PDA

View Full Version : Brown's Gas, astounding.....


Earl of Bronze
11-01-2005, 14:54
Just finished reading This (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440508983/qid=1105450081/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-0161359-0470233) book, and in one chapter they disguss the Brown's Gas Machine. To say I was :shocking: and :eeek: 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 (http://www.phact.org/e/z/todd.htm) a link I found rather user friendly. ;) :angel:

AndrewJ
11-01-2005, 15:14
That could be the best invention and or discovery of the 21st.

Chris
11-01-2005, 16:00
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
11-01-2005, 16:03
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?

Earl of Bronze
11-01-2005, 16:11
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. :D

AndrewJ
11-01-2005, 16:18
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
11-01-2005, 16:19
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.

Earl of Bronze
11-01-2005, 17:31
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''. :D

BBKing
11-01-2005, 17:31
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
11-01-2005, 17:38
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
11-01-2005, 17:43
isnt americium the stuff they use in smoke alarms? :erm:

downquark1
11-01-2005, 17:47
isnt americium the stuff they use in smoke alarms? :erm:
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.

Earl of Bronze
11-01-2005, 17:53
Well, looks like I have been rather :dunce: 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....... ;) :D

BBKing
11-01-2005, 17:58
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.

homealone
11-01-2005, 18:21
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...

Shaun
11-01-2005, 19:07
The only thing I can think of that may cause a reduction in emitted radiation is if as BB said the rate of decay to a stable isotope is increased.

This would mean that after "treatment" the sample was more neptunium 237 than it was before the "treatment" thus there is less americanum there to emit radiation.

For the treatment to make this happen the process carried out would need to place the atoms of the sample in exactly the right state to emit their gamma rays. This is the same phenomenon that causes the lines in solar absorption spectra, the atoms of certain elements are in the right state to absorb all photons that are of the right energy (i.e calcium). The same works can reverse. This would however only speed up the emission of gamma radiation and not alpha.

However without further information on americanum we wouldn't know.

BBKing
11-01-2005, 21:08
In this case the gammas are emitted as a side effect of nuclear decay, rather than as a result of change in energy levels (they're a result of reduction in mass, according to a certain ubiquitous equation). You can change the rate of some decays (electron capture decay IIRC) by heating up the substance to above the temperature at which electrons remain attached - no electrons to capture, no decay. However, since 241 Am decays by alpha decay (the nucleus spits out two neutrons and two protons) this wouldn't apply. Apparently there is a way to tamper with alpha decay by changing the chemical properties, but the changes are less than the level of precision at which the half-life is measured, so essentially meaningless.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html

Also, at $1500 a gram, how did he pay for the sample?

Earl of Bronze
11-01-2005, 21:15
Also, at $1500 a gram, how did he pay for the sample?

Coned a lab out of it somewhere? Or perhaps some idiot with the common sense of a two week old dead jellyfish (bit like me at the moment), gave him the money for said radioactive material....... :)

AndrewJ
11-01-2005, 21:18
They prob got it from the local courts auction...they found the stuff while raiding the house of a terrorist network.

And to raise money they sell w/e they was making on Ebay and in auction...

Clever Idea eh :D

BBKing
11-01-2005, 21:59
they found the stuff while raiding the house of a terrorist network.

Ye gods, how fiendish. Attempting to destroy western society with explosive smoke alarms, no doubt.

Shaun
11-01-2005, 22:12
In this case the gammas are emitted as a side effect of nuclear decay, rather than as a result of change in energy levels (they're a result of reduction in mass, according to a certain ubiquitous equation). You can change the rate of some decays (electron capture decay IIRC) by heating up the substance to above the temperature at which electrons remain attached - no electrons to capture, no decay. However, since 241 Am decays by alpha decay (the nucleus spits out two neutrons and two protons) this wouldn't apply. Apparently there is a way to tamper with alpha decay by changing the chemical properties, but the changes are less than the level of precision at which the half-life is measured, so essentially meaningless.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html

Also, at $1500 a gram, how did he pay for the sample?

I should have looked at you link more closely :)

BBKing
11-01-2005, 22:50
Going back through the link originally posted by EoB. In between laughing I noticed this:

Later in school our student may learn that everything that can burn contains Hydrogen.

Magnesium metal, sodium...

Later in his studies he may come across the work of Michele Faraday

Evidently related to Michael. Sister, perhaps?

Later on he explains in wonder what appears to be the principle of the early (highly inefficient) steam engines. Laughable.

the primary product of any flame is water

Nope. If one of the combustion products is water, you'll get water. Otherwise you won't.

Theodoric
13-01-2005, 16:21
Just finished reading This (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440508983/qid=1105450081/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-0161359-0470233) book, and in one chapter they disguss the Brown's Gas Machine. To say I was :shocking: and :eeek: would be an understatement.

<Snip>
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''.

<Snip>

I'm sorry, but even without checking out the site it sounds a load of old rubbish. All elements with a higher atomic number than bismuth (83) have no stable isotopes. The only conceivable way that you could destroy the radioactivity of the Americium (atomic number 95) would be to cause it to fission, in which case I'd have expected a large hole in the ground and a mushroom cloud. If it really had destroyed the radioactivity, then he has just discovered something totally new to science and a guaranteed Nobel prize.

Oh, and he might have got his units right. The curie is a measure of the radioactive content of a material, it's related to the number of disintegrations per second. Curies of radiation per minute is meaningless in terms of the radioactive content of a sample; it's simply curies. If you wish to be pedantic, I would accept curies per minute as measuring the rate at which radioactive material is produced in, say, a nuclear reactor.

Earl of Bronze
13-01-2005, 17:30
Well, gotta say I feel rather :dunce: and kinda :blush: for starting this thread. I think I'll go lie down in a dark room for a couple of weeks. :dig:

AndrewJ
13-01-2005, 18:41
No worries, been a interesting read anyways, never know may have sparked a idea in someones mind.

Amazing things tend to happen when you least expected it, but I am sure a device which helps removing radioactivity would be handy.