Denny Klein - Fuel from Water - Is this a scam?

[Captain_Swoop]

http://www.clevelandbridge.com/

Seems one of the worlds biggest bridge building companies don't use your amazing box. Why not?

[randman]

Anything that can apply heat to a radioactive material and make it lose it's radioactivity is magic.

So far we only have your anecdote of some half remembered box doing seemingly magic things. hardly compelling.

Do you even know who the manufacturer of this amazing device is?

If it has all these amazing properties and abilities why isn't it in standard use in industry rather than the various systyems that are commonly used for welding and cutting etc?

On Teesside where i live are loads of heavy engineering companies building Oil rigs, Railroad equipment, Bridges, ships etc. We have a major car manufacturing plant.

Why don't any of them use this amazing device?
Why don't you google it and find out for yourself?

It's a product in use. They say it's better for cutting than welding. As far as why isn't it standard across the board, maybe you don't understand business that well.

You think every positive innovation is immediately or even ever adopted? Who owns the patent? Who is selling, marketing, manufacturing, etc,....?

Let me ask you this as a small example. Why can you buy a Ford in Europe that gets such better gas mileage than one you can buy here? Why can you buy diesels with far better mileage than our car's and that run on cleaner diesel, in Europe, but the same companies don't sell either the diesel or the cars here?

[randman]

Here's a list of companies that sell machines.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Brown's_Gas#Companies

Frankly, I am not that surprised that fairly amazing technology would still be peripheal after a couple of decades. Just look how long it took for us to finally get remote control for TVs.

[Aepervius]

Just saying it has unusual properties such as responding without any additional power input to differing materials and causing them to melt of sublimate despite the temps required for that being very different.

What is this reaction exactly?

I don't know, but when it sublimates tungsten quite easily just like it does something like tin, something is going on. It's not heated to one temperature and then applied to equally to metals. It reacts and heats up depending on the metal being touched by the flame.

oxydo reduction. The free H and O in the gas plasma react differently to the metal, and the heat generated by the oxydo reduction on the surface is enough to melt the pure metal, freeing more surface for further oxydo reduction. It is as far as i can tell a known effect of H2 based flame.

[Aepervius]

We were interested in it to sell as an alternative to Acetylene. I myself did not compare it to a regular hydrogen per se but did handle it myself. I am not a welder. Others did compare it to various welding torches. Don't know for sure if that included hydrogen or not but the welders I talked with said it was different than anything else they encountered.

It's sometimes also used for making jewelry.

I can tell you compared to acetylene it is CRAPPY. it makes for a lot of metal oxyded derivate and (if memory serve) make for fragile surface. ETA: which is why oxyhydrogen welding use much more H than O, to make sure there is no oxydation going on, whereas Klein stupid brown gas use a stochiometric proportion of O and H thus ensuring significant oxydation. Really something you do not want on emtal surface, and also the reason why it melt easily stuff.

[randman]

I can tell you compared to acetylene it is CRAPPY. it makes for a lot of metal oxyded derivate and (if memory serve) make for fragile surface.
a fragile surface? That's interesting.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

May have been done but considering these things have been sold and used for decades, whether anyone publishes something about them is meaningless as far as their existence and their uses and properties.

Dowsing rods have been sold for decades. This does not mean that they work.

[Rolfe]

Dowsing rods have been sold for decades. This does not mean that they work.


Well, it doesn't mean they work as advertised. They do something, otherwise they probably would fall out of favour like the Perkins Tractor did.

Selling on the basis of an ideomotor effect probably wouldn't have the same impact though.

Rolfe.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

They do something, otherwise they probably would fall out of favour like the Perkins Tractor did.

Surely the Perkins Tractor worked exactly as well as acupuncture?

[TjW]

We were interested in it to sell as an alternative to Acetylene. I myself did not compare it to a regular hydrogen per se but did handle it myself. I am not a welder. Others did compare it to various welding torches. Don't know for sure if that included hydrogen or not but the welders I talked with said it was different than anything else they encountered.

It's sometimes also used for making jewelry.

Yes, and for working glass. But if you didn't compare it to a standard oxyhydrogen torch, how do you know it has unique properties?

[Heart4Heart]

Making an HHO cutting torch or welder is pretty Easy and cheap to run. Some safety precautions should be taken though. For someone who scrapping metals I imagine using hydrogen and oxygen for cutting purposes and heating purposes it would work fine and it sure beats the cost both in original purchase price (if homemade) and in use (cheaper than renting tanks). But it doesn't in no way shape or form replace all the other gases used in welding and cutting.

I do welding and have MIG-welder aluminum-wire-gun- staleness steel a few different gases, Stick welder, a cutting torch and a plasma cutter. The type of gas and welding equipment used in jobs depending on the material and job we are doing. The reason for a big selection in welding equipment is not so much about competition between welder equipment suppliers but rather the actual need for different technology to match the materials and the conditions we are cutting or welding. There are many other factors like welding environment which determines the best welder for the job. Example: some welders can be used under water and so on.

Regardless of what Denny Klein says about HHO temperatur. HHO coming out of welding tip only reaches around 5500 F and my plasma cutter reaches between 25,000 to 30,000 degrees F. Plasma Cutters have came down great deal in price making it easier for the common hobbyist to afford it.

With a cheap Cutting torch and some cutting welding tips for various gases and a small MIG-welding will probably be around same price as a professional HHO torch and will do a lot more compared to the HHO torch. Plus one could always change the cutting tips so oxygen and hydrogen will work in an cutting torch.

For those who may not be aware of it, HHO has been around for more than a 100 years and have been used for welding and cutting in the old days. There are other gases that works better for a boarder range of cutting and welding needs and and i am sure that is part of the reason HHO was replaced. HHO gas is also more explosive and dangerous to work with.

HHO can be used and works well for some applications so don't think I am dissing anyone using it.

[Rolfe]

Surely the Perkins Tractor worked exactly as well as acupuncture?


Not necessarily comparable. The power of a placebo seems to be related to a number of factors, one of which is how invasive the procedure appears to be. Sticking needles in someone is so much more powerful than waving a stick at them.

A procedure which requires a "highly-trained operative" is much more compelling than something anyone can pick up in half a minute. And so on.

Rolfe.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Reiki, then.

[Captain_Swoop]

It's a product in use. They say it's better for cutting than welding. As far as why isn't it standard across the board, maybe you don't understand business that well.

You think every positive innovation is immediately or even ever adopted? Who owns the patent? Who is selling, marketing, manufacturing, etc,....?

