User talk:John Vandenberg/Denny Klein

Redlinks
Please leave relevant redlinks ( WP:RED ) in the article. We need to create articles on these subjects; when such articles are created, these links (and any others on other Wikipedia pages) will automatically be linked to them. Thanks. -- 201.50.248.179 11:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone find the Santilli article and post it in the references. Although it was poorly written it does contain the gas chromatography showing the varying allotropes and other differences from merely H2 and O2.

Competitors
How can this have "competitors"? — Omegatron 00:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
Ok, this is kind of hard to follow...

The actual website of the company (as of today) makes a few claims, some of which are in this article. There are also some claims that contradict what's in this article:


 * "alternative to and enhancer of fossil fuels"
 * Yeah, hydrogen and oxygen burn when ignited. Big deal.  It can be used as a fuel from a physics sense, but it's not useful as a fuel from a practical sense because you have to expend energy to make it.  But I don't see HTA claiming that it is.  The more recent versions of their website emphasize the "fuel additive" part more than the "fuel replacement", anyway, and their only demonstration prototype is the car that supposedly uses it as a fuel additive.  Seems to me like they're just riding on water-fueled car publicity to sell oxyhydrogen welding machines.
 * Yes that is essentially what is happening. Although the gas is indeed different than Oxy-Hydrogen as per Chromatography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.218.207 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC).


 * "It has a number of unique features that distinguish it from water vapor and the Brown gas produced by standard electrolysis."
 * Our article says that Brown's gas is the same thing as HHO and that this gas is different from standard electrolysis. Their website says that Brown's gas is the same thing as standard electrolysis and their gas is different.
 * "new form of water that is gaseous and combustible"
 * Doesn't say anything significant
 * "exhibits a widely varying energy content in BTUs ... all other known fuels have a fixed value of energy content in BTU/scf"
 * "anomalous adhesion to gases, liquids and solids", "bonds to gaseous fuels (such as natural gas, magnegas fuel, and others) and liquid fuels (such as diesel, gasoline, liquid petroleum, and others) and significantly improves their thermal content as well as the environmental quality of their exhaust"
 * Santilli's paper:
 * "does not follow the fundamental PVT law for gases"
 * Santilli's paper: Turns to liquid at 150 psi, while conventional gases turn to liquid at much higher pressures.
 * "instantaneously melts tungsten, bricks, and other highly refractive substances"
 * "produces NO toxic fumes when burned because it is pure water."
 * Same as oxyhydrogen
 * "Klein/HHO Gas can be useful as a conventional welding gas with standard gas welding equipment"
 * Same as oxyhydrogen
 * "When the H2O Model 1500 Gas Generator is used as a gas welder, Klein/HHO Gas can weld, cut, braze, solder, metal clad and fuse materials such as ceramics, metals, cermets, glass, plastics and inter-metallic materials together, such as metal-to-metal, metal to glass, ferrous to non­ferrous, and dissimilar metals to each other, which is a true fusion process heretofore unavailable."
 * "when combusted, produces no ultra-violet radiation"
 * "no oxidation of the weld; no heat slag; no weld joint inclusions; ability to weld dissimilar materials (i.e. glass to steel, etc.); and a self-adjusting inner-face temperature depending on the substrate being worked ranging to well beyond 10,000° F."

Chromatography
It cant be the same as Oxy-Hydrogen (only H2 and O2). The Chromatography shows many other different molecular configurations (ie. H5, O5, H1O4, H2O4, H1O2, ect...). Although HHO and Brown's Gas behaves extremely similar to Oxy-Hydrogen, the different molecules produce a catalytic effect when used as a fuel enhancer. As a torch they all behave essentially the same.24.193.218.207 02:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Competition
The gas has competiton because of existing Oxy-Hydrogen generator manufacturers, and Brown's Gas manufacturers. Oxy-Hydrogen is the foundation, and HHO and Brown's Gas behave extremely similiar. The only difference in behavior is fuel enhancement applications where as catalytic effect is shown in experients. As a torch, Oxy-Hydrogen, HHO, and Brown's Gas essentially behave the same.24.193.218.207 02:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oxy-Hydrogen as a fuel enhancer
As a fuel enhancer Oxy-Hydrogen only contributes a quantity of BTU's, and there is no catalytic effect.24.193.218.207 02:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

