You're viewing the old website

Free Energy is all about freedom:
Power to the people -- literally and figuratively

 "Free Energy" 

News XML
- PESN Specials
- About
- Pure Energy Blog
- Daily FE News
- Features
- Free Energy Now
- This Week in FE
- Newsletter
- How you can help
- Submit  
- Subscribe


Energy Topics

• Alt Fuels
• Anti-Gravity
• Batteries
• Betavoltaic
• Biofuels
 - BioDiesel
 - BioElectricity
 - Biomass
• Body Electric
• Brown's Gas
• Cold Fusion
• Conservation
• Electrolysis
• Electromagnetic OU
• Fuel Cells
• Fuel Efficiency
 - Electric Vehicles
 - Engines
 - Hydroxy
• Fusion
• Geothermal
• Gravity Motors
• Human Powered
• Hydro
• Hydrogen
• Joe Cells
• Lighting
• Magnet Motors
• Nanotechnology
• Nuclear
• Nucl. Remediation
• Oil
• Piezoelectric
• Plasma
• River
• Salt Water Mix
• Solar
• Solid State Gen.
• Tesla Turbines
• Thermal Electric
• Tidal
• Vortex
• Waste to Energy
• Water
 - Water as Fuel
• Wave
• Wind
• Wireless Electricity
• Zero Point Energy
• MORE . . .

Open Source
• Freddy's Cell
• Bedini SG
• Safe Haven Villages
• MORE . . .

• Awards
• Conservation
• Conspiracy
• Directories
• Investment
• Kudos
• Legal
• Organizations
• Plastic and Energy
• Recycling
• Suppression
• Tools
• Trends
• MORE . . .

• OverUnity Forum
• Employment
• Events
• Humor
• Magazines
• Movies
• Newsletters
• Discuss. Groups

• Store
• Buyer Beware
- - - - - - - - - -
- Donate
- Contact




You are here: > News > May 6, 2014

Not all Brown's Gas created equal

George Wiseman and Brother Andrew weigh in on what makes for good quality Brown's Gas.

By Sterling D. Allan  
Pure Energy Systems News

Yesterday I forwarded this email to a few HHO experts.

Hi Guys,

I'm curious what your take is on this comment by John.

My understanding, too, is that there are as many varieties of HHO gas as there are breeds of dogs. No two are the same. And the power input is part of what makes one different from the other.

I would guess that the anomalous heat effect is a function of the strength of the Brown's gas.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: John Arne Loken 
To: Sterling Allan 
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 8:41 PM
Subject: Browns Gas Heater.

Hi Sterling! 

Thank you very much for sharing your HHO experiment.

I have just been reading Browns Gas Book 2, from and learned a few trix.

Browns gas can not be made with constant current like you did. A power supply from China will not make Browns Gas.

I am sure your experiment will come out different if you made Browns Gas and not 2h2o.

I hope you understand the difference of mono atomic and di atomic.

Sunshine from John Loken

Here is a response from George Wiseman of -- one of the Founding Fathers of Brown's Gas, and a premier leader in the field.

From: "George Wiseman" 
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Brown's Gas (HHO) varieties

On 2014-05-04, at 8:35 PM, Sterling Allan wrote:

> Hi Guys,

> I'm curious what your take is on this comment by John.

> My understanding, too, is that there are as many varieties of HHO gas as there are breeds of dogs. No two are the same. And the power input is part of what makes one different from the other.

I would disagree generally, and agree specifically.

I disagree generally because I define Brown's Gas (aka BG or HHO) as: 
"A mixture of combustible gasses that evolve from an electrolyzer specifically designed NOT to separate the gasses." 

No matter the design of the electrolyzer, or its power supply, if the above conditions are met, the gas mixture generated/evolved is Brown's Gas. 

Over the years many people have attempted to 'brand' the mixture to make it their own; some examples are: HHO, Aquygen, Hydroxy, Green Gas, SG gas, etc. 
This 'branding' was generally done to defraud potential investors (so they wouldn't know that the 'patents' were invalid), and/or to 'distance' themselves from BG history.
Some even claim BG is nothing special and lump it under 'OxyHydrogen', which is a misnomer even if defined as "a stoichiometric mixture of diatomic hydrogen and oxygen". 