You claim it's been around for decades I would have thought that somewhere in the world a major industry would be using this magic system in favour of other gas or laser systems. Engineering companies do a massive ammount of cutting of steel, if they could do it quicker and more efficiently don't you think they would?

[Aepervius]

For those who may not be aware of it, HHO has been around for more than a 100 years and have been used for welding and cutting in the old days. There are other gases that works better for a boarder range of cutting and welding needs and and i am sure that is part of the reason HHO was replaced. HHO gas is also more explosive and dangerous to work with.

HHO can be used and works well for some applications so don't think I am dissing anyone using it.

And for those who don't know there is *NO* HHO gas, but there is a stochiometric mixture of H2 and O2 to form H2O.

[Rolfe]

Reiki, then.


See the "highly-trained operative" part.

My theory about the Perkins Tractors was that they were too simple and too accessible. Anyone could use them, with no training at all, and they didn't do anything dramatic either.

They were an open invitation to a few unofficial trials, and it was just a bit too obvious that the Emperor was stark naked. You have to wrap him in a bit of ectoplasm for an enduring scam.

Rolfe.

[CORed]

And for those who don't know there is *NO* HHO gas, but there is a stochiometric mixture of H2 and O2 to form H2O.

I would think storing a mixture of H2 and O2 in the same tank would be rather hazardous. Of course, for welding or cutting, you could possibly generate it onsite by electrolysis. However, I suspect that Heart4heart is right, that other gases work better and are safer.

I one were going to use H2 and O2 for cutting or welding, it would seem to me that storing them in separate cylinders would be considerably safer than storing a mixture in one cylinder. It would also allow you to change the mixture if something other than stoichiometric was needed. I know that for cutting, with acetylene, anyway, you need excess oxygen.

[excaza]

I would think storing a mixture of H2 and O2 in the same tank would be rather hazardous. Of course, for welding or cutting, you could possibly generate it onsite by electrolysis. However, I suspect that Heart4heart is right, that other gases work better and are safer.
As far as I'm aware, that's exactly what those specific welders do. Pour in water, it splits it with electricity and burns the gases.

As pointed out previously, they don't work nearly as well as other torches because they burn at a much lower temperature.

[phunk]

Yea, the limits of what we can measure?

But if it's the same stuff and sounds very similar, that I've seen and handled, it can indeed sublimate some things like tungsten. How it does that I don't know?

I don't think anyone does. it's worth investigation

How do you know it's sublimating tungsten, rather than burning it?

[excaza]

How do you know it's sublimating tungsten, rather than burning it?

Shouldn't be too hard to figure out, sublimation is endothermic and combustion is exothermic.

[phunk]

Right, just saying that he hasn't done any actual test to determine which it is. Considering the heat and oxygen available in that type of torch, it would be hard to not burn whatever you point it at.

[excaza]

Right, just saying that he hasn't done any actual test to determine which it is. Considering the heat and oxygen available in that type of torch, it would be hard to not burn whatever you point it at.

I think you're just supposed to take his word for it.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

See the "highly-trained operative" part.

My theory about the Perkins Tractors was that they were too simple and too accessible. Anyone could use them, with no training at all, and they didn't do anything dramatic either.

They were an open invitation to a few unofficial trials, and it was just a bit too obvious that the Emperor was stark naked. You have to wrap him in a bit of ectoplasm for an enduring scam.

Rolfe.

Copper bracelets?

[Heart4Heart]

And for those who don't know there is *NO* HHO gas, but there is a stochiometric mixture of H2 and O2 to form H2O.


HHO is either a slang or another name for a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen.
It doesnt matter how hard you stomp the floor or scream HHO isn't a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen you'll still be wrong and it wont make the million plus google listings you get when type in google HHO go away.

I guess the proper name is Oxyhydrogen however a hydrogen and oxygen mixture can also be called HHO and browns-gas.

from the wiki wikipedia
"HHO gas is used as the short or slang term for oxyhydrogen among the online community. Many online videos use the term HHO when demonstrating their electrolysis devices for improving car performance. "

I rest my case.

Regards
Sam

[ehcks]

HHO is either a slang or another name for a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen.
It doesnt matter how hard you stomp the floor or scream HHO isn't a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen you'll still be wrong and it wont make the million plus google listings you get when type in google HHO go away.

I guess the proper name is Oxyhydrogen however a hydrogen and oxygen mixture can also be called HHO and browns-gas.

from the wiki wikipedia
"HHO gas is used as the short or slang term for oxyhydrogen among the online community. Many online videos use the term HHO when demonstrating their electrolysis devices for improving car performance. "

I rest my case.

Regards
Sam

I think he was talking to the people who refer to HHO as if it were a single molecule. Like randman.

HHO only refers to a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas with twice as much H as O. 2H2 + O2. Take out the subscripts and it's 2H + O. HHO.

[Heart4Heart]

As far as I'm aware, that's exactly what those specific welders do. Pour in water, it splits it with electricity and burns the gases.

I think you right. Unless those Oxyhydrogen welders are storing the hydrogen and oxygen in tanks it would need to be burn as its made. However the 2 gases can be kept separate until it exit the cutting tip. I am not sure how the professional made Oxyhydrogen welders work. For profit simplicity these welder-cutters might not come with tanks.

For cutting steel this is wasteful in my opinion due to the fact steel can be cut by oxygen alone once it reaches a certain temperature. This means if one wanted to they can save the access hydrogen not being used and instead use it for other purposes if one had a tank to store it in.

Another thing, storing the gases separate would offer more flexibility and can allow one to give a extra boost of oxygen when cutting material that requires it. Sometimes it might even be useful to reduce the oxygen letting the hydrogen use some of the oxygen in the air. This would decrease the temperature a bit.

[Heart4Heart]

Maybe so or possibly not but it doesn't really matter all that much. It has unique properties to burn any metal by

Since presumably some of these temps exceed that within a nuclear reactor (it sublimates tungsten easily) and yet there is no radioactivity, this could be a viable means of power generation, imo. The fuel would be whatever was being burned or sublimated.




I dont know of anything unique about Oxyhydrogen. It's a mixture of 2 of the most common elements on earth. And it sort of does matter that it can't produce more energy than what it used in making Oxyhydrogen. For one it clears up the lies the scammers are spewing. And two it would be a good energy source if Oxyhydrogen released more energy than what was used to make it.

I am not sure sublimation has value in producing energy. But regardless it all boils down to making Oxyhydrogen with Hydrolysis. Plasma is many times hotter and is more efficient if used to sublimate material.

