or "Brown's Gas"

by Todd Knudtson,

(Mirrored from Eric Kreig's BG discussion)

The relative nature of energy; (Theories of the Hydroxy reaction).

I do find it necessary to respond to your inquires on Hydroxy, or "Browns

I have some difficulty deciding where to start, as I will be describing a
type of reaction that has no parallel to my knowledge.  The inherent
struggle then is posed, as how to intelligently describe an unusual state
of matter and energy relationships, that are present and observable in
this reaction, to you or those who have never seen this phenomenon. 

To this end, I would ask that you and your readers engage in an academic
exercise with me.  Do not suspend your current beliefs in the conventional
understandings of physics, but do walk with me on an academic journey of
exploration.  To do this I will be forced to ask that you consider the
existence of "The Hydroxy" reaction to be an assumed reality, only for the
purposes of this discussion.

Lets examine a few of the known characteristics of energy as expressed in
observable phenomenon.  Light, Electro-magnetism, Inertia, Gravity, and

I have often referred to the Hydroxy reaction as not manifesting as a
thing or substance, but rather an understanding.  My focus on this
reaction is as if I were looking at the universe through another window
of explanation.  The predictable and demonstrable manner in which this
plasma-like state reacts with other substances, offers a new view of
physical relationships of matter and energy.  All of what we know in
Science is forwarded by this type of critical differentiation of
observable reactions of "matter" and "energy states".

As we might apply a magnet to differing materials, we then begin to
observe a range of experiences.  To some materials it is attracted, to
others magnetism has no effect.  We then begin to divide materials into
categories based on their reactivity to magnetic forces, i.e.  magnetic,
non-magnetic.  Investigating further we find that some materials may
retain a residual effect of being subjected to a magnetic field.  i.e. 
Retentivity, or the ability to hold a magnetic charge.  Still further we
find materials that will conduct electricity and others that resist this
flow of electrical energy.  Confusing us a bit further is the
consideration that materials that are not magnetically reactive are often
the best conductors of electrical current.  i.e. Copper, Silver, Gold,
Aluminum.  The coiling of these materials in the form a thin wire we are
able to generate magnetic fields that surpass highly retentive materials
like Ferrous Magnetite.  Thus the work of examination of energy and matter
yields ever increasing insights to the nature of the universe.

Light is presumed to travel in a straight line, until you factor in
accelerating inertia.  Relative to a body in a change of motion, light
mathematically begins to bend, no longer traveling in a straight line with
reference to an observer in acceleration..  Light was thought for a long
time to be pure energy.  In resent years, the Photon, has been shown to
exhibit mass, an estimated 4 pounds of which strikes the earth every
second.  Light also contains "Radiant Energy" or heat.  The argument for
this theory is the fact that light passes through a vacuum, (space), to
impact and warm the surface the earth.  The transmission of radiant heat
through a vacuum would require a carrier, (the Photon), to poses mass to
retain this heat.  Examination of any thermos bottle, can easily show that
vacuum resists the convection of radiant energy.  This seeming
inconsistency of behavior lead Scientists to look for mass in the Photon. 
It is often the inconsistencies that drive scientific investigation.

These examinations of physical properties and behaviors lead us to a
current yet changing understanding of all things, and their manipulation
drives the Practical Sciences.  Fundamental to applying these properties
and characteristics, is our ever deepening knowledge of the interplay
between energy and mater. 

As we have learned all that we know about the universe by comparing
materials and their behaviors with reference to energy.  I find it
incomprehensible that their is such a great reluctance to examine the
properties of a reaction that demonstrates new attributes.  I might add,
not one or two unusual properties, but a whole raft of unique

Einstein, examined nature and postulated most of his theories upon simple
observations.  His analogy of the train whistle's' pitch changing as it
passes, with reference to a stationary observer, is a fine example.  Lets
substitute the ticking of a clock in the cab of the train for the whistle. 
To the engineer in the train, the clock ticks at a regular and metered
pace;  "Tick... tock,... tick... tock,... tick... tock".  To a person,
standing by the side of the rail, who might be able to hear this clock as
the train rapidly approaches, would perceive the clocks' beat to appear to
speed up;  "Tick..tick..tick..tick".  As the train passed, the stationary
observer would here the period of the beat of the clock, seem to slow
down; "Tock........tock........tock........tock".  This is an easy to
understand example of the "Doppler Effect" of frequencies in relative
motion.  But, here is the next question.  Has the energy of the sound

