AquaCure Research
The Discovery
This page tells the story of how Electrically Expanded Water (ExW) was first discovered in 1996, from the initial observation through the experiments that confirmed it. It’s told firsthand by AquaCure founder George Wiseman, in the voice he used while working through the discovery itself. It’s also a companion piece to his broader personal story.
The Setup
In 1996, we built a “clear” series-cell Brown’s Gas electrolyzer, using the instructions in my Brown’s Gas Book Two. This electrolyzer eventually evolved into our ER50 design.
We found, as we’d expect in a bipolar electrolyzer design, oxygen gas forming on the positive side of each plate and hydrogen gas forming on the negative side of each plate. Then we saw a third, astonishing thing.
The Observation
A third gas was forming exactly in the middle, between the plates, in the fluid itself. There was no connection between the bubbles coming off the plates and this new line of bubbles coming out of the fluid. The fluid was clear, so we could watch it happen directly.
I could see gas forming exactly midway between the plates in the transparent series-cell electrolyzer. It started as a line of bubbles from the top to the bottom of the cell, so solid it looked like another plate. This line of bubbles became visible about three seconds after the electrolyzer was turned on. It then widened until it met the bubbles forming on the plates, and the cell filled with bubbles, a process taking about eleven seconds total.
My working theory: Brown’s Gas contains six constituents, not the two you’d expect. H2, O2, H2O (as water vapor), H2O (as Electrically Expanded Water, or ExW), plus free H and free O.
Revising the Theory
My original theory, published in Brown’s Gas Book 1, was that Brown’s Gas was mostly mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen. Later evidence changed my thinking.
Matter has four phases: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. I now believe ExW is water that has soaked up extra electrons and become a negatively charged plasma phase of water, not mon-atomic gas.
ExW is not the same as the “EZ water” described by Gerald Pollack. EZ water is not water in the H2O sense; it’s H3O2, and it exists in a gel-like state, not a plasma state. It is not the “Fourth Phase of Water.” If anything, EZ water would sit at phase 1.5, between solid and liquid. A fuller discussion of this distinction, including a direct exchange with Dr. Pollack, lives on the ExW page.
Steam is water with heat energy added, a gaseous form that eventually returns to liquid if cooled. Brown’s Gas is temperature-stable and will not condense if cooled. I think the ExW component is water that has had electrical energy added to it in a very specific way that turns it into an “electrical” gas. ExW is still water (H2O); it hasn’t split into hydrogen and oxygen. That’s part of why burning ExW results in an implosion rather than the pre-explosion you get when you combust ordinary hydrogen.
An anomaly worth noting: several tests of Brown’s Gas have confirmed that 1% to 3% of the gas does remain in a mon-atomic state. Just because we don’t yet fully understand why doesn’t mean we should ignore the fact itself.
In one finely tuned experiment, we achieved two separate lines of bubbles, perfectly dividing the cell into thirds. From this, we believe frequency tuning matters to achieving the ExW component. In any given electrolyzer design and set of operating conditions, there’s a DC pulse frequency that produces the best results.
The Accidental Discovery
I discovered the “heavier than air” property of ExW by accident. I was grinding on an ER1150 WaterTorch frame, and some sparks flew over the water-fill hole, which I’d covered with a cloth to keep impurities out. The hole had been open for over a day, and I had no concern about igniting hydrogen, since normal hydrogen dissipates quickly. But something went “whoosh” as the sparks ignited it.
It didn’t go “bang” like a hydrogen explosion would. It went “whoosh,” like an instant vacuum had formed and air was rushing in to fill it.
I later found that if I fill a two-liter transparent bottle with Brown’s Gas and let it sit for at least fifteen minutes with the lid off, the remaining mixture becomes implosive. If you ignite it too soon, the result is very explosive, because the hydrogen hasn’t had time to escape yet. But once the lighter hydrogen has dissipated, what’s left, the ExW, is heavier than air and stays in the bottle. If there’s enough ExW to support combustion, it implodes with no pre-explosion: a slow, imploding, donut-shaped flame moving down inside the bottle as air rushes in to fill the vacuum forming at the center.
This is why Brown’s Gas heats materials differently than a standard BTU-based flame. It seems to inject electrical energy directly into a material’s atomic structure. How a given material responds depends on how it handles that electrical charge: materials that don’t conduct electricity well (insulators) heat up remarkably fast, while materials that conduct electricity easily don’t reach as high a temperature.
Brown’s Gas as produced by most electrolyzers, including our own efficient designs, still contains enough di-atomic hydrogen and oxygen to be initially explosive. The implosive behavior described above happens specifically with the ExW-heavy remainder after the hydrogen has had time to dissipate, not with freshly generated gas.
Confirming the Discovery: Weighing the Gas
Brown’s Gas measurably produces more than 100% of the gas volume you’d predict using Faraday’s Laws. I documented the math behind this in Brown’s Gas Book 1.
