PDA

View Full Version : Brown's Gas and two stroke engine's



huronflyer
27th April 2008, 03:34 PM
I have been following the development of bio-diesel as a curiosity for
a few years.
As the pilot of a light plane the retrofitting of experimental planes with
diesel engines in Europe has been interesting. It is been done at the
commercial level as well.
I have not heard of anyone using bio-diesel in a plane yet; by that I do not mean "Virgin" mixing a blend of veggie oil, rather using full homemade bio-diesel. Someone will I am sure if the weight and complexity is overcome.
Stopping on the side of the road is one thing, stopping at 1000' is something
else.
HERE is my QUESTION: (I am a total novice in this subject.)
Has anyone heard of Brown's gas being injected into light two stroke engines?
Engines without oil injection! If it could be done and without destroying the
engine, then at the very least my outboard boat might be viable again with the fierce fuel prices.
I am also interested in bio-diesel for a VW Jetta and possible home electric
generation.
Cheers from north of Lake Huron, Ontario Canada.
Google Earth, "CYEL"
drh

TroyH
27th April 2008, 10:00 PM
The oil in the fuel of a two stroke engine in the lubrication for the cylinder and bearings. What do you propose to use as an alternative?

Please don't use the term "brown's gas". The only thing Yull Brown 'invented', was his results...

What you are referring to is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases in the stoichiometric ratio found in water (2:1).

To develop a two stroke engine to run on this gas would be a massive undertaking. It's hard enough modifying one to run on methanol instead of petrol.

I guess it is possible, and it is something I have considered for 4 stroke ICE's, however:
a) There is no real environmenta advantage (certainly none over electrical propulsion)
b) how will you store the hydrogen/oxygen safely? (this is a big problem presently being faced by the automotive industry)
c) how will you throttle the flow of fuel?


It could possibly be done, but I would suggest not feasibly so, and certainly not easily done.

Qwarla
28th April 2008, 12:28 AM
It's hard enough modifying one (2-stroke engine) to run on methanol instead of petrol.


Troy I totally disagree with this statement. All that is required is rejetting of the carburetter and a slight tweek of the timing.

Just go visit your local GoCart track.

Af for Brown's gas or HOH or whatever else you want to call it, hydrogen will never be a very useful fuel for an internal compustion engine because of the shear volume required. It would require 2 parts hydrogen to one part oxygen fed into the engine for peak performance, unlike say LPG where the 'fuel' is the smaller part of the gas charge.

huronflyer
28th April 2008, 03:23 AM
Gentleman,

Thank you for your reply.
Coincidentally to my post I happened to watch a fellows attempt to run
two different motorcycles on HOH by itself and not blended with the fuel
the engine was designed for and he failed in practice at this time.

My thoughts are very selfish a this time, just a way to save my engine and make my boat viable; it may be better to take the head of the shaft and
retro fit it with an electric unit powered by a bio diesel unit...

Must run.

That being said I don't believe Stan Meyers was a hoax, so I am seeking some insight.

Cheers,

Dave
As for my microlight, some of our group are working on electric propulsion.
Ethanol is a crisis for our current fuel source and planes (required by law and bad for our systems).
The production of ethanol is not the answer for North America, but that is not my turf it belongs to the politicians and multi-nationals.
HOH on demand with enough volume is interesting.

TroyH
28th April 2008, 12:13 PM
Troy I totally disagree with this statement. All that is required is rejetting of the carburetter and a slight tweek of the timing.

Perhaps I worded it poorly. What I was trying to get across, was that even modifying an engine to run on methanol (which is a relatively similar fuel to petrol) requires some understanding of how the engine works, and is not something for those who are "a total novice at these things" to tackle. Potentially you can also mess with spark plugs and exhaust chambers to get it running well (as the temperature of the burn changes, and you have a lot more fuel). And you also may need to change 2-stroke oil.

Running the engine on a highly explosive gas mixture is an all together more difficult task!


Gentleman,

Thank you for your reply.
Coincidentally to my post I happened to watch a fellows attempt to run
two different motorcycles on HOH by itself and not blended with the fuel
the engine was designed for and he failed in practice at this time.

My thoughts are very selfish a this time, just a way to save my engine and make my boat viable; it may be better to take the head of the shaft and
retro fit it with an electric unit powered by a bio diesel unit...

Must run.