William Rhodes
As William Rhodes nicely said, Brown's Gas, Rhodes Gas, Hydroxy, and most recently HHO is simply common ducted oxyhydrogen. As the gas chromatogrophy shows, the molecular allotropes are the result of the common ducting.24.193.218.207 03:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Related articles deleted along with their history
I would just like to note, for future editors, that the pages Brown's gas, HHO gas, HHO and various others related to or about this alleged gas mixture have been deleted and redirected here, to Dennis Klein's biography. The history of those pages was also deleted. --24.57.157.81 21:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can undelete them and copy the content to this article, as long as it's not going to result in this article getting out of hand. I think they might even deserve their own articles, but it's difficult to maintain these kinds of articles against crackpottery. — Omegatron 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Im soo happy that a general consensus is emerging that molecules other than just H2 and O2 can be produced by electrolysis. Its simply the common ducting that creates these different molecules, and there is no hocus pocus or special electrolysis process. HTA wants people to think that HHO is different than Brown's Gas only because of the stereotypes. Do you really think HTA in 2007 came up with a never before researched electrolysis process?(rhetorical). The technology has been around for decades since William Rhodes in the 60's and Yull Brown's not soon after. William Rhodes was the first inventor of the common ducted electrolyzer, and the Yull Brown simply made it better.


 * In a nutshell, Brown's Gas, HHO, Hydroxy, and so called Green Gas should be lumped together into one category, the product of common ducted electrolysis. They all behave extremely similar to Oxy-Hydrogen, but the molecular differences make for uniquely viable applications like "fuel enhancement". One of the few websites on the entire internet that provides quality information is www.waterfuelconverters.com . That website is soo clear compared to other hocus pocus BS websites. There is nothing magic about the technology, its simply a slight different in the molecular constituents due to common ducting. Its just the design of the electrolyzer, and without being too much of a broken record, there is no such thing as "special electrolysis!!!!! And most important in no way can electrolysis be over unity (way less than 100% efficient, like 85%). Anyone who claims that electrolysis is overunity is full of crap, and please dont listen to those website. It may be pertinent to create a section of "wild" "outrageous" claims, but the actual technology is simply electrolysis in every sense of the 1'st and 2'nd laws!!! 24.193.218.207 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, don't merge that content to this page, that makes no sense. Restore the articles instead. There needs to be a separate article for the purported gas mixture. And I don't know why you redirected Brown's gas to Dennis Klein instead of Yull Brown (or at least William Rhodes), though I guess that would be difficult since Yull Brown's page was also deleted. --24.57.157.81 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This article previously claimed that Brown's gas and HHO gas were the same thing. Both Denny's website and Santilli's paper claim otherwise, though, so I don't know where that came from.  Santilli's paper seems to say that Brown's gas (he speaks of  and ) is just standard oxyhydrogen?:
 * "In accordance with these patents as well as the subsequent rather vast literature in the field, the Brown gas is defined as a combustible gas composed of conventional hydrogen and conventional oxygen gases having the exact stochiometric ratio of 2/3 (or 66.66% by volume) of hydrogen and 1/3 (or 33.33% by volume) of oxygen."