For a stationary power plant Oxyhydrogen is not useful. Using electricity to create Oxyhydrogen to generate electricity is counterproductive.

Converting other fuels to Oxyhydrogen is also less efficient. It's more efficient to just burn fuel to generate electricity without first converting it to Oxyhydrogen.

[summand]

Esowatch has a calculation about efficiency of using HHO to power a car:
http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Water-fuelled_car

Basically it comes down to 6% efficiency against 40% with regular gasoline...
Stupid.

[Heart4Heart]

Esowatch has a calculation about efficiency of using HHO to power a car:


Basically it comes down to 6% efficiency against 40% with regular gasoline...
Stupid.

Hi Summand
Are you a member of the esowatch-dot-com?

[randman]

I dont know of anything unique about Oxyhydrogen. It's a mixture of 2 of the most common elements on earth. And it sort of does matter that it can't produce more energy than what it used in making Oxyhydrogen. For one it clears up the lies the scammers are spewing. And two it would be a good energy source if Oxyhydrogen released more energy than what was used to make it.

I am not sure sublimation has value in producing energy. But regardless it all boils down to making Oxyhydrogen with Hydrolysis. Plasma is many times hotter and is more efficient if used to sublimate material.

For a stationary power plant Oxyhydrogen is not useful. Using electricity to create Oxyhydrogen to generate electricity is counterproductive.

Converting other fuels to Oxyhydrogen is also less efficient. It's more efficient to just burn fuel to generate electricity without first converting it to Oxyhydrogen.
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if you get more energy from the gas, you can harness the energy from other materials the gas burns, and it does react differently, causing materials to melt or sublimate automatically so to speak. In other words, it's not the heat of the gas but the way the gas reacts to substances that is the issue. The substances would be the fuel, not the gas.

Take a nuclear reactor. It costs a lot of money to produce the fuel. If you can heat up substances to similar levels of heat that are cheaper to obtain that uranium, then it may be cheaper and cleaner to use Brown's gas's reaction with a substance than mining and refining uranium, and cheaper than an alternative gas that does not have the same reaction but merely uses the heat of the flame to melt or sublimate something.

[Hindmost]

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if you get more energy from the gas, you can harness the energy from other materials the gas burns, and it does react differently, causing materials to melt or sublimate automatically so to speak. In other words, it's not the heat of the gas but the way the gas reacts to substances that is the issue. The substances would be the fuel, not the gas.

Take a nuclear reactor. It costs a lot of money to produce the fuel. If you can heat up substances to similar levels of heat that are cheaper to obtain that uranium, then it may be cheaper and cleaner to use Brown's gas's reaction with a substance than mining and refining uranium, and cheaper than an alternative gas that does not have the same reaction but merely uses the heat of the flame to melt or sublimate something.

Please include the exact chemical reactions with these substances along with the heat of the reaction.

[randman]

Please include the exact chemical reactions with these substances along with the heat of the reaction.
Why?

I don't know them. Maybe you can produce them?

Maybe you can find some answers here?

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&name=Christopher_Eckman

[randman]

Actually, this link is better. I have not read the paper but apparently it is due to be published in some peer-review format.

Brown's Gas boasts a plethora of unusual characteristics that defy current chemistry. It has a cool flame of about 130°C (266°F), yet melts steel, brick and many other materials. Confusingly, research both confirms and rebuffs many claims about it, leading to a smorgasbord of theories today seeking to explain its unusual proper- ties. One possible theory, currently gaining support even from establishment science, depicts "plasma orbital expansion of the electron in a water molecule". In this process, unlike electrolysis, the water molecule "bends" into a linear, dipole-free geometry. This linear water molecule expands to gain electrons in the d sub-shell, and these extra electrons produce different effects on different target materials. Electrons that scatter at point of con- tact produce heat based upon electrical conductivity, density and thermal capacity of the material. It also shows why Rydberg clusters are a part of browns gas and how the linear water molecule needs these clusters to sur- vive. This paper will explain this new theory and why it is gaining popularity among scientist in academia.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5440.pdf

[Hindmost]

Why?

I don't know them. Maybe you can produce them?

Maybe you can find some answers here?

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&name=Christopher_Eckman

Actually, this link is better. I have not read the paper but apparently it is due to be published in some peer-review format.



http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5440.pdf

The links are just baloney... there is no science there and there is no such thing as brown's gas. Let's see some chemical equations with heats of the reaction.

glenn

[summand]

Hi Summand
Are you a member of the esowatch-dot-com?

I have a forum account there, if that counts.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And it sort of does matter that it can't produce more energy than what it used in making Oxyhydrogen. For one it clears up the lies the scammers are spewing.

Not to mention the fact that if it were true it would require a complete re-writing of the laws of physics.

[Heart4Heart]

Not to mention the fact that if it were true it would require a complete re-writing of the laws of physics.

True True Squeegee

[Heart4Heart]

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if you get more energy from the gas, you can harness the energy from other materials the gas burns, and it does react differently, causing materials to melt or sublimate automatically so to speak. In other words, it's not the heat of the gas but the way the gas reacts to substances that is the issue. The substances would be the fuel, not the gas.

I don't believe I am missing the point. Basically you are saying burning a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen in the presents of other material somehow produces an extraordinarily amount of energy.

Of course this is true but its a very deceptive argument used by con-men in an attempt to con people out of their hard earned money.

example: A very small amount of energy can set off a pound of thermite producing hundreds of times more energy than what it too to make the Oxyhydrogen (HHO browns gas). But thermite is not a cheap energy source for a power plant.



Brown's Gas boasts a plethora of unusual characteristics that defy current chemistry. It has a cool flame of about 130°C (266°F),

Not true. Its a real known fact Oxyhydrogen (HHO browns gas) burns at > 5000°F.

A lot of scammers are writing professional looking literature (garbage) about Oxyhydrogen (HHO browns gas) but scientifically unable to prove the garbage they are spewing. The link you posted is just another sample of what I am referring to.

HHO and browns gas is nothing more than Oxyhydrogen and often produced by electrolysis. 2 H2O → 2 H2 + O2.

hydrogen will bubble up from the cathode and the oxygen will bubble up from the anode. Oxyhydrogen is made when these 2 gases bubble to the surface and mixes. If they are kept separate by a divider in the water both gases (hydrogen, and oxygen ) could be captured and stored separately >10 (any amount of years) and than mixed back together and still form the exact same Oxyhydrogen (HHO browns gas)) Gas.