That being said I don't believe Stan Meyers was a hoax, so I am seeking some insight.

Cheers,

Dave
As for my microlight, some of our group are working on electric propulsion.
Ethanol is a crisis for our current fuel source and planes (required by law and bad for our systems).
The production of ethanol is not the answer for North America, but that is not my turf it belongs to the politicians and multi-nationals.
HOH on demand with enough volume is interesting.

The only HOH gas is H20 (which is the same thing). It's called steam.
So be wary of anyone who talks of HOH production from electrolysis of water. They are probably either uninformed or lying.

My 2c.

Qwarla
29th April 2008, 12:05 AM
No problem Troy. I see your point on engine mods for methanol.
It is a bit of work bit of work and , yes you wouldn't want someone with nil mechanical knoweledge trying. It's a bit more than just pouring in the new fuel.

On the HOH gas or as some call it HHO or several different things there are actually gas producing machines on the market now that produce this gas from electrolysis of water, and it can be used in place of the normal oxy-acetylene tourches. They chew heaps of power and distilled water.
What do you think of this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6YYUOx6fBU)

TroyH
29th April 2008, 02:10 AM
Like I said before, it's not HHO. It's hydrogen and oxygen.

It's about as environmentally friendly as the fossil fuel consumed to produce the electricity used in the electrolysis.

;)

Not that it couldn't be done sustainably, it just normally isn't.

I don't think they get as hot as an oxy-acet torch, and I believe there may be some issue with what it is suitable for, due to hydrogen embrittlement problems.

I have no problem with a torch running on H2 and O2, only with the bullshit claims that some of these conmen make about them.

sizzlean
29th September 2008, 04:34 AM
10,000 degrees! I think that's quite hot enough, ya know before you go saying all this negative crap you should really do your research. I've seen this gas in use and it is quite different than just mixing hydrogen and oxygen at the proper ratio. Now that's probably hard for you to swallow, but then again you were probably educated by some college or university right? I'm not trying to be an ass, but I'm not one of those people who buy the b.s. they tried to feed me in school, gravity is not all that's out there in the universe, electricity runs the universe, the sun is not a hot ball of fusing hydrogen it is an electrode, and just because you break water into it's parts does not mean that you can just take a couple of tanks of the same supposed gasses and mix them and it's the same thing. I've seen this hho gas cut tungsten, look it up, is that possible with Hydrogen and oxygen? You tell me. And as far as making a 2 stroke run on methanol, that is so easy it's rediculous to say it's not. How bout a 86 ford ranger, do you suppose you can run one on alcohol? well I ran mine on 70% isopropyl, 90% iso, and 100% iso, methanol also, and even toluene. So just cuz the automakers or the professionals tell you something can't be done, don't mean nothing to me, cuz I've either done most of it or my buddies have.

How bout 2 stroke running on turbo? not possible you'd probably say, well the world drag record happened to be set by a rz750 with 60 psi boost and nitrous, and may I add by someone who didn't graduate! Yee haw, I love reading all these posts by people who think for two minutes in their preprogrammed brains and then post all this crap like they know what they're talking about.

Methanol does not need a jetting change to run, it will just run hotter, now of course if you change your jetting it will be alot better, and it will actually run much cooler, I used to be able to put my hand on the cylinder while cruising down the road at 55 mph, so it pays to rejet, but it will run just fine without jetting changes, also one should mix in 15% water. As far as changing premix, why? Gasoline is a non-polar solvent, alcohol will desolve premix that dissolves in a non-polar, and also polar!

I think people who don't want you to use brown's gas or hho are the same type of people who will tell you that 32 mpg is great maybe the best it can ever get, yeah right, hho is different than just two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, if it isn't then I suggest you prove it by mixing the two and then cutting tungsten, or try to do any of the things done with the device the guy was telling you about, you can get a good look at it on google video, they are using it in many schools, and you may even be able to go to a high school down the street and check it out for yourself, but when you say you doubt any claims or whatever you said, you should've done your research first, because it makes you look like someone working for the oil companies or a dodo birdy!

No disrespect meant, it's just that when I go looking for info, I'm sick and tired of running into 50% disinfo, or info from people who didn't even bother to do a search before posting, and people who don't have any experience other than driving. People who aren't mechanix shouldn't pretend to be, period. And chemists and physicists are not mechanix either!