As this train approaches is the ticking of the clock "louder" to the
observer?  This is the question of relative effects of a type of energy
called "Kinetic Energy".  Like most other forms of energy, "Kinetic"  has
two main components, mass and velocity, or weight and speed.  The laws
governing Kinetic energy are easy to understand.  If something moves
faster it is seen to have more energy if it strikes a still object.  The
baseball tossed lightly to a three year child, has much less impact than
the same baseball thrown by a pitcher, in a major league ball game.  Same
ball, differing speeds.  The energy contained in the ball has changed, but
what effect did this change in energy have on the ball?  Most other forms
of energy change materials that it may come into contact with. 
Electro-magnetism may cause a change in the excitation of molecules.  Heat
energy may cause materials to expand.  This Kinetic energy, does not
exhibit these types of influences on materials.  Does the baseball get
heavier, fatter, longer?  Or is it that we have not developed the
instruments to measure this change, if it exists.  We can say, with some
certainty, that this type of energy does in fact exist, because we can
observe, test and measure it. 

Just a side note;  Einstein reconciled his mathematical difficulties with
regard to matter accelerated to near the speed of light, deducing that
matter would simply shrink.  Further, he posed that matter at the speed of
light would simply cease to exist, as it mathematically be reduced to
nothingness.  He therefore, places the speed of light as an absolute
barrier for matter. 

With regard to Hydroxy, the existence of a different type of energy may
well be like the dilemmas surrounding Kinetic energy.  We can see its
effects, study its relationships, but find it hard to define using our
known understandings.  Does that mean that it does not exist?  I would
rather put forward that we now have a new tool of investigation, to apply
to expanding our understanding of the universe.  A new reference to
examine the interplay of matter and energy.  No small statement, as this
type of discovery only seems to come along about once a century. 

Sometimes it is a good practice to describe something new by looking at
what it is not.  Examination by differentiation, is well used by Science,
and is a very fruitful method of looking at things.  A practical example
may be Density.  We know that some things float and some things sink in
water.  If you would have a box of ball bearings mixed with corks, you
could easily separate them by dumping them into a pan of water.  Skim off
the corks, and pour the water of the b all bearings, and the task of
separating them would be easily solved.  The segregation of Scientific
Knowledge is much like this simple example. 

Now, lets see what sinks and what floats.

A NEW FORM OF ENERGY.  As I have said, no small statement!  Who would
offer such a bold statement.  My only answer is simply, those who have
seen it!  This discovery started simply, enough from a few normal
observations about a molecule, (Water), and its' constituent materials,
(Hydrogen and Oxygen).  A third grader will tell you of his experimenting
with a candle in a jar.  If you close the lid on the jar the candle will
go out.  His teacher will explain that the candle has consumed all the
Oxygen in the closed jar, and can now longer burn.  Our third grader then
gets the point.  Oxygen is essential to combustion.  He may also learn of
the "Triangle of Fire"  namely, fuel, heat, and air.  Heat, expands the
materials in the fuel, and they react with the air and then they can burn. 
Later in school our student may learn that everything that can burn
contains Hydrogen.  In the case of a tallow candle, a carbo-hydrate.  In
the case of a Paraffin candle, a hydra-carbon, all none the less
containing Hydrogen. 

Fire, so familiar us all, but do we really understand this complex
reaction?  Our student may find, in his studies of Science, that water
contains two of these essentials of combustion.  How strange is that?  The
very materials that are needed to make fire are also found in the molecule
of a substance that not only does not burn, but is the primary material of
fighting or putting out fires of all kinds.  Further study, also points
out that the ratio of elements found in water is the perfect ratio to
sustain a pure burn of maximum heat release; 2:1; H to O.  Later in his
studies he may come across the work of Michele Faraday 1833, who
discovered that water can be broken down into its' constituent elements
using electricity.  This process is know as "Electrolyses".  So!  The
reason that water puts out fire is that it is lacking something that it
gains when subjected to electricity!  Now the liberated elements can burn. 
It seems that the excitation of the atoms has now allowed for combustion.
Does the addition of electricity replace the "heat" element in the
triangle of fire?  Well it does allow the resultant materials to burn! 
So, water can burn?  Is water a fuel? 