One could just as well go to their local welding supply and pick up a tank of hydrogen, and oxygen and bubble them through water in a 2:1 molar ratio to form the exact same gas with same moisture content.

randman I dont mean to bust your dream bubble but you been conned.
You got to be careful what you read on the internet about items often used by con-artist. Con-artist will flood the net, in form of blobs, forums, news site with false info. Scams involving Health, Energy, Valuable metals, are probably 3 of the most common ones.

[Heart4Heart]

The links are just baloney... there is no science there and there is no such thing as brown's gas. Let's see some chemical equations with heats of the reaction.

glenn

You are right.. I read both pages randman linked to.
Just an example of what cons would stoop to.


8. Conclusion
Brown’s Gas is different than other electrolysis processes.
This paper's introduction started out by quoting George
Wiseman. He states "the entire mixture of gasses evolving from
an electrolyzer specifically designed to electrolyze water and not
separate the resulting gasses." The main


Its not different.


History how Oxyhydroge got refereed to as Brown gas.

1962
William Rhodes is the first inventor known to patent an electrolyzer that produced the simple 'single-ducted' gas we now call Brown's Gas. In the mid 1960's Mr. Rhodes formed a company (Henes Corp.) with partners who took control of the operation and cut him out.

Henes Corp. eventually failed, went through several hands and was eventually acquired by Dennis McMurray. The company, now named Arizona Hydrogen, is doing well in Phoenix Arizona USA.

www . azhydrogen . com/
www . azhydrogen . com/topframe . html
<= even shows how their flame makers work. Seems like a reliable source and a legitimate company with good information.



1974 (37 years ago) Yull Brown filed a patent on his design of BG electrolyzer and spent the rest of his life trying to make Brown's Gas a commercial success. He spent about 30 million dollars and nearly 30 years in this endeavor. Due to his lifelong effort, we posthumously honor him by continuing to call the gas 'Brown's Gas'.
www . watertorch . com/bghistory/hisbg1 . html

edited:
After the last 40 years of many companies failing and only very a few remaining just shows there is really nothing special about Oxyhydroge other than that it produces a freaken hot flame.

Its disturbing these Con-artist cant even get this temperature right. Least they could do is get the very basics right, so they dont make fools of themselves.

[Heart4Heart]

http :// www . azhydrogen . com/works.html
sorry cant post links yet so had to put spaces in it.

The above is a company selling professional welders. Besides a few name changes they been around longer than 40 years. This is what they have to say..

The amazing Arizona Hydrogen Flame Generator makes its own hydrogen and oxygen gasses from distilled water and burns them in a torch producing a 6000º F. flame. No separate tanks of fuel gasses are required.

This safe torch makes an ideal tool for welding, brazing, soldering, drilling, cutting, polishing and annealing for metals, ceramics, glass and plastics. All at an operating cost of just pennies per hour.

The Flame Generator internally produces hydrogen and oxygen gasses from the distilled water fuel, utilizing the electrolytic process. The gasses are generated naturally in the two-to-one ratio needed for efficient flame combustion.

Ordinary 110 or 220V AC power is converted to DC and used in the separation process. The line voltage is regulated through a step-down transformer with the voltage control to produce the desired rate of gas generation.

By varying torch tip size and gas pressure, the flame length may be adjusted from .01" to 6" through tips with openings from .003" to .062". With this flexibility, the Arizona Hydrogen Flame Generator is especially useful in applications where clean burning and close flame control are needed. With gas production and pressure easily adjustable, regardless of tip size, and the high temperature generated, the Flame Generator is well suited for welding and fusing platinum, copper, beryllium, nichrome, Chromel and other hard-to-handle metals.

Among the Flame Generator's applications are thermo-couple manufacture, annealing, spot welding, connecting terminals, butt welding and joining sheet stock.

For applications where torch temperatures of less than 6000º F. are needed, an optional alcohol Booster is available. The introduction of alcohol vapor lowers flame temperature to 4000-4500º F., while increasing BTU output. Even lower temperatures may be achieved by varying flame size, varying flame distance and application time. Fluxes may be added to the Booster and fed directly into the flame for ease in soldering gold and silver, silver brazing and soft solder applications. The Flame Generator is equally easy to use for glass polishing and hole drilling in quartz and ceramics, as well as in metal cutting. The wide range of torch tip sizes and the regulation of gas pressure allows use with metals from .0005" to a .25" thickness.

The Arizona Hydrogen Flame Generator has wide acceptance throughout the industrial, electronics, jewelry manufacturing, laboratory, and glass, ceramics and plastics industries. Among the three models offered with varying gas production capacities, there's a Flame Generator that's just right for your application, too. For complete details on ordering and continuing maintenance, contact your local representative, or call the factory direct at 602-275-****.

[excaza]

Why am I not surprised randman's 'papers' are all coming from WSD?

[randman]

I don't believe I am missing the point. Basically you are saying burning a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen in the presents of other material somehow produces an extraordinarily amount of energy.

Of course this is true but its a very deceptive argument used by con-men in an attempt to con people out of their hard earned money.

example: A very small amount of energy can set off a pound of thermite producing hundreds of times more energy than what it too to make the Oxyhydrogen (HHO browns gas). But thermite is not a cheap energy source for a power plant.




Not true. Its a real known fact Oxyhydrogen (HHO browns gas) burns at > 5000°F.

A lot of scammers are writing professional looking literature (garbage) about Oxyhydrogen (HHO browns gas) but scientifically unable to prove the garbage they are spewing. The link you posted is just another sample of what I am referring to.

HHO and browns gas is nothing more than Oxyhydrogen and often produced by electrolysis. 2 H2O → 2 H2 + O2.

hydrogen will bubble up from the cathode and the oxygen will bubble up from the anode. Oxyhydrogen is made when these 2 gases bubble to the surface and mixes. If they are kept separate by a divider in the water both gases (hydrogen, and oxygen ) could be captured and stored separately >10 (any amount of years) and than mixed back together and still form the exact same Oxyhydrogen (HHO browns gas)) Gas.

One could just as well go to their local welding supply and pick up a tank of hydrogen, and oxygen and bubble them through water in a 2:1 molar ratio to form the exact same gas with same moisture content.

randman I dont mean to bust your dream bubble but you been conned.
You got to be careful what you read on the internet about items often used by con-artist. Con-artist will flood the net, in form of blobs, forums, news site with false info. Scams involving Health, Energy, Valuable metals, are probably 3 of the most common ones.

It's not the temperature of the flame but the reaction it causes. That's where you are missing it. And if you say it's cheaper to buy oxygen and hydrogen rather than make it on-site, I am a little skeptical of that.

On thermite, no it's not cheap. Nor is uranium. There are lots of cheaper things this gas can react with and cause it to burn at very hot temperatures.

