Brown's Gas, astounding.....

Just finished reading This book, and in one chapter they disguss the Brown's Gas Machine. To say I was and would be an understatement.

Basically, the flame produced by a Brown's Gas Machine could sublimate metals into gas, at 130 degrees celsius. One of the demonstrations written of in the book is the insertion of a Tungsten Welders Rod into the flame, and watching the rod burn. Having done a little research online, I have verified the assertation of the authors that Tungsten ''burns'' at almost 6000 degrees celsius.

Apparently there have also been experiments into the use of the flame to Detoxify Nuclear Waste. The inventor Yull Brown demonstrated this ability by melting a peice of Americanum 241 (made by the decay of an isotobe of plutonium), along with small peices of steel and aluminium on a brick. After several minutes in the flame, the metals gave off an instant flash, in what Brown said was the reaction that destroys the radiactivity. The Americanum, which had originally measured 16,000 curies of radiation per minute, now showed only about 100 curies per minute, supposedly a similar reading as from ''background radiation''.

While I'm no physicist............. Bloody Hell......... Thats amazing, and why arent governments all over the world getting rid of nuclear waste with Brown's Gas??????

For anyone interested, Here's a link I found rather user friendly.

[AndrewJ]

That could be the best invention and or discovery of the 21st.

Elsewhere on the same site, someone else is rather less excited about Brown's Gas:

http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

I really don't know what to make of it, but something about it reminds me of 'cold fusion'. Pity. If it really does work, it would be revolutionary.

[Shaun]

The Americanum, which had originally measured 16,000 curies of radiation per minute, now showed only about 100 curies per minute, supposedly a similar reading as from ''background radiation''.

Call me a sceptic but where's all that energy gone?

Originally Posted by dellwear

Call me a sceptic but where's all that energy gone?

No idea, as I said I'm no physicist, but I have read about 'the concervation of energy', among other things, so.........

Perhaps homealong will be along later and may be able to help out.

[AndrewJ]

nothing is impossible....every day we do something which was once classed as impossible.


I mean we can run Windows and it dont crash anymore...that once was "impossible".

[downquark1]

The Americanum, which had originally measured 16,000 curies of radiation per minute, now showed only about 100 curies per minute, supposedly a similar reading as from ''background radiation''.

Was it still Americanum? had the weight changed?, [slaps hand] had the mass changed?

The more I think about this the more it doesn't seem to fit with theory.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Was it still Americanum? had the weight changed?, [slaps hand] had the mass changed?

The more I think about this the more it doesn't seem to fit with theory.

I honestly have no idea, the inclusion of this technology in the book runs to ten pages.

Though I only have a basic (GCSE) level of understanding, of Physics, I did wonder if perhaps the use of an electrical current to split the Oxyen from the Hydrogen in water may have caused the particles to jump to a higher energy state. And that when they interact with the object in the 'flame' perhaps interact at a molecular/ atomic level?

But I'm sure I'm talking out of my arse, but maybe someone else can let me know if I've been ''had''.

[BBKing]

Very sceptical here - the only way to reduce the radioactivity of a particular piece of matter is to change it into an element with a greater half-life, less energetic decay mechanisms or preferably a stable isotope of something. This you either do by waiting till it decays by itself (which can take a while, depending on the half-life) or by initiating a nuclear reaction in it, which is not something you can do particularly easily with a blowtorch - try a neutron source instead, but the chances are you wouldn't be standing at the end of the experiment.

Americanum 241

OK, let's research. For a start it's called americium, element 95, symbol Am. It decays with a h/l of 432.7 years to neptunium 237 (by giving off an alpha particle, hence the weight change of four). It's indeed produced as a decay product of plutonium 241 (by beta decay, hence keeping the same weight). It has an activity of 3.428 Ci/g, whatever that means. It costs $1500 a *gram*, so don't all rush out and buy some.

As it emits alpha particles (and low-energy gamma rays) it's not especially dangerous. Don't go round eating any though, although as it's insoluble it'll go straight through you anyway. Alphas are stopped by clothing, let alone skin, and the gammas aren't powerful enough to do any real harm. So a not very radioactive isotope that decays reasonably quickly and won't even show up against natural background radiation. It's used in smoke detectors, in fact.

Scary? Nope. Nuclear waste? Get real. Pretending a fairly harmless isotope is dangerous is a clear flag that not all is what it's cracked up to be with Mr. Brown.

[downquark1]

Though I only have a basic (GCSE) level of understanding, of Physics, I did wonder if perhaps the use of an electrical current to split the Oxyen from the Hydrogen in water may have caused the particles to jump to a higher energy state. And that when they interact with the object in the 'flame' perhaps interact at a molecular/ atomic level?

Radiactivity is caused by an unstable nucleus, the nucleus remains completely unaffected by 'normal' chemical reactions. What seems more likely, if indeed the observations are valid, that it was coated in something that absorbs radiation, however that would be pushing into science fiction too.

[Dave Stones]

isnt americium the stuff they use in smoke alarms?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Dave Stones

isnt americium the stuff they use in smoke alarms?

Yes, however, it is possible some isotopes are more radiactive than others. - ill look it up

edit: yes it seems 241 is used in smoke dectectors.

Well, looks like I have been rather again. Ah well, nothing new there then.

Think I'll ask the mods to close the thread, as its a bum steer and ask them to remove my privlage to post new threads for at least one month. Plus give myself a thousand lines of......

EoB must not post foolish treads on public forums.......

[BBKing]

Lord, no, I found out all sorts of interesting things researching that lot. Anyway, 'charlatan scientist talks rubbish' sounds like an excellent start for a thread. Let's rip the urine out of him.

Originally Posted by BBKing

Lord, no, I found out all sorts of interesting things researching that lot. Anyway, 'charlatan scientist talks rubbish' sounds like an excellent start for a thread. Let's rip the urine out of him.

oh yes, i definitely agree with that, I tend to do exactly the same, I was intrigued by the concept & have been looking all kinds of stuff up. I ended up very sceptical, though.

Like Chris said, the cold fusion theory was a similar 'money for nothing' concept, that would be fantastic, if it were possible/sustainable.

However, I would hate for any idea to be dismissed out of hand, purely based on a 'too good to be true' basis, you never know what we might miss...