Renaming the mixture does not change the characteristics of the mixture and just makes it harder for this emerging technology to find a place in the market; because people 'assume' that a different name means that it is a different gas.

I agree specifically, if we include the terminology "quality". The quality of the BG does differ depending on electrolyzer design, power supply design and immediate electrolyzer operating conditions. 
The mixture constituents remain the same but the composition percentages change. The BG, when tested, shows H2, O2, H2O (as water vapor), H, O, and H2O (as an unknown quality). Quite literally, there is a constituent that cannot be recognized by conventional testing methods. In less advanced testing, it is just assumed to be water vapor and in one case 'extra hydrogen'. In more advanced testing it just shows up as 'unknown'. I have not done these tests myself (I don't have the equipment for that), they have been shared to me from several independent sources and I'm trying to get permission to make the tests public.

I call this 'unknown' form of water Electrically Expanded Water (ExW). This constituent of BG (along with the mon-atomic H and O) is combustible but will simply implode without exploding first. It is heavier than air.

Quality of BG is all about ExW. My theory is that ExW is water that has absorbed enough electricity to 'change state', becoming a combustable and gaseous form of water that is NOT water vapor or steam. It will not condense if cooled (like water vapor or steam will). It will implode if ignited (unlike water vapor or steam). This ExW form of water does not happen in electrolyzers that are designed to separate the hydrogen and oxygen gasses. It does not show up if you mix bottled H2 and O2 into a stoichiometric mixture.

Note: It is the water vapor, H, O, and ExW constituents that specifically make BG different from a bottled or electrolysed stoichiometric mixture of H2 and O2; thus BG is NOT OxyHydrogen as the 'skeptics' at WikiPedia would have you believe.

I have not yet found a way to measure the percentage of ExW in BG; but this is where I define the 'quality' of the mixture and where I would agree that there are 'differences' in BG constituents, that depend on electrolyzer and power supply design.

I have found that ExW is a 'side effect' of electrolysing water, thus it is possible to generate an 'extra volume' of gas from electrolyzers designed to maximize ExW production. 
Thus these electrolyzers 'seem' to defy Faraday Law by producing volumes of combustible gas (that are not steam) at over 100% Faraday efficiency. My electrolyzer designs have now gone over 200%. Some people claim even more.

When measured, the actual H2, O2 production is within Faraday Law, it's the 'extra side effect' constituents that make the electrolyzer 'seem' over unity.

> I would guess that the anomalous heat effect is a function of the strength of the Brown's gas.

Personally I do think the ExW plays a role. It's be interesting to take bottled H2 and O2, make a stoichiometric mixture in a torch, don't ignite the gasses but just play the mixture on a catalyst to see if you get the same effect as using BG.

If not, then it'd be interesting to check the catalytic results when using different BG electrolyzers of higher and lower gas production efficiencies.

> Hi Sterling!

> Thank you very much for sharing your HHO experiment.
> I have just been reading Browns Gas Book 2, from and learned a few trix.

> Browns gas can not be made with constant current like you did. A power supply from China will not make Browns Gas.

So again, to be clear... MOST electrolyzers on the market today (particularly those from the orient) do NOT separate the gasses evolved from the electrolysis, so DO make BG (HHO). The quality may vary but it IS BG! 

It is true however, that using pulsed DC is one of the ways to increase ExW production. Steady DC is very inefficient. For any given electrolyzer design, electrolyte, electrolyte concentration and electrolyte temperature, there is an optimum DC wave shape and pulse rate.

The orient is FAR more advanced in using BG than we are in the West. They didn't have a large Vested Interest infrastructure (including education system) set up to suppress these types of technology. Their economy is growing so fast that BG is often easier to implement into industry than bottled gasses.

And just like nearly everything else these days, they can make products at seriously low prices, so buying from the orient is attractive; but I don't recommend it because both quality control and customer service are still low and the technology is NOT as advanced as mine. 
There are now dozens of oriental BG machines, most of them are still just replicating technology they've 'found' and are not doing the original research needed to understand and improve it.