Looking around, our student may see how important fuel is to our world. 
Everything needs fuel to make it go.  Our cars, our homes, factories,
boats, planes, all need fuel to run.  This would mean that our oceans are
filled with fuel, how wonderful!  Separating the fuel from water is an
easy task and has been known about for more than one hundred years! Wow. 
Separating these elements of Hydrogen and Oxygen from water must be the
answer?  This couldn't come about at a better time, as many countries have
begun to talk of war, if fuel is not made available to those who have

Now to the machine.  Diagrams of hundreds of electrolyzers are easily
found in the patents of others who have studied this process, but they all
seem to separate the gases.  If Hydrogen and Oxygen are all that are
needed to burn, why separate them.  Examination of any Physics book will
give you the answer.  In those that have pictures, which are the ones that
I personally like, you will see a photo of the Hindenburg Disaster in 1937
at Lakehurst New Jersey.  Under the photo you will always see the caption,
EXPLOSION OF THE HINDENBURG.  Oh Gosh!  Hydrogen explodes.  This fuel,
must certainly be very dangerous.  Then to further compound the dangerous
nature of the gas, is to suggest to mix the elements, Hydrogen and Oxygen. 
No wonder all of the examples found, show that the electrolyses machines
separate the gases carefully. 

It is often that Scientists are simply too stupid to know that something
is impossible.  If it were not for this "Ignorance Factor" much of what we
now know, would have never come to be.  Christopher Columbus's' failure to
find the East Indies, resulted in the discovery of the Americas.  I am
glad he was so dumb. 

The mixing of gases seemed to be the most dangerous but simple solution. 
Could this be somehow done safely?  The fact is that conventional welding
does mix the gases of combustion in the handle of the torch, prior to
forcing them through the tip where the flame will burn.  The calculations
of the speed at which a flame can burn, or (Flame Front Propagation) and
the speed of the gas passing through the orifice of the tip, controls the
problem of the flame burning back and igniting the source gas.  This is
accomplished by the skill of the person using the torch.  The worst that
may happen is that the small amount of mixed gas in the handle would
explode resulting in a "pop".  When this happens, the person welding just
adjusts the gas flow a bit faster, to over-compensate for this "Flash
Back" effect.  The inclusion of a positive flashback suppressor seemed to
be a way to insure against this disaster.  The other main consideration
for safety seemed to be, to make the gas only as it was needed, thus
eliminating the need for a large reserve that would be subject to
explosion.  Finally the containment of the entire process need be of
strong enough construction to sustain its integrity even if a flash back
of the total volume of stored gas would occur. 

Ignorance is bliss, and blissfully savored was the success of constructing
such a machine.  Browns' success lies not in what he did, as much as that
he was willing to attempt what so many others would have thought too
foolhardy to try.  The principles and systems in his engineering were
sound, and safety was key in all of his efforts.  The gas made directly
from water worked.  Water was burning!  The efficiency of the process
proved to be about 25% the cost of conventional bottled gases.  The
convenience was much greater.  All that you would need to replenish the
unit is a trip to your local water tap.  One liter of water contained many
volumes of gas, allowing for long hours of use.  Considering that the
ideal source of DC current was found to be, the rectified output if a
AC/DC Arc Welder, the inclusion of taps through the face of the unit,
meant that the machine could also provide Arc Welding and Gas Welding in
the same compact space. 

A new form of energy?  Maybe a good industrial tool, but nothing outside
the ordinary. 

Nothing that is until unique results became evident in the way materials
reacted to the flame.  The first thing that is readily evident is that the
flame has no radiant heat.  To place your hand near the flame you only
feel a slight warmth.  Come into contact with the flame and you are
quickly burned.  Additional work pointed to the fact that many lighter
materials such as Aluminum, have minor reactions to heating under the gas. 
Dense materials like stones, bricks, or concrete became instantaneously
white hot.  Melting very quickly when subjected to the flame.  In later
years, Thermographic testing if the flame would reveal that the flame
contains very little heat at all, scarcely approaching temperatures above
the boiling point of water.  The most dramatic results were seen in the
exposure of Tungsten to the flame.  It was immediately heated to a boiling
point issuing up its oxide.  The sublimation point of Tungsten being about
562 0 Deg. C. 

The critical test of this seemingly combusting gas, was to come when the
dynamic expansion was tested.  Using a piston and long cylinder, a known
volume of the gas was forced into the cylinder head.  Incrimentation on a
rod attached to the piston, would be able to be read as it was forced down
the course of the cylinder.  The unusual happenstance was that the piston
went the opposite way, crushing the electrode of the spark. 
Understandably, this result set all back on their heels.  How could this
be?  No loud bang!  No heat!  Later it was to give found no light.  Most
assuredly energy was in the gas, the thermal reaction of at least some of
the materials, demonstrated higher than expected heating.  Yet no heat was
apparent in this test.  It was as though the gas volume and energy went
away to nothing.  Where did the energy go, let alone the volume of the
gas?  One worker suggested the discovery of a here to unknown "Energy
Vortex".  A place where matter and energy would cross over to another
dimension, leaving only a vacuum in their stead. 


