H2O > HHO gas. Why do we still need petrol??

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Monday, June 12, 2006 21:42
VIEWED: 6005
PAGE 2 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

PHOENIXROSE

Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:04 PM

Yes, that's what I mean by marketing. big busines and governments are in charge of marketing.
And fuel cells use hydrogen fusion to produce energy; the only emission is water. Hot water, as a matter of fact, so those who actually use them to power their houses also have a steady stream of heated water. They are, however, hellaciously expensive.
Scientific? Ok, so Citizen is, but what am I? Chopped liver? *points to self* Regular Discover reader at the very least. I do get my facts from somewhere, you know.

***********

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:11 PM

This should be in the RWED, I only say because sometimes people can get upset if an RWED thread makes the rest of the site 'unclean'.

Before I totally believe it I want it replicated in an independent lab. The welder's simple enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if obtaining the HHO gas from the Water doesn't take more energy than is obtained from the gas it self.

Couldn't find much information on the gas but Wikipedia has this:

Quote:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_gas
The most popular theory presented to explain these properties is that Brown's gas contains monatomic hydrogen and oxygen in significant proportions. This would explain the higher volume (the volume of a gas is proportional to the number of particles), but not some of the other claims. In particular, monatomic hydrogen and oxygen would burn with a hotter flame because the monatomic form has more energy than the normal diatomic form and this extra energy would be released as heat.
...
Skeptics point out that there is no solid evidence for any of these unusual properties, and suggest that all the observations could be explained by normal electrolysis and ordinary diatomic hydrogen and oxygen. Proponents seem reluctant to perform direct comparisons of Brown's gas with hydrogen/oxygen mixtures produced by more conventional means.

Claims that Brown's gas could be used as fuel for cars and other everyday energy needs are also met with skepticism, because it has not been demonstrated that it can be compressed to fit into a reasonable space without becoming dangerously explosive. Even proponents of some forms of the gas acknowledge that it is chronically unstable-rapidly degrading into basic H2 and O2 gas. It is thus unsuitable for storage, and can only be produced on demand. This makes the gas impractical for automotive use, as stored electricity used for on-demand electrolysis would be more efficiently spent on a purely electrical propulsion system. Even if storage problems are overcome, the gas's capacity to store energy is limited by the first law of thermodynamics, and thus offers no unique energy storage characteristics when compared to "normal" hydrogen. Conventional electrolysis of water into hydrogen already achieves theoretical energy efficiency of up to 94%, and no study on Brown's gas has properly researched the efficiency of the production process.

This makes the gas impractical for automotive use, as stored electricity used for on-demand electrolysis would be more efficiently spent on a purely electrical propulsion system.
This is something I suspected, I imagine that if the HHO gas system is really built into the prototype it needs the petrol system to generate its fuel through electrolysis. It takes a lot of energy to split water.

There’s also a discussion on it here:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20763

Finally we’ll still need Oil. Oil has many, many uses, material uses such as plastics and commercial synthetic fertilisers are made using Oil.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

CALHOUN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:12 PM

LOL! No offense intended Phoenixrose..

CALHOUN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:19 PM

Aha! I thought you would chime in eventually Citizen

What are your thoughts about Stanley Meyers claims of way better than 100% efficiency with his patented process of electrolosis? Hoax?

I am a skeptic myself but i believe even if these claims were real we would never ever really know about it until all the worlds oil reserves are depleted.

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
What are your thoughts about Stanley Meyers claims of way better than 100% efficiency with his patented process of electrolosis? Hoax?

Greater than 100% efficiency breaks the laws of thermodynamics, so until conclusively proved otherwise I'd say hoax.

From the site:

Quote:
The water fuel cell uses a different process from electrolysis. In the fuel cell electrons are restricted, the water molecule undergoes a lot more stress, and an added sequence of events produce a much higher energy efficiency than electrolysis.

Electrons restricted? Electrolysis works because it breaks the covalent bonds between atoms. That takes energy and no matter how you do it, it always takes the same amount of energy.

So if this system can put in less electricity but get the same volume of gas out, where the hell is the rest of the energy coming from?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

PDCHARLES

Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:38 PM

Yeah, like hydrogen cells, there is no resource friendly way of producing it in large quantities.

Putting these out there for info...(i know some of us are studied up on dis) I am currently trying to push the FlexFuel issue in my city... Only one city in my state offers FlexFuel currently.

http://www.ethanol.org/
http://www.ethanol.org/e85.html

Sure, reducing emissions form cars to 0% at this stage is a tough challenge. But it IS possible to make an impact.

PR, it does take money... so when afforded the opportunity, lobby your local officials and politicians. Letters, town council meetings, etc.

Wind energy is actually growing...
http://www.awea.org/default.htm
http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html
http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WindPowerTodayFinal.pdf

There are ways to produce power and send it back to the grid.
http://www.off-grid.net/index.php

http://www.off-grid.net/index.php?p=583#more-583

IF we (the US, one of the only countries not growing commercial hemp), used comm. hemp, corn, and vegetable waste product for all if its luscious cellulose, we could greatly reduce our need for a lot of petroleum products and produce perfectly good, strong, plastics and fibers from it. Might hurt DuPont's (and others) profits though.

An area I haven't seen much progress in is the dirty coal industry where we get most our grid power.

We can and have to get involved... Sorry, hit a sensitive topic.

Oh, I am interested to know if this option is offered in any of you browncoat's areas: (prolly too expensive of a venture for trash co.s and cities)
So, I recycle what I can. I was thinking that no matter the weight or volume of trash I do throw away, I pay the trash service the same every two months. If they charged by weight or volume, like at most landfills, there would be incentive to conserve more and throw away less. But measuring this volume/weight per customer, per truck is costly for equipment and infrastructure I guess.

GO CANES!!!

PHOENIXROSE

Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:46 PM

Yeah, wind power is slowly growing. Use it myself (my family was one of the first to sign on in this state) but the thing is... it costs more than regular power. Oh yes, yes it does. Not a lot, but still. The good thing is that Colorado is just flooded with wind. But it's still a very small percentage of people who are using it.
And recycling is actually almost mandatory in my city.

***********

PDCHARLES

Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:02 PM

That is awesome your parents were one of the first peeps on board.

Hopefully, with the implementation of new areas, that cost will go down. New Huge Mega Watt producing machines are going up all the time.

http://www.awea.org/news/First_Quarter_Market_Report_Energy_On_Track_0
50306.html

As far as recycling goes... it is not mandatory where I am from unfortunately. But, I was talking about the waste that is not recycled. Could cost for refuse be measured by volume or measured on a household-to-household basis? (or is it somewhere?, not landfills) EDIT: As in: curb side pickup.

GO CANES!!!

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:10 PM

You all seriously need to watch 'Chain Reaction'. It details 'the powers that be's' feeling on the matter (plus, it's a cool flick!).

I put the H in the H2O Chrisisall

GILTHANASS

Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:17 PM

As has been said, at best this is a case of not sharing enough info. This is not a case of "unlimited energy". That is impossible. All it is is another form of energy storage (put energy in, take it out later). In order to be at all viable, you would need to pair it with a different form of energy, most likely nuclear. Also, as has been said, this looks pretty unstable to me, I would rather keep my H and my O away from each other while in storage, but hey, I am just an old fashioned dude who doesn't like being in the center of a fireball, what do I know.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE