Talk:Oxyhydrogen

Dead Link

The material of the dead link "O'Connor, Ken. "Hydrogen" (PDF). NASA Glenn Research Center Glenn Safety Manual' can be found at https://www.grc.nasa.gov/smad-ext/wp-content/uploads/sites/82/chapter_06.pdf, specifically on pages 11 and 29. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.28.16 (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yull Brown

Upon a strange whim I decided to revisit the history of Brown's gas and was quite surprised to learn that Yull Borwn was not as crank as he is portrayed. At least at the beginning. Unfortunately newspaper hype created an appearance that he was a perpetuum mobile-kind of kook. When cleaned off all hype and go to sources, it appears he never claimed that cars will run on water only. Unfortunately careless mythbusters with phrases like "the legendary Brown's gas — a modern chemical unicorn to rival phlogistion (sic! - I guess "phlogiston") — in which hydrogen and oxygen are combined in a non-aqueous state called 'oxyhydrogen', in the same proportions in which they are found in water (2:1). Brown's gas was allegedly used as a vehicle fuel by its discoverer, Australian inventor Yull Brown" did a great disservice to the man. Of course nothing fantastic that Brown's gas can be used as fuel.

Of course, when poor old Yull got older, he started believing in various fancy properties of his mixture used for welding and other kind of burning, but this is a different story. I think I intend to make an attempt with "Yull Brown". Poor man deserves some justice. Unfortunately vast majority of google hits go to various kook science websites, so weeding them out will probably take some time. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. To my sorrow even our famous popsci writers don't care to get their facts straight: The fiction of cold fusion (advocated, for one, by Yull Brown) (says Philip Ball) - <kreeeek> FAIL - other kooks said so; not Brown himself. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on how to report on pseudoscience):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Oxyhydrogen and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The current version of the article is preferable to the previous version, because it includes references and so does not come off as just an assertion of opinion. That said, even this version is problematic, because it doesn't establish were the term "Brown's gas" comes from before speaking about it; the lead is not sufficient, since everything in the lead has to be explicitly restated in the body of the article. Also, the current article doesn't properly attribute the conclusions about the fringe nature of the science to an authority and uses weasel words, so comes off as an opinion, although it is not. Also, there are some POV issues, like "The most common and decisive counter-argument against producing this gas" is an opinion, and not necessary to say. Please see the guidance of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:FRINGE which comprehensively cover this issue. I would improve the phrasing this way: Oxyhydrogen, when referred to as "Brown's gas," is associated with pseudoscientific claims about the gas, such as its alleged ability to neutralize radioactive waste and help plants to germinate.[16][17] Ruggero Santilli, based on his fringe theory of "magnecules," calls oxyhydrogen "HHO gas." He claims that he produces it using a special apparatus, and that it is a "new form of water" with new properties.[18][17] Oxyhydrogen is mentioned in conjunction with vehicles that claim to use water as a fuel. However, more energy is always needed to split water molecules than is recouped by burning the resulting gas.[16][19] Additionally, the volume of gas that can be produced for on-demand consumption through electrolysis is very small in comparison to the volume consumed by an internal combustion engine.[20] An article in Popular Mechanics reported that Brown's gas does not increase the fuel economy in automobiles.[21] Esprit15d • talk • contribs 04:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Brown´s gas: healthy hydrogen enriched water hiding ?

Hiding it in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water and hiding Brown´s gas here in Oxyhydrogen.
Please, what is here the matter with Wikipedia ?
Simply completely refuse the discussion, the health significant potential of negatively charged water, oxygen enriched water, measured with MikroSiemens (- mV; for example mothermilk between -100 and -60 mV): simply completely exclude the discussion as well as the topic itself. Brown's gas only redirected still to oxyhydrogen. But healthy thing disappearing.
An example as source for ionized water, at waterfall: https://www.hohe-tauern-health.de/Content/PDFs/2012_J_Asthma.pdf
Where are to find the now disappeared articles ´Brown´s gas´ and ´MicroSiemens´ (the measurement for healthy negativ loaded water), now just redirected but without being mentioned with just one word further, each ?
(Sorry, perhaps MicroSiemens is not measuered with mV. Sorry, my confusion myself here, because cannot find myself what is correctly.)
Sorry. --Visionhelp (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Studies Brown´s gas for human health

A link as source of studies for human health (from https://eagle-research.com/plants-dont-lie/):
http://www.molecularhydrogeninstitute.com/human-studies
and a good source for step-in:
https://eagle-research.com/browns-gas-for-health/
(The same as german site, please, http://www.browns-gas.de/)
Visionhelp (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

A little reply just: I do not label Wikipedia as reliable source. --Visionhelp (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Good, neither does Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)