I could be wrong, but I don't see how those high temps could not be very effectively used for cheap, clean electricity. Yea, it's not free energy. You'd be burning something but how much does something like brick cost, for example.

Hopefully, one day someone with enough money will take an interest in this and develop a cleaner and cost-effective means of producing power.

[Heart4Heart]

It's not the temperature of the flame but the reaction it causes. That's where you are missing it. And if you say it's cheaper to buy oxygen and hydrogen rather than make it on-site, I am a little skeptical of that.



Are you saying this reaction is in no relation to the temperature of the flame?
What chemicals are reacting with the material that makes it so hot?


On thermite, no it's not cheap. Nor is uranium. There are lots of cheaper things this gas can react with and cause it to burn at very hot temperatures.

Are you saying uranium is not cheap for the amount of energy it puts out?

Aside from all the dangers I would like to see studies why nuclear plants doesn't offer the best energy source.

Are you saying when Oxyhydrogen is used that its not burning all the oxygen a and hydrogen and somehow these left over gases are reacting with the material? Or that as it turns back to water this hot water vapor is somehow reacting with the material to form super heat?



I could be wrong, but I don't see how those high temps could not be very effectively used for cheap, clean electricity. Yea, it's not free energy. You'd be burning something but how much does something like brick cost, for example.

I am sure brick material_clay is cheap but the real question is where are the studies that show brick material can be burn with Oxyhydrogen and magically produce more energy than what is used to produce the Oxyhydrogen ?
Please do not post links to studies that say the Oxyhydrogen flame is only 300 degrees F.

almost anyone, even a high school drop out can test how much energy is produced by a heat source, simple by using the heat from it to heat a certain amount of water in a certain amount of giving time and measure the temperature. This isn't difficult nor is it rocket science.





Hopefully, one day someone with enough money will take an interest in this and develop a cleaner and cost-effective means of producing power.

How much does it take to invest? Isn't these companies or web sites selling the magic Browns gas torches eager to sell their device? Maybe they will even let someone rent one of their machines. Doesn't these torches sell for under $11,000?
That is a very small investment and as for cheap readily available earth material, I am sure its less than a penny per pound. For a multi-million dollar energy company, this would be pocket-change. I am sure a simple test-study wouldn't take more than 8 hours to prove how effective energy source this is or isn't. With all this in mind you should jump on it. Who knows you might be the next billionaire!! LOL

Added:
And dont forget me, my consultant fees are only 5 million. Compared to the profits this is only pocket change.

[Hindmost]

It's not the temperature of the flame but the reaction it causes. That's where you are missing it. And if you say it's cheaper to buy oxygen and hydrogen rather than make it on-site, I am a little skeptical of that.

On thermite, no it's not cheap. Nor is uranium. There are lots of cheaper things this gas can react with and cause it to burn at very hot temperatures.

I could be wrong, but I don't see how those high temps could not be very effectively used for cheap, clean electricity. Yea, it's not free energy. You'd be burning something but how much does something like brick cost, for example.

Hopefully, one day someone with enough money will take an interest in this and develop a cleaner and cost-effective means of producing power.

Until you or anyone in the universe shows what the reaction is, there is nothing to evaluate or duplicate. You can't defeat thermo with a few vague statements. Splitting water into diatomic hydrogen and diatomic oxygen is a very inefficient process with energy losses in the 50% range--and the laws of thermo guarantee those losses will never disappear--they may be able to be reduced. You will never get out more energy that you put in. Hydrogen will never be any kind of energy source since free hydrogen does not exist in large quantities on earth. The hydrogen we use today in industry is typically split out from methane or as a byproduct from oil refining.

FYI: Uranium is actually very cheap for the energy density--that is what makes nuclear a viable energy source as the cost of fuel is very cheap compared to other energy sources.

glenn

[Aepervius]

@Heart4Heart I was refering to the scammer appeleation of HHO as being a new molecule, Hydrinos and the actual content of this thread (see Denis Klein) aka : a con. I was not speaking of any other appelation in welding industry or whatever.

[randman]

Basically you are saying burning a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen in the presents of other material somehow produces an extraordinarily amount of energy

Is that what I said?

I said you could use it's reaction to burn things. You discount that and so are completely unscientific and even absurd.

[randman]

Are you saying this reaction is in no relation to the temperature of the flame?
What chemicals are reacting with the material that makes it so hot?

I wouldn't say "no relation" but there is something else going on. I think the wiki article on welding alludes to it, albeit briefly.

[randman]

I am sure brick material_clay is cheap but the real question is where are the studies that show brick material can be burn with Oxyhydrogen and magically produce more energy than what is used to produce the Oxyhydrogen ?

Exactly, where are the studies? That show one thing or another? The lack of interest in something anyone can buy and observe and use for themselves is astonishing considering the effects which really are undeniable.

[randman]

Until you or anyone in the universe shows what the reaction is, there is nothing to evaluate or duplicate. You can't defeat thermo with a few vague statements.

So it doesn't exist even though used in commercial applications because, well, we don't have a good theory for it. This is an example of where science has been corrupted. Actual observation, application, etc,....trumps theory.

And who said anything about violating the laws of thermodynamics?

Brick, metal or whatever else it reacts with to cause it to burn is the fuel I am talking of. Guess those objects contain no energy whatsoever, just a fantasy.

Why I hear burning coal is overunity these days.....:rolleyes:

You can't get more energy burning coal than the electricity it requires, eh? Just can't happen.

[Hindmost]

It's not the temperature of the flame but the reaction it causes. That's where you are missing it. And if you say it's cheaper to buy oxygen and hydrogen rather than make it on-site, I am a little skeptical of that.

On thermite, no it's not cheap. Nor is uranium. There are lots of cheaper things this gas can react with and cause it to burn at very hot temperatures.

I could be wrong, but I don't see how those high temps could not be very effectively used for cheap, clean electricity. Yea, it's not free energy. You'd be burning something but how much does something like brick cost, for example.

Hopefully, one day someone with enough money will take an interest in this and develop a cleaner and cost-effective means of producing power.

So it doesn't exist even though used in commercial applications because, well, we don't have a good theory for it. This is an example of where science has been corrupted. Actual observation, application, etc,....trumps theory.

And who said anything about violating the laws of thermodynamics?

You did when you linked to the World Science database and made the statement bolded above. A Oxy-hydrogen torch is not a source of power and there are certainly no commercial applications of one producting power. Just flames at a specific temperature with known chemical equations.