Captain Echidna
29th September 2008, 07:27 PM
I wonder if I get a hiclone unit to save 20% of fuel, a fitch catylist that can save 30%, two fuel additives to save 17% and 13% and a HHO unit to save 30% will my fuel tank get fuller the further I drive?

It will probably work so long as I dont talk to anyone with any education or knowledge.....

TroyH
29th September 2008, 09:53 PM
utter nonsense...

Why am I not surprised you are from the good old US of A...

(no offence meant to any yanks actually born with some intelligence.)

Perhaps you should have a look here mate...
Brown's Gas information (http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm)

Frankly, I'm pretty happy with my university education. I'm sure the guys who designed your car, electronic equipment, road network, bridges, cities, power/water/gas supply etc etc, all like theirs too...

I doubt my comments with have any impact on you, but I doubt anything that isn't nonsensical, actually does.

imstanglenville
14th January 2009, 02:40 PM
Why am I not surprised you are from the good old US of A...

(no offence meant to any yanks actually born with some intelligence.)

Perhaps you should have a look here mate...
Brown's Gas information (http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm)

[quote]

[quote=TroyH;31566]Why am I not surprised you are from the good old US of A...

(no offence meant to any yanks actually born with some intelligence.)

Perhaps you should have a look here mate...
Brown's Gas information (http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm)

Frankly, I'm pretty happy with my university education. I'm sure the guys who designed your car, electronic equipment, road network, bridges, cities, power/water/gas supply etc etc, all like theirs too...

I doubt my comments with have any impact on you, but I doubt anything that isn't nonsensical, actually does.

Well, here goes ... you can look up my profile too... I came onto this site looking for a different catalyst for my HHO generator. Found one too, thank you in advance.

And I guess the world over has scam artists and liars aplenty... not just in the 'good ole US of A'. I went to that site you highlighted, because I believe in learning about any type of subject is a worthwhile pursuit.

Maybe I'm missing the sarcastic wit of some of the Senior Members of this site or maybe I'm just too unlearned to keep up with the humor of educated people... I don't know... I live on a farm and try to get by as best I can.

All education is educational. Education has put men on the moon, made us really nice houses, bridges, tunnels, etc., etc., etc. But educated men and women have also caused problems when they use words like "science proves it can't be done". I've read somewhere that mathematical quotations of even a few years ago are being rewritten by "new math". I gave an instance in another thread where science said over 105 years ago that it was impossible for man to fly. Hmmm.... Yet we go into outerspace and that scientific revelation was only 60 some years after the "true science" explanation was given.

This method of seperating hydrogen and oxygen by using electrolysis is over a hundred years old, but only in the past, maybe 3 years or less are more people aware of it and actually doing some pretty good inventive experiments trying to achieve fantastic results. True, most of us don't have degrees behind our names, but we're trying. And true some of the claims are fantastic and probably aren't based on fact, just wishful thinking.

How long as the term Bio-fuel been around? How long has this site been up and running trying to enlist others to get involved and come up with better ideas on using and manufacturing it? I've been in the trucking industry since 1991 and it was only recently with the price of diesel sky rocketing have I heard of truckers using McDonalds french fry oil to run their rigs.

When I first started reading this thread, I got a little peeved at the short sightedness of what I was reading. I mean here you are trying to use other methods of running a diesel other than true fossil fuels, yet you knock down another method, just because you've never done it, nor have any first hand experience. Who would have thought that you could use pond scum to run a diesel, not me, but it's a proven fact.

TroyH, you asked sizzlean to go read that article on Brown's Gas... well I went and read it too and at first impression it seems Mr. Brown was a scam artist and a fake. I think you were implying that HHO gas is a myth, non combustible and had no worth in the natural order of things. But, did you read any further? If you had, than you would have read, that even though Mr. Brown's, Brown's gas did not measure up to all of his claims, it did measure up with quite a few educated people in that you can seperate the hydrogen and oxygen from using electrolysis of water. They also said that it is explosive, it is combustible, it can be used as a cutting torch or welder, it just wasn't as good as what is available today. But, to say that Brown's Gas is a work of fiction or that HHO can't not be made by electrolysis is in fact false according to your own link.

I'm sure in the years to come we will have found a way for everyone to benefit from the use of Bio-Fuels as well as an easy and cost effective way to harness the energy in using electrolysis to "split" water into hydroxy gas or HHO gas or hydrogen/oxygen gas.