May the blessings be

George Wiseman

And here's a response from Brother Andrew (who is working with Bob Boyce) of

From: Hydrogen Garage 
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 11:14 AM [MDT]
Subject: Re: Brown's Gas (HHO) varieties

Hello George Wiseman,

An interesting test of the HHO gases that we performed in the past is the balloon explosion tests over at Jerome's, when Bob was here 2 summers ago.

We filled up balloons with gas from a newly constructed cell with direct DC, then we filled up balloons with hho gas from a cleansed and conditioned used cell with a good pulsing PWM.

Both balloons would be loud, but the 2nd ballon filled with 75A% to 100% ORTHO H and O spin state, where the H molecule has it's own proton and not a shared proton as para H has. When the ortho balloon went off, it would move the air around you! 

One time we lit on off inside the garage/shop and it almost blowout the windows, we all laughed and Bob says chuckling " That is the gas I'm taking about!" Focus on making that type of gas!!

Also the ortho balloons would stick to your hand once filled. Like a static cling, in the summer time, not fall or winter static. Depending on if we used a filter dryer or not the balloons would float around the room, when dry, when moisture could be in the balloon they went to the ground slowly.

A guy in Holland (Harlan) filled a garage bag up to 4' dia!! with a sealed cell of Bob's design and a MC-1230 PWM with higher freq, and hr says he hit the double output , that Bob talks about, where you get 2 LPM at 10 amps and 12 volts.

The best I have seen is 1 LPM at 10 amps x 12.5 volts. with a completely sealed cell, where no water can go around the plates or go though a hole in the plate, this forced the electrons to go though every square mm of plate surface area and makes a cell more efficient.

Well, back to Harlan, he filmed the 4' garage bag explosion and him and his brother were up at a farm in the hills away from town, Harlen blacked out, and his brother said a flash from heaven came down and blow up the bag. Bob said Holy smoke, don't do that, yes that powerful of gas can cause a electrical discharge and bring lighting down!

Not making this up, I have no reason to lie. LOL

Maybe hard to believe. Someday energy will be free for all to use, for those who will NOT perish.


George Wiseman of replied.

From: "George Wiseman" 
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:43 PM [MDT]
Subject: Re: Brown's Gas (HHO) varieties


I assume you are talking about Bob Boyce. He knows stuff I don't, just like I know stuff he doesn't, because of our individual research backgrounds. Gradually, some things are being consolidated and reconciled.

This theory that the 'strength' of a BG (HHO) explosion is due to ORTHOhydrogen or PARAhydrogen may have some validity, but I haven't studied it much because I don't think the 'extra gas production' can be explained by the direction hydrogen molecule components are spinning. There may be more or less energy in the gas mixture, but there wouldn't be MORE GAS!

What I do see in 'nonconventional' literature and opinion is a bunch of 'theory' that doesn't reconcile with conventional science; not that I believe conventional science has all the answers... But if you are going to present/propose a theory that contradicts conventional science, you should at least give some idea (and/or proof) WHY you think your theory is more 'correct'.

As far as I can see, the difference between ortho and para is simply the 'spin state' of two hydrogen atoms in a diatomic hydrogen molecule.

I don't see anywhere, in conventional science, the mention that "orthohydrogen has it's own proton and parahydrogen has a 'shared' proton". This just doesn't make any sense to me. Every hydrogen atom has it's own proton, no matter what spin state it's components take. 

So, conventional science says that, at room temperature, normal hydrogen sample consists of 3 molecules of orthohydrogen to every molecule of parahydrogen (3:1 or 75% ortho). 

According to the charts and math I can readily research online, orthohydrogen has significantly more 'rotational and molar energy' than parahydrogen, and that any given diatomic hydrogen sample tends to have more orthohydrogen (up to 3:1) as it gets warmer (so para converts to ortho as the hydrogen warms up). 

It would be interesting to know how you know the percentage of ortho to para in any given sample? And how do you decrease the para constituent, to give the gas more 'explosive' and/or 'static' energy of ortho?