It was none the less curious that this reaction did somehow create a
static vacuum of pure quality.  The construction of a sealed container,
quickly demonstrated that the gas was reducing to its original volume as a
liquid.  That liquid was water.  Humm????  From water, to gas, water?  A
closed loop energy system!  Actually that hypothesis only accounted for
the MATTER in this energy system, not the apparent disappearance of the
energy.  The construction of these demonstration cylinders, along with a
long tube connected to a clear container that was filled with water at a
lower elevation, became a understandable tool for the exhibiting of the
vacuum generating capability of the gas.  Imploding a volume of the gas in
the heavy steel chamber, then opening a valve to the lower container
filled with water, any observer could watch the water rush to fill the


For those of your readers who are deeply interested in math, you may want
to do some calculations.  In other pages you will find the electrical
demands to generate Browns' gas.  A pure vacuum will lift water to about
29 feet elevation.  Sea water, which is a slight bit heavier, has an
atmospheric equivalency of about 33 feet.  If you run the calculation, you
will see that more potential energy exists in the water lifted to
elevation than the electrical demand to create this volume of Browns' gas
that can lift this same volume. 

Now, do not jump to a conclusion that you have proof of "over unity", or
run out and try to obtain a patent. 

All you have done is determine that this gas can trigger a anomaly that
releases what was always there, the potential of the earth's atmosphere. 
Still you might say, this proves that you get more out than you put in.  I
would still caution you, it is one thing to say that the math works, and
yet another to design a pump that whizzes and sucks, day after day, to make
this a practical reality.  It is fun to dream though! 

The key still remained to discover where the energy goes.  I am of the old
school, when it comes to the immutable nature of energy.  I might also add
that it was the implementation of the "Ignorance Factor" that once again
proved to offer the break-through in the understanding of this gas. 
Having performed the demonstration of the implosion of this gas many
times, I became over confident.  At one demonstration a member of the
audience pointed out that we were just lifting water to the height of an
average work bench.  About 36 inches.  Without thinking, (Ignorance
Factor), I retrieved a aluminum ladder from the corner of the shop, in
which we were conducting the experiments.  Aluminum is a very good
conductor of electricity, (Knowledge Factor).  I filled the implosion
chamber to the top with water and climbed the ladder with the container. 
Some of you may see where this is going, I wish you were there that day to
warn me.  Placing the voided and gas filed container on my shoulder, I
struck the spark igniter. 

Condensation is what is submitted many to explain where the energy goes. 
Reading about Brown's gas you will hear this mentioned as a simple and
trite explanation to this question.  I know where this energy goes, I
received a substantial, pragmatic, and lasting answer to this question.
The electrical charge that suspends the gas is instantaneously released to
any conductor.  The saving grace for me is that it is much like a
lightning bolt, operating with the electrical phenomenon of "skin effect",
rather than coursing through my body, the charge traveled over my skin
dissipating into the earthen grounded potential.  The riddle had been

Now what had we learned?

      Electricity + water =>  Browns' Gas


      Browns' Gas + ignition => Electricity + Water.

Looks like a very neat equation to me!  You might also say that I have
served as a conduit to closing the loop of this energy system. 

Remember I mentioned a man named Faraday?  Well, he conducted a nice
little experiment, some 160 years ago.  He placed a beaker of ice water
just a short distance above a tallow flame, a candle.  He noticed the
rapid accumulation of water on the beaker.  From this he deduced that the
primary product of any flame is water.  This you can see demonstrated on
any cold morning when you start your car, the expended gasses rapidly
condense on the cool exhaust system and are spit out on the ground. 
Idling a car can result in a fair sized puddle prior to the pipes and
muffler heating up to the point that they boil off this condensation. 

For those of you who are Plumbers, how many times have you been called to
a home in winter, with a customer complaining of a leak in their gas
water-heater.  The "hiss" of water droplets can clearly be heard striking
the hot pan or burner below.  Your customer might also say that this comes
and goes, only after they have used a lot of hot water, thus filling the
water-heater with incoming cold water.  The vapors are simply condensing
on the flue tube and draining down onto the pan.  Home owners, you might
also want to keep this in mind when your Plumber tries to sell you a new

New energy.?  Zero Point Energy? Over unity?  I think not!  But
interesting?  Most definitely. 