Working with others, I later reconfirmed the “weighing” data originally collected by researcher William Rhodes. It’s a simple, easily repeatable experiment: weigh the gas.
Brown’s Gas is too heavy to be mon-atomic. It’s even too heavy to be di-atomic. But it’s exactly the right weight to be water-gas, meaning water (H2O) in a gaseous form.
William Rhodes’ original lifting-power experiment, in his own words:
“First, be aware we are dealing with common-ducted gases, data being absent from NIST and the literature. There is also theory vs. experimental evidence to contend with. From the CRC handbook: ‘Lifting power of 1 cu/ft hydrogen is about 0.075 lb. at 760 mm pressure.'”
Our test volume chosen was 1 liter single-duct electrolyzed gases. An igloo from a plastic pop bottle was cut to provide exactly 1000 ml volume between the flat igloo door top and the upper dome. It was located inverted on the pan of our Mettler milligram balance. An L-shaped tube on a lab stand extended through the doorway and bent upward ending near the dome top, leaving the balance completely free of interference.
The gas generator was purged of air for 15 minutes. The balance was tared arbitrarily adjusted for 30 grams +/- 1 mg. The igloo was filled with pipe smoke; a -6 mg deflection was noted due to warmer air. The gas tube was attached and a maximum weight reduction of 0.510 grams was attained, rounded to the nearest mg. Gas input was allowed to flow for 30 minutes for accuracy. Five minutes after gas cutoff, the balance returned to the pre-gas reading, caused by rapid diffusion of the electrolyzed gases into the atmosphere.
Comparing to hydrogen’s lifting power, 1 liter of mixed gases, scaled to 1 cubic foot, provided a lifting power of 0.0311 lb, or 41% that of pure hydrogen.”
– Willian Rhodes
What that means: From the CRC handbook, hydrogen’s lifting power is about 0.075 lb per cubic foot at standard pressure, which works out to roughly 1.2 grams per liter. Molecular hydrogen alone should have produced a very different lifting-power reading than what Rhodes actually measured.
If Brown’s Gas were a newly discovered “ideal gas” of pure gaseous water (H2O), one mole would weigh 18 grams in 22.4 liters, or 0.8 grams per liter, heavier than a standard 2:1 hydrogen-oxygen molecular mix. Working through the comparison between mon-atomic, di-atomic, and water-gas weight predictions against Rhodes’ actual measured result, the data lines up most closely with Brown’s Gas behaving as a gaseous water component, not as simple hydrogen and oxygen.
What This Discovery Led To
That accidental spark, the line of bubbles, and the weighing experiment that followed became the foundation for everything that came after: the ER50, and eventually the AquaCure. The gas quality rating I still use today, measured in “proof” (the same way you’d rate alcohol), came directly out of this research. My ER1150 WaterTorch, for example, rates at 130 proof, meaning it produces about 30% more gas volume than Faraday’s Laws alone would predict, extra volume that comes from the ExW forming independently of the electrodes.
For the current, settled explanation of what HydrOxy is and how it works, see the HydrOxy page. For a deeper look at ExW specifically, including how it compares to Dr. Gerald Pollack’s EZ water research, see the ExW page.
Take the next step in your research journey
THE SCIENCE
Hydroxy
ExW
The component that sets Hydroxy apart, including how it relates to Dr. Gerald Pollack’s well-known EZ water research.
THE HISTORY
CURRENTLY READING
The Discovery
George’s own account of identifying ExW in 1996, in his own words.
A Short History of Brown's Gas
Where the gas’s many names came from, and why we still call it Brown’s Gas.
Take the next step in your research journey
THE SCIENCE
HydrOxy
Most hydrogen machines only make hydrogen. See what’s actually in the gas AquaCure produces, and why that difference matters more than you’d think.
ExW
This is what separates HydrOxy from every other hydrogen product on the market. Explore what ExW is and why it’s important to how HydrOxy works.
THE HISTORY
CURRENTLY READING
The Discovery
In 1996, George noticed something that shouldn’t have been there: a third gas forming where none should exist. Here’s what happened next.
Brown's Gas History
You may have seen this gas called HHO, Brown’s Gas, or something else entirely. Here’s how one discovery ended up with so many names.
THE EVIDENCE
Studies
A curated set of peer-reviewed hydrogen studies so you can read the science directly. They’re organized by condition, so you can find what matters to you.
Patents
This isn’t a new idea dreamed up yesterday. See the patent filings that documented Brown’s Gas’s therapeutic use years before AquaCure existed.
Interviews
From international conferences to one-on-one conversations, see George walk through the research, the safety data, and the real-world results behind HydrOxy.
THE SCIENCE
CURRENTLY READING
Hydroxy
ExW
The component that sets Hydroxy apart, including how it relates to Dr. Gerald Pollack’s well-known EZ water research.
You've seen the research, here's the next step
Every AquaCure ships with a full one-year satisfaction guarantee and a lifetime manufacturer warranty. Real change takes time, and you shouldn’t have to take our word for it without the chance to see it for yourself.