The main problem other experimenters like myself are having with utilizing HHO gas to power vehicles is the sensors that are put on vehicles after the year 1996 when the OBD II computers were put in all gas burning vehicles. These sensors inhibit the use of alternate fuels. I imagine this is the problem Dave Jones had with his set up. (I don't know the particulars in his testing or install, you can always email me and I may be able to help you, if you haven't totally closed your mind to the idea)We don't have that problem with diesels either in big rigs or automobiles/trucks. No sensors to deal with, just need the right size generator for the Liter size of the engine.

O2 sensors of today are preheated and sense the absence of heat, thereby flooding the engine with more gasoline. Hydroxy gas burns cooler than gasoline does. Hydrogen does not emit a carbon emission. You can not literally smell anything coming out of your exhaust pipe when it is fitted with a hydrogen generator. (you'll have to take my word for it, unless I can find a way to drive my truck from Glenville, Pa. overseas to you).

O2 sensors also sense the absence of carbon emissions and when they sense no emissions in the Pre cat (before the catalytic converter) it sends a signal to the ECU to pump more fuel into the mix. Since hydrogen does not emit any pollution... any fuel economy you may have made... literally goes down the pipe because of the O2 sensors.

Another problem that has just cropped up since, say 2004 is that they are now putting two O2 sensors Post cat and they're a sticky fix at best. So, here I have a smog busting generator that emits no pollution when burned causing me to get lousy fuel economy because the device the motor companies put on the vehicle (in 1976 USA) say that there is not enough pollution coming by it, thus the engine must be too lean, so let's flood it with more gasoline.

Fortunately, I haven't had to deal with too many skeptics in the forums I normally run and there has been great improvements in bypassing these sensors. We have the Excalibur which will be in production shortly that enhances several sensors at once. Thereby letting us get great MPG and cleaner emissions.

You said in a previous post that "It's about as environmentally friendly as the fossil fuel consumed to produce the electricity used in the electrolysis"
Which is totally false. Hydrogen's byproduct when burned is water, you can actually see the water coming out of your tail pipe when you rev the engine. My cell that I designed does not boil the water, it does not make steam. My cell runs cool to the touch even after hours of running. The water in the bubbler does not get any hotter than the outside temperature that it is running in. The water is from the hydrogen being burned. If you took a torch made with HHO gas, it would literally expel water down the surface that you are cutting. I wish I still had the link showing you this.

My cell does not produce enough HHO to operate a cutting apparatus. My Cross Cell only generates about 3 LPM which is more than enough to enhance the gasoline resulting in a cleaner, leaner burn. But, I'd need at least 10-15 LPM to be able to burn through metal with a HHO torch. So, I can't 'prove' that one to you.

Hydrogen is also safer to burn than gasoline or even bio fuels. Both bio fuel and gasoline are in a liquid form and will soak into any porous substance if the tank is punctured. Gasoline goes one step further by also being gaseous, whereby if the tank is punctured gasoline vapor which are heavier than air will pool in low lying areas. Hydrogen, if it was stored in a tank (and it's not, it's HOD hydrogen on Demand) and the tank was punctured it would immediately rise into the atmosphere, since it is lighter than air. Also, take the same scenario; you have a punctured fuel tank, the gasoline liquid will soak into the seats, the carpet, even the passengers clothes. The vapors will pool close to the ground or at the feet of the passengers, one spark or open flame and the car is consumed in a raging inferno, where I doubt any would survive.

Hydrogen in the same scenario would rise very quickly into the air (that's why it is imperative in HOD devices to be completely air tight, because even a little gap will cause all most of your hydrogen to escape, resulting in less LPM) and if a spark or open flame would touch it off, yes there would be an explosion, but most of the resulting flame would be upward not outward nor down. The spark would have to be instantaneous, even in the space of a minute, all the gas would be harmlessly away.

I have more on my site that explains all that I've tried to explain on this thread. You can take a peek if you want, no one will know that you're looking at a "fictional, unintelligent, uneducated, ridiculous Internet ideas, that only serve to scam the poor unsuspecting consumer out of their hard earned money" oh wait... I think that last statement is what OPEC is all about.... that's probably one point we can all agree on, that is unless you are a member of OPEC then you probably are against bio-fuel too.

I hope that some of you will at least keep an open mind when your neighbor comes up to you and says something like... "hey, I found a new fuel source in using my pond scum to run my tractor"...