Personally, I'm trying to increase the 'implosive' constituents of BG. Since ExW is implosive (without exploding first) then more ExW in the mixture tends to make the 'total explosion' less intense. 

I agree that you need to 'force' the electricity to go through the plates, not allow it to bypass the plates through holes or (as a lot of guys are doing) using 'full flooded' electrolyzer designs. I defined that parameter back in the mid-1990's with the Brown's Gas Book 2. There IS a way to efficiently get cell fluid equalization (shared electrolyte) and still force the electricity to go through the plates, this design was taught to me by William Rhodes.

Below you speak of 'double output' being 2 LPM at 10 amps and 12 volts. That's 120 liters/hr at 120 watt-hour or 1 watt-hour per liter of gas production, which is about double Faraday Law. That's where my electrolyzer technology now is. This kind of gas production is not due to ortho or para hydrogen (because in either 'spin state', they are the same volume), it's due to the increased volume of ExW.

Thank you for your insights. You are doing good work over there.

May the blessings be

George Wiseman

On 2014-05-05, at 2:31 PM, Fred Robinson of chimed in:

My first work with hydrogen involved creating it with electrolysis in 1975, we soon changed to using pure H2 obtained from a welding supply house. I am interested in hearing more about storage. I have been it touch with a few folks that contacted me about the explosions they had creating and using HHO. They were looking for flame traps and bubblers. I have also seen results from stored HHO explosions. The biggest was from what looked like an auto air conditioner compressor and scuba tanks or maybe they were for CNG. One guy was dead the other lost an arm and a leg. If this gives you any ideas, it is unstable.  

George Wiseman of replied.

From: George Wiseman <> 
Sent: Mon, May 5, 2014 9:22 pm 
Subject: Re: Brown's Gas (HHO) varieties


Thank you so much for writing back and expressing your concerns more specifically.

You are so RIGHT! The ONE thing I specifically tell people NOT to do... is STORE BG!

I love explosions and have blasting certification (long story) and I'm here to say the loudest explosion I ever heard was from pressurized BG. For safety, all of my technology uses low or no pressure BG and creates the gas on demand; NO storage!

BG is stable unless ignited but one of the reasons you do NOT want to compress BG is because it WILL (ignite) explode if you pressurize it too much or if you raise it's temperature too high (which often occurs at the same time in a compressor). The pressure at which this will occur varies inversely with temperature.

And since BG is a 'pre-mixed' stoichiometric mixture of the most combustible and explosive gas on earth, it's a REALLY good idea to NOT do anything that would ignite it. And definitely not a good idea to pressurize it.

Static electricity can ignite BG and BG has a kind of 'static' electricity within it. Static electricity can concentrate enough on sharp points or edges to ignite BG; so it's a good idea NOT to have any sharp points or edges exposed to BG.

Very good point, to be safe, particularly with BG, not because BG is 'unstable' because it isn't. BG is stable, but it does have 'sensitivities'... like dynamite.

Also, as you already know, you DO want to use appropriate backfire (backflash) protection when making / using BG. There are inline backfire arrestors and bubblers that are engineered to handle BG.

Thank you for your comments.

Note: With hydrogen, as per your link you just have to use normal high pressure gas technology. Hydrogen will not self-explode from high pressure. If tanks or lines burst, it's from faulty or mis-used components. Stored hydrogen is stable and 'safe' as any inert stored gas because it is non-combustible unless mixed with an oxidant. Still, hydrogen is usually stored under high pressure and does deserve respect.

May the blessings be

George Wiseman 

# # #

What You Can Do

  1. See Suggestions for How to Get Involved with the Roll-out of Exotic Free Energy 
  2. Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
  3. Donate to PES Network to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going.
  4. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.
  5. Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology. 

See also

Resources at

Page posted by Sterling D. Allan Jan. 29, 2011
Last updated May 18, 2014




"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right." -- Albert Einstein

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)

Submit • Privacy • About • Contact

PESWiki Departments:
Latest • News •XMLFeed • Directory • Congress • Top 5 • Open Sourcing
Copyright © 2002-2015, PES Network Inc.