Brick, metal or whatever else it reacts with to cause it to burn is the fuel I am talking of. Guess those objects contain no energy whatsoever, just a fantasy.

Why I hear burning coal is overunity these days.....:rolleyes:

You can't get more energy burning coal than the electricity it requires, eh? Just can't happen.

Coal is stored solar, chemical and geothermal energy as is oil and natural gas. Bricks, not so much. But again, the coal burned is three times the amount of electrical output approximately or 33% efficient...so...no over unity.

glenn

[ectoplasm]

So in this topic we have gone from water as fuel for your car to burning bricks to generate electricity.

[Heart4Heart]

If burning bricks with an HHO torch produced more energy in the form of heat than the amount of energy being put into it by a HHO flame, the heat would rapidly build up and spread. It would create a chain reaction sort of like how a nuclear power plant operates.
But this is not the case.
Assuming the bricks is producing all this extra energy the HHO flame could be removed since the brick would be producing its own heat it wouldn't need an outside source of heat once it got started. Sort of like coal. Coal takes a little more than a match and some air to get it started and than it burns on its own because its an energy source that can release its energy by burning.
As soon as the energy source is removed from the bricks it cools back down. This should be a clue its not making more energy than being put into it. It doesnt even make enough energy to sustain its own reaction. I think this is why bricks are used in fire places.

[John Jones]

it's not the temperature of the flame but the reaction it causes. That's where you are missing it. And if you say it's cheaper to buy oxygen and hydrogen rather than make it on-site, i am a little skeptical of that.

On thermite, no it's not cheap. Nor is uranium. There are lots of cheaper things this gas can react with and cause it to burn at very hot temperatures.

I could be wrong, but i don't see how those high temps could not be very effectively used for cheap, clean electricity. Yea, it's not free energy. You'd be burning something but how much does something like brick cost, for example.

Hopefully, one day someone with enough money will take an interest in this and develop a cleaner and cost-effective means of producing power.

hahahaha!

[Heart4Heart]

So it doesn't exist even though used in commercial applications because, well, we don't have a good theory for it. This is an example of where science has been corrupted. Actual observation, application, etc,....trumps theory.


It is true scientist do not understand everything in the universe. In fact there is a awful lot things they don't yet understand. However Oxyhydrogen (HHO browns Gass) isn't one of those things scientist fall short in understanding. Hundreds of Millions if not a billion has all ready been spent in research related to hydrogen, oxygen and its potential to be used as energy source in various applications as well as its reaction to other material.

Has it ever occurred to you the studies you are saying should be done, has already been done?






Why I hear burning coal is overunity these days.....:rolleyes:

its hard to see straight when your eyes are rolling maybe you should try to focus them instead. The key to removing ******** will do a lot of good. Maybe than you can find the diamond right in front of you the whole time and I can assure you the diamond ins't Oxyhydrogen.



You can't get more energy burning coal than the electricity it requires, eh? Just can't happen.

Coal already burns on its own.. trying to burn it with Oxyhydrogen would be a complete waste of energy. I am sure you already know this but I had to mention it anyways. :)

Sure your firebricks contains energy but trying to burn them isnt the way to release this energy. ;)

[Captain_Swoop]

So in this topic we have gone from water as fuel for your car to burning bricks to generate electricity.

Sad isn't it.

[Heart4Heart]

So in this topic we have gone from water as fuel for your car to burning bricks to generate electricity.
Sad isn't it.

I think the topic was "Denny Klein - Fuel from Water - Is this a scam"

1. Denny Klein
2. Fuel from Water
3 Is this a scam

1. Denny Klein makes welders as well as outlandish claims about water as energy source and how it can react with bricks forming high heat and possibly an energy source.

2. Fuel is an energy source used not only to power cars but power-plants as well. Generally coal and natural gas are the fuels for power-pants. Denny Klein claims Water turned into fuel can be used not only in cars but also in other application such as reacting with bricks and other material to generate power.

3. Is this a scam? This pretty much includes any discussion relating to Denny Klein claims.

Conclusion:
This thread has not strayed from the original title.

[ectoplasm]

Conclusion:
This thread has not strayed from the original title.

I was metaphorically shaking my head at the outlandishness of the claims and how the topic could go on for 14 pages and be revived after five years.

[Heart4Heart]

I was metaphorically shaking my head at the outlandishness of the claims and how the topic could go on for 14 pages and be revived after five years.

yeah you right.. Anyways i took you and the other guy wrong.. I was thinking it was about being off topic..

Edited:
I apologize for my assumption.

[ectoplasm]

yeah you right.. Anyways i took you and the other guy wrong.. I was thinking it was about being off topic..

Edited:
I apologize for my assumption.

I shouldn't have phrased it the way that I did.

[Evilgiraffe]

So in this topic we have gone from water as fuel for your car to burning bricks to generate electricity.

This may have been pointed out already, but I think it bears emphasising.

You cannot get energy by burning bricks.

Being largely silicates, they are already fully oxidised. Energetically they are sitting at the bottom of a potential well, with nowhere to drop down to. There is simply no more energy that can be extracted from them by adding oxygen.

[davefoc]

This may have been pointed out already, but I think it bears emphasising.

You cannot get energy by burning bricks.

Being largely silicates, they are already fully oxidised. Energetically they are sitting at the bottom of a potential well, with nowhere to drop down to. There is simply no more energy that can be extracted from them by adding oxygen.

I think the claim is that you can extract energy by burning bricks with magic flame. References to real world science and facts may not be relevant when discussing magic flame. Magic flame is created with a magic process that can magically produce chemical energy from bricks. I think we can all agree that it is completely plausible that a magic flame can produce energy from bricks in a magical world.

[catsmate1]

So in this topic we have gone from water as fuel for your car to burning bricks to generate electricity.

When randman (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=randman) enters a thread that is often the effect........

http://smileygenerator.us/t/gen/smiley.php?text=Evidence?&smiley=no&fontcolor=000000&ss=1&font=&shadowcolor=&signcolor=&ext=.gif (http://smileygenerator.us)http://smileygenerator.us/t/gen/smiley.php?text=Evidence?&smiley=no&fontcolor=000000&ss=1&font=&shadowcolor=&signcolor=&ext=.gif (http://smileygenerator.us)

[bruto]

When randman (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=randman) enters a thread that is often the effect........

http://smileygenerator.us/t/gen/smiley.php?text=Evidence?&smiley=no&fontcolor=000000&ss=1&font=&shadowcolor=&signcolor=&ext=.gif (http://smileygenerator.us)http://smileygenerator.us/t/gen/smiley.php?text=Evidence?&smiley=no&fontcolor=000000&ss=1&font=&shadowcolor=&signcolor=&ext=.gif (http://smileygenerator.us)Indeed, he sheds nearly as much light on the subject as a burning brick.

