eventually, at some time, every single water molecule was
split apart, the anions and cations that were then formed turned into
mono-atomic atoms H and O. In this process the electrolyser stays at the
same temperature, because energy (as electricity) is being added at the same
rate as it is being absorbed by the endothermic chemical reaction. In a
"normal" electrolyser, these H and O atoms then form into H2 and O2 in
exothermic reactions which generate excess heat=85.
What if they did not reform?=85.There would also be a significantly larger
volume of gas produced by the electrolyser, well beyond any reasonable
expectation of a "normal" electrolyser, because the mon-atomic moles would
take up twice the volume that the di-atomic moles for the same weight of
water electrolysed.
More specifically, if two gram-moles of water (32g) are electrolysed, two
moles of H2 and one mole of O2 are normally generated, which would displace
67.2 liters. But if two gram-moles of water were electrolysed and none of it
reformed into H2 and O2, then it would displace 134.4 liters. The two
gram-moles of water would form four moles of atomic hydrogren and two moles
of atomic oxygen.=20
My experiments verify this; not to that efficiency, but much more volume
than could expect by assuming a maximum efficiency to a normal=
electrolyser."
Thus there are at least two measurable physical indications that the
hydrogen and oxygen in Brown=92s Gas exist in a stable mono-atomic form:=20
1. The electrolysis remains =91cool=92. If H2 and O2 were formed, it should=
be
very hot, due to the exothermic reaction.
2. Significantly larger volumes of gas are produced.
Innumerable press articles have been written on Brown=92s Gas in the twenty=
or
so years since Brown obtained his patent, most of which describe the obvious
and peculiar effects of the flame. For example, The Bulletin, August 22,
1989 (the Bulletin is an Australian business/politics magazine) featured
Brown=92s Gas in an article entitled =91Water? Its a Gas=92. I quote:
"The textbooks give a temperature of between 2210 degrees Centigrade and
2900 degrees Centigrade for hydrogen burned in oxygen. Yet, when Brown=92s=
Gas
is applied to the tip of a tungsten rod, there is intense light and the
dimensions and mass of the metal are reduced by what appears to be
vaporization. The temperature for the vaporization of tungsten is supposedly
5900 degrees Centigrade. This observed effect ought to demand the most
urgent and thorough scientific investigation.
=20
The flame burns through bricks with a speed impossible to reproduce with
hand-held oxy-acetylene welders and reduces them to very dense and hard
lumps of glass.
The reaction of the industrial and scientific establishment of Australia has
been to sneer, rather than test, and to accuse Brown of being a magician or
a conman."
However in spite of this very public call for some actual real scientific
investigation, none of course was ever carried out. This may have been
partly due to Brown=92s secretive and paranoid personality, but this is no
excuse. If Brown=92s Gas is proven to reduce radioactivity as per Joe
Champion=92s claims, then somebody really ought to start suing scientific
institutions for criminal negligence.
James Mann <psi@ozemail.com.au>
Anti-sceptic Society
Melbourne, Australia