I have studied Hydrogen since the mid 60s, I personally have produced
steels from ore, using water as the source of fuel.  I have developed
burners that cost only a few cents to adapt stoves, heaters, and other gas
appliances for the use of Hydrogen.  I have managed to blow up two shops,
and one garage, and nothing I have worked with to date holds as much
promise as this Gas. 

Hydroxy, because of its contractive nature, burns in a vacuum without
degrading the vacuum.  Does this one feature of this gas suggest
pollution free incineration of solid waste?  No smoke stack required? 

I have worked with Brown and researched this gas since the early 80s, I
have seen very little to compare the potential of advancing our knowledge
of energy and matter than the study of this gas.  We have conducted
hundreds of experiments to advance the applications of this gas.  From
non-rusting steel to the removal of toxic pollutants from aggregate. 
Vacuum distillation of sea water at room temperature or the reduction of
ores through oxidation directly from the ore.  The liberation of Hydrogen
and Oxygen, the raw materials of life itself, directly from rock! 

When you examine that solar power, through solar voltaic cells, is a
excellent source of low voltage DC current, exactly what is needed to make
this gas. This reaction can liberate water, (Hydrogen and Oxygen) directly
from rock, is it such a giant leap to envision a solar powered water
generating plant on the Moon or Mars?  If I were to dream of traveling to
Mars, It would be nice to think that I could fuel up on the Moon, where
the fuel energy necessary to escape the gravity of my loner refueling
depot would be infinitely less than on Earth.  What about the people who
run my fuel depot on the moon, wouldn't it be nice if they could mine for
the air they need to breath, right under their feet?  Not to mention, the
sustaining water to irrigate their greenhouses and grow food. 

Hard to believe?  As one who also studies Geology and Volcanism, I may
point out that every drop of water that exists on the Planet Earth came
from the rocks.  Here is a technology that offers that.  You can
accomplish that with only the power of the Sun, of which the last time I
checked, was free.

As for the discharge of the Electrical Potential contained in the gas
after it is produced.  Those of you who are doing the math in that
experiment of lifting water to elevation.  Add this to the equation, you
can easily recover 70% of the original electrical demand to form this gas. 
Remember calculations of perpetual motion can get you into trouble.  It is
impossible and illegal.  Like I say it exists mathematically, but can you
design the machine to make it go in real life? 

Here are some other things this gas can do!

Seal porous concrete and other materials without the material exploding
from the discrepancy of expansion. 

Alloy Steel to and silica, fusing the two materials at the chemical level.

Change the crystalline structures of known materials.

Add to or destroy the electrical conductivity of metals.

Eliminate oxidation of ferrous materials heated by this flame.

Discriminate materials thermally.

Weld aluminum with no shielding gas.

Burn in a vacuum without degrading that vacuum.  By the way, It burns in
the shape of a ball. 

Create static Vacuum of any volume, instantaneously.

Weld under water.

Harden materials, providing for saw blades cutting surfaces of
extraordinary strength. 

Create no. 9 hardness stones from a normal house brick.

Does not stratify in a contained column, but rather remains homogeneous.

Demonstrates detonation rates three times that that was expected.

Glaze ceramic materials as you hold them in your hand, with heat 1.5 times
the power of the Sun. 

The list goes on and on, behind any one, there are a thousand industrial

The unfortunate thing is the wild claims about this gas.  What I am
talking about here, are nuts and bolts type of applications.  Cook my
food, heat my home, make me new dishes, patch the hole in my refrigerator
coils, those type of things.  There may be great potential for the dealing
with Nuclear Waste, but that will certainly require the involvement of
Governments to develop properly.  Claims that we have reduced the half
life of certain materials are true, but at what personal risk.  I would
like a lead lined suit the next time I try these experiments. 

My hope is to offer insights and understanding to those who will help in
unlocking yet one more mystery of Nature.  This journey of exploration is
more exciting than any E-ticket ride I have ever been on. 

I will do my best to follow this with more explanations as to our best
guess scenarios to this technology.

My Thanks, Also to Eric Krieg, for providing this forum to examine these
new technologies. 

Good Work!  Eric.  Keep it up.

TR Knudtson
Maintained by Todd Kunteson