[Heart4Heart]

@Heart4Heart I was refering to the scammer appeleation of HHO as being a new molecule, Hydrinos and the actual content of this thread (see Denis Klein) aka : a con. I was not speaking of any other appelation in welding industry or whatever.

Oh ok my bad. I stand corrected. I agree with you 100%.

[Heart4Heart]

Indeed, he sheds nearly as much light on the subject as a burning brick.

LOL.. you giving him too much credit.. If i recall right, a burning brick is very bright. :D

[AldenPark]

I don't think that the energy is coming from burning. We need to step back and consider the situation.

The proof that electric fields change the kinetic energy of charges absorbing them is direct. Just try the experiment.

It is well known that gravity changes the kinetic energy of unconstrained masses. The proof that gravitons are absorbed may be observed, as gravity from the sun is absorbed by the moon during total solar eclipses. The observed gravity within such total solar eclipses is changed. General relativity with its continuous structures can't predict such a thing, which may explain Einstein's words to his good friend Besso in 1954, in which he thought it was quite possible that physics cannot be based on continuous structures. He acknowledged that would mean that nothing would remain of his own theory of gravity, as well as the rest of modern physics. I suspect, at the time of his writing to Besso, Einstein was well aware of the Foucault pendulum anomalies observed by Maurice Allais during the total solar eclipse of 30 June 1954.

If gravity is composed of two electric fields coming from opposite charges, then this can cause a mass rotating about a horizontal axis to increase in its rotational kinetic energy, with the added energy coming from the two-part graviton. One could call this the Bessler principle which may be used to explain where "extra" energy comes from with respect to many otherwise very difficult to explain phenomena.

Essentially all the normal laws of physics are incorrect given the Bessler principle.

These are my prior posts on this thread.
p 11, #419 Solution to Aquygen Gas Problem
p 11, #423 Conservation of Energy is Violated
P 11, #430 Some Examples of Nonconservation of Energy.
AEP - 5 Apr 2011

[marplots]

This is why I am happy that I am not a trained physicist. If I were, I would feel obligated to respond and try to fix all the problems there. It would be my duty to my profession. But, since I am not, I can skate and continue to accumulate slack.

[Captain_Swoop]

The proof that gravitons are absorbed may be observed, as gravity from the sun is absorbed by the moon during total solar eclipses. The observed gravity within such total solar eclipses is changed. General relativity with its continuous structures can't predict such a thing

Some support for this please? it's a very bold statement.

[excaza]

The proof that gravitons are absorbed may be observed, as gravity from the sun is absorbed by the moon during total solar eclipses.

I got to here before my brain went derp.

I suspect, at the time of his writing to Besso, Einstein was well aware of the Foucault pendulum anomalies observed by Maurice Allais during the total solar eclipse of 30 June 1954.
And mysteriously unable to be replicated. Spoooooky

[Roadtoad]

1.) Has anyone built the damned thing, and can the results be duplicated?

2.) If they can be duplicated, can we see some rational evidence as to why it works?

[jadebox]

HLN just showed a non-critical report about the HHO device. Apparently it works. Woo Hoo!

Ugh.

-- Roger

[davefoc]

I don't think that the energy is coming from burning. We need to step back and consider the situation.

The proof that electric fields change the kinetic energy of charges absorbing them is direct. Just try the experiment.

It is well known that gravity changes the kinetic energy of unconstrained masses. The proof that gravitons are absorbed may be observed, as gravity from the sun is absorbed by the moon during total solar eclipses. The observed gravity within such total solar eclipses is changed. General relativity with its continuous structures can't predict such a thing, which may explain Einstein's words to his good friend Besso in 1954, in which he thought it was quite possible that physics cannot be based on continuous structures. He acknowledged that would mean that nothing would remain of his own theory of gravity, as well as the rest of modern physics. I suspect, at the time of his writing to Besso, Einstein was well aware of the Foucault pendulum anomalies observed by Maurice Allais during the total solar eclipse of 30 June 1954.

If gravity is composed of two electric fields coming from opposite charges, then this can cause a mass rotating about a horizontal axis to increase in its rotational kinetic energy, with the added energy coming from the two-part graviton. One could call this the Bessler principle which may be used to explain where "extra" energy comes from with respect to many otherwise very difficult to explain phenomena.

Essentially all the normal laws of physics are incorrect given the Bessler principle.

These are my prior posts on this thread.
p 11, #419 Solution to Aquygen Gas Problem
p 11, #423 Conservation of Energy is Violated
P 11, #430 Some Examples of Nonconservation of Energy.
AEP - 5 Apr 2011

AldenPark,
I thought you deserved a serious response and looked at a few of the posts you referenced. I am afraid I didn't get very far. The problem for me and possibly the others is that the effort to understand a non-mainstream theory put forth by a person who is apparently not an expert in chemistry or physics to explain a phenomena that most of us believe is non-existent exceeds what most of us here are willing to put forth for this.

If you really wanted to pursue a discussion of your theories here the first thing you would need to do would be to provide credible evidence that Klein has demonstrated anything that is not fully explained by standard chemistry and physics. The evidence was strong enough many years ago that Klein's claims were bogus that most of us wrote this off as just routine energy from water non-sense. Now, many years later, when absolutely no evidence has surfaced in support of Klein's claims it, it seems strange that Klein is taken seriously by anybody.

[Heart4Heart]

AldenPark,
The evidence was strong enough many years ago that Klein's claims were bogus that most of us wrote this off as just routine energy from water non-sense. Now, many years later, when absolutely no evidence has surfaced in support of Klein's claims it, it seems strange that Klein is taken seriously by anybody.



Your statement was right to the point.



LOL LOL @ anyone foolish enough not to see the pattern of these Scammers making magic water to energy devices over the years yet these magic devices hasn't ever made it into main stream power plants or anywhere else.

Oh I forgot its a Power company or government conspiracy. But wait, why is the Government penalizing power companies that produce extra pollution and why are the power companies spending millions in pollution control when they can just use these magic devices?

So its clear its not the government or the power companies conspiracy. If it was there would be many major lawsuits.

So maybe its the coal, natural gas and oil companies paying off the the power companies to stop them from using the magic devices.

This is just as Ridiculous because these magic devices would eliminate the need for most of the fossil fuels, thus the coal, natural gas and oil companies would not only have to give the power companies the fossil fuels for free but also fork out the money for pollution control.