 * — Omegatron 02:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting analysis. If Brown's Gas is concluded to be Oxy-Hydrogen this is a good thing for the Brown's Gas industry because Brown's Gas indeed behaves exactly the same as HHO, yet different than Oxy-Hydrogen, therefore by declaring publicly that Brown's Gas is not HHO then HTA cannot claim patent infringement. We will be doing a favor for the Brown's Gas industry. Brown's Gas is shown to behave exactly the same as HHO by the numerous videos that are circulating; they are indistinguishable, but obviously Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Brown's Gas is obviously a competing technology given that is behaves exactly the same as HHO. The same with Oxy-Hydrogen. Even if Wikipedia concludes that Brown's Gas is related to Oxy-Hydrogen, it is clearly produced in a unique and novel method (common ducted electrolysis originally invented by William Rhodes).24.193.218.207 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, really, "oxyhydrogen" is a mixture of O2 and H2 only, right? In other words, the two electrodes have their own "ducts" in which the diatomic gas is formed, and then the gases are stored in two separate tanks and don't become oxyhydrogen until mixed for burning.
 * If "Brown's gas" is created with a single "duct", it is conceivable (I am not a chemist) that other things like HO2, H2O2, and so on could also be produced before the diatomic gases can form? We really need to find reliable sources for all of this instead of speculating.  I'll keep reading when I have time.
 * Are you ever going to get an account? — Omegatron 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right on regarding your Oxy-Hydrogen comments. Its H2 and O2 that are produced by the electrolyzer; H2 at the positive terminal and O2 at the negative terminal. Oxy-Hydrogen is when the H2 and O2 are mixed together just prior to ignition at the torch tip. Oxy-Hydrogen can be produced in an independently ducted electrolyzer or exactly as you said from bottled torch gases. It is difficult to get a precise stoichiometric mixture from bottle torch gases, which requires careful regulation to achieve a 2:1 ratio of hydrogen versus oxygen. An independently ducted electrolyzer will inherently produce a stoichiometric (2:1) mixture.
 * As for your Brown's Gas comments, also right on. Electrolysis breaks all the bonds down to the monatomic level, and if the hydrogen and oxygen are clearly separated from one another they will obviously form diatomic bonds, which is the fundamentally natural state of hydrogen and oxygen. The common ducting not only produces diatomic molecules, but a slew of other molecular formations. According to the HHO chromatography the vast majority of the gas is H2 and O2, but a substantial percentage is other molecular formations. I'll list them all in order of molecular weight. The following are right from the HHO chromatography graphs. H2,H5,H4O,H6O,H7O,O2,HO2,H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide),O3,H1O3,H2O3,H3O3,H1O4,H2O4,O5. The ones that I find most interesting are H5, and O5 which are pure allotropes according to the textbook definition. The H1O2 is an isomer of water according to the textbook definition. I will try and track down Brown's Gas chromatography, as my research is showing that there is indeed differences between the HHO chromatography and Brown's Gas chromatography. A slight difference, nothing overwhelming different, which is why my current understanding of HHO is not that it is a Brand name of Brown's Gas, but a type of Brown's Gas. I believe that in the HTA electrolyzer they create a magnetic field which effects the molecular reformation after electrolytic breakdown; I have contacted them to ask questions about their electrolyzer design and should receive a response shortly. In the end even if a certain degree of molecular distinction exists, on a practical level, the gases behave indistinguishably. Actually, HHO, and Brown's Gas behave practically indistinguishable as compared to Oxy-Hydrogen. As a torch Oxy-Hydrogen, HHO, and Brown's Gas essentially behave the same!!!! The novel applications of the different molecules is carbon fuel enhancement!!!
 * A quickie on carbon fuel enhancement: typically when two fuels are mixed together they contribute BTU (energy) quantities in a summation, but thats only the H2 and O2 portion of the gases. The other fancy molecules behave catalytically. A catalyst reduces the activation energy of a combustible material, meaning when a catalyst is added to carbon fuel, the carbon fuel will undergo a more complete combustion releasing more energy. Brown's Gas and HHO, with their fancy molecules, achieve this catalytic effect in addition to a direct BTU contribution of the diatomic components.
 * I will create an account or track down an old account that I haven't used in the longest time. The main reason I have not created an account, or logged into an account, is because in the past I have been attacked for my contributions to Wikipedia. It does seem that with the Santilli publication, in a peer review journal, my knowledge may appear more credible. I have wanted for the longest time to contribute to Wikipedia, but my contributions were always slandered as BS or complete Hoax. Cheers 24.193.218.207 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Important point: You cannot say in the article things like "oxyhydrogen is the same as Brown's gas" or "Brown's gas is the same as HHO" just because you personally believe it to be so. What you have to do is find someone who says something (like Santilli says that Brown's gas in different from HHO in his paper, though he doesn't seem to give any reason why this is the case), and then say who says what.

In other words, you can't write "HHO and Brown's gas are not the same". You have to write "Santilli says that HHO and Brown's gas are not the same". If you can't find anyone else who says they are the same, then you can't put it in the article. All you can do is put Santilli's claim in a context that makes it seem doubtful. — Omegatron 15:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I nicely implied exactly this point by stating that within the Santilli article there is no side by side chromatography. Such a scientific evaluation would establish HHO to be distinct from Brown's Gas, but since no scientific evaluation was conducted therefore such a claim is unsupported. Although I did add to the paragraph the statement that Santilli and Klein claim that HHO is not Brown's Gas, and imply by lack of scientific evaluation that such a claim is doubful. Reasonable? 24.193.218.207 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think im getting the hang of this third party citation stuff? All I want to do is work together, in good faith, to accurately provide the general public with information!!! My contributions may not be perfect, but thats the beauty of Wikipedia, there are multiple editors that are supposed to work together to produce a proper encyclopedic article. 24.193.218.207 20:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've cited WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:CITE on Talk:Water fuel cell, so you should know how this works. It's all in those pages.