I think this pretty much throws all the energy conspiracy theories out the door.

[AldenPark]

Note that some gravitational anomalies have sometimes been replicated during total solar eclipses but not always. In my GravitySummaryNews.txt I proposed why anomalies occur and why they don't always occur in Foucault pendula. My short analysis is that if the sun and moon are nearly within the plane of the swing of the Foucault pendulum, during the total solar eclipse, then that would not change the plane of the swing. Other sorts of gravitational anomalies have continued to occur during total solar eclipses, as one can find by looking on the Internet (or one can see my notes within GravitySummaryNews.txt).

My Short Background. I should make some comments to help others avoid making incorrect assumptions about my background. I was trained as a mathematician and physicist. I double majored in both Mathematics and Physics and I graduated with a BS in 1975 from the University of New Mexico with honors in both. I was chosen to be in Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, and Kappa Mu Epsilon. I did graduate work in physics at the University of Colorado. I was a Teaching Assistant for a while. I passed the comprehensive written and oral examinations for the PhD. Then I was a Research Assistant at the Nuclear Physics Laboratory (the cyclotron) in Boulder Colorado. I did not do a dissertation. I bailed out of graduate school but the university gave me an MS degree in 1979, because I had previously passed the Comps.

I (Alden E. Park) wrote and had published "Some Thoughts on a Simple Mechanism for the 2H + 2H -> 4He Cold Fusion Reaction", Fusion Technology, American Nuclear Society, 24, 3, November 1993, 319-323.

Cold Fusion Explanation. I think that many of the cold fusion phenomena can be explained by the interactions of rotating nuclear ground states with the assistance of the Bessler principle. That nuclei can have small unquantized rotations has been an ignored academic subtlety. It has been a "Who cares?" or "So what?". It has importance since there is a way to change the internal angular speeds of nuclear ground states because of the Bessler principle.

An important part of physics is looking across many unusual experimental results and looking to see if there is some sort of common missing understanding that explains many anomalies. I think that with the idea of the Bessler principle we have something that explains large numbers of anomalous physical phenomena that otherwise would not have any reasonable explanations within the standard framework for physics. Because there is such a Bessler principle, it invalidates many standard concepts or "laws" in physics.

I find it quite remarkable that the Bessler principle had not been noticed for such a long time. It should have been noticed three hundred years ago with the appearance of the Bessler wheels. In my mind the evidence strongly suggests that Bessler invented a very low friction mechanical roller bearing. Bessler kept his invention secret until he could make a one time sale of it for a very large amount of money. Despite many tests and certificates, the inventor's wheels were incorrectly labeled as being fraudulent and the world lost a great invention, as the inventor found that he could not sell his very expensive invention. His invention explicitly depended upon his principle to make his wheels work. The largest "Kassel" wheel could continually deliver power to turn an Archimedean screw used to raise water.

Since then, increasingly more and more anomalies have come up that depend upon the Bessler principle for proper explanation. The aquygen gas problem is just one of many phenomena that I think begs for the Bessler principle for proper explanation. See GravitySummaryNews.txt for many other physical examples that I think beg for the Bessler principle for proper explanation. AEP - 16 Apr 2011

[AldenPark]

I think that my ideas explain various unusual phenomena seen using the Denny Klein Fox News video link found at the beginning of this thread. Can others explain such phenomena? I think that I can explain them using pairs of rotating nuclear ground states of hydrogen nuclei (meaning protons) rotating about horizontal axes and picking up more rotational kinetic energy from the two-part gravitons.

For starters, can anyone else experimentally replicate what was seen in the Fox News video by burning a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases in a torch, including touching the nozzle of the torch with fingers and not getting burned? Was Klein wrong when he said in the video, "No other gas will do this.", as he held the small tip of his torch with his bare fingers? I think that the increased internal rotations of the nuclear ground states in a special aquygen gas (neither a simple mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases nor just hydrogen gas burning with room oxygen) can explain the curious video observations/comments. I suspect if a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen gases were allowed to burn very close to the torch then this would cause the torch tip to get hot. I am siding with the observations/comments on the Denny Klein video. AEP - 16 Apr 2011

Also see my posting
p 11, #419 Solution to Aquygen Gas Problem

[Aepervius]

The "Scam Principle" explain Klein Video. Your wall of text may explain nothing.

[marplots]

I think that my ideas explain various unusual phenomena seen using the Denny Klein Fox News video link found at the beginning of this thread. Can others explain such phenomena?

I looked to find out what "various unusual phenomena" you meant and was disappointed. The nozzle on my propane torch doesn't heat up either when the flame is not touching the tip (although eventually it does as I suspect it does in his version as well) you probably know that compressed gasses come out very cool simply because of the pressure changes -- why is this surprising? Wouldn't the only heat transfer back to the nozzle be from radiant heat through the air, since there is no contact with the flame?

As far as it burning in some incredible fashion that boggles the mind, you might notice the part where he is demonstrating that water is the result of combustion (as expected). In that part of the tape, the miracle torch isn't burning whatever it is he is condensing the water on. In fact, it isn't even heating it enough to keep the water from condensing.

I think the phenomena is not only not impressive, but not even there. Did you have some other property that the news report was supposed to demonstrate visually? Not his claims, but something filmed?

[Heart4Heart]

For starters, can anyone else experimentally replicate what was seen in the Fox News video by burning a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases in a torch, including touching the nozzle of the torch with fingers and not getting burned?


There are videos of it all over you-tube. Do you live in a cave?


Was Klein wrong when he said in the video, "No other gas will do this.", as he held the small tip of his torch with his bare fingers?



Its untrue that no other gas will do it. I am welder and know this for a fact.
Even propane when mixed with right amount of oxygen can cause the welding tip to even drop a few degrees.

There are methods to cause the nozzle to even drop below freezing while using it as a torch. this even works with propane.


Other gases well do it and when the flame size is increased with hydrogen and oxygen gas the tip does heat up especially in welding or cutting.



I suspect if a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen gases were allowed to burn very close to the torch then this would cause the torch tip to get hot. I am siding with the observations/comments on the Denny Klein video. AEP - 16 Apr 2011

And you seen how close the flame was to the tip in that grainy video?

The fact is the hole has to be very small to keep the flame from following the gas back in. So the gas pressure has to be increased to release more gas. Depending on how big of flame you want, more pressure or holes maybe needed.

You should read about the cooling effects of compressing and releasing gases.

I rest my case


Added:
Denny Klein is using nothing more than trickery dishonesty and lies.