Yes, that's the nature of Wikipedia, but it's sometimes so hard to keep up. See Articles_for_deletion/Brown%27s_gas_%282nd_nomination%29: "I'm sick and tired of reverting this into a semi-sane state." Eventually this leads to the article getting deleted because we can't maintain it in a stable, reliable state. I don't like this, though, and, hoax or otherwise, it's my opinion that we have a responsibility to cover this stuff in some way, no matter how hard it is to maintain. We'll resort to semi-protecting the articles if we have to.

I don't think this really belongs in an article about Denny Klein, since there isn't much biographical information; it's all about the devices/gases. So I think we need to undelete another article or two. But in doing so, we'll attract crackpots with too much time on their hands and not enough cooperative spirit. I think not naming the article "Brown's gas" or "HHO gas" would help. I'm thinking something like splitting the content between electrolysis welder and water-fuelled car? I'm not sure. I'm planning to put these all up for deletion review after I do some more research. — Omegatron 06:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Electrolysis welder would be appropriate. We can then have subcategories for the different electrolyzer designs, and the claimed gas output. 24.193.218.207 16:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brown's gas
I'm reading through Brown's patents and I fail to see the significance. It appears to be exactly the same as an oxyhydrogen flame, but vented into the same chamber. The only point of doing this that I see is that it preserves the correct stoichiometric ratio at all times so that the metal is not embrittled by excess hydrogen or oxidized by excess oxygen. The invention as described is mostly notable just as a method to prevent the mixture from exploding. — Omegatron 05:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * William Rhodes said that Brown's Gas is common ducted Oxy-Hydrogen. Its a shame that the patent does not discuss the molecular structure of the gas. Without an article getting into Origional Research there is no way to say that Brown's Gas is anything other than common ducted Oxy-Hydrogen. Ongoing research does show that the claims made by HTA are consistent with the molecular structure of Brown's Gas, and peer review about this will be eventually published, but obviously until that time WP:OR will not be included in any article. I do think its reasonably notable that upon visual inspection HHO cannot be distinguished from Brown's Gas, which is a method of expressing doubt that distinction may not exist.
 * Independent of the claimed distinction between HHO and Brown's Gas, there is obviously a distinction between (HHO, Brown's Gas) and Oxy-Hydrogen; common ducted versus independently ducted. Pure H2 and O2 can only be produced in an independently ducted electrolyzer. The entire point of the Brown patent is to express the idea of "common ducting"!! 24.193.218.207 16:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Solution?
I'm an outside observer of this problem.. I'd like to suggest a possible solution. Create articles for HHO, Brown's gas and Denny Klein.. We need them. This is what wikipedia is about. Don't give them other names because no one will find them. There are so many forums online that ask about HHO but with no valuable facts. Create these wiki pages. Then lock them. Maybe a new tag is needed: ie. hot hoax topic, that will protect the page. Best thing would be to have portions of pages lockable. The locked portion should include a comment "this page partially locked because of outsider biases. ". Then people can add whatever comments they want at the end.

Please include the articles on HHO, Brown's gas and Klein. The facts are valuable. Some details for new articles follow: HHO also called HOH, is very similar (but not the same as) Brown's gas, a mixture of 11% hydrogen and oxygen (http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm). This was tested in the welding industry as a possible fuel source but results in exothermic decompression (implosion) when the tanks are almost empty. Brown's gas is not in wikipedia either. Yet both HHO and Brown's gas are real substances. They have real properties, some of which are dangerous. Wikipedia does have a page for oxy-hydrogen (basically HHO), but no properties on its safety, or applicability as an automotive fuel. I believe Klein's video shows a HHO booster, similar to hydrogen boosters which already exists. (http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/Articles/index.cfm/act/featuredarticles/article/the-hydrogen-boosted-gasoline-engine-cga.html). However, they do not replace gasoline engines as you cannot get 100 miles from a gallon of water. (http://mb-soft.com/public2/storing.html)... Bottom line. Real facts about it are needed on wikipedia.