The future of fuel? Water?
05-23-2006, 07:39 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
everyone realizes that there is no energy in water right?
the electrolisys - hydrogen engine/fuel cell cycle starts with water and ends with water. and since no state conversions are 100% efficent then outside energy must come from somewhere.
Hydrogen is a great way to store energy. but is NOT a source of energy. thats where the hydrogen concept always breaks down
the electrolisys - hydrogen engine/fuel cell cycle starts with water and ends with water. and since no state conversions are 100% efficent then outside energy must come from somewhere.
Hydrogen is a great way to store energy. but is NOT a source of energy. thats where the hydrogen concept always breaks down
05-23-2006, 08:29 PM
#27
Bummed, but bring on OU!
Originally Posted by fourflush
everyone realizes that there is no energy in water right?
the electrolisys - hydrogen engine/fuel cell cycle starts with water and ends with water. and since no state conversions are 100% efficent then outside energy must come from somewhere.
Hydrogen is a great way to store energy. but is NOT a source of energy. thats where the hydrogen concept always breaks down
the electrolisys - hydrogen engine/fuel cell cycle starts with water and ends with water. and since no state conversions are 100% efficent then outside energy must come from somewhere.
Hydrogen is a great way to store energy. but is NOT a source of energy. thats where the hydrogen concept always breaks down
The same could be said of any fuel source, short of ripping atoms apart or cramming them together (even that's stored energy, but it was stored billions of years ago). Gasoline is not a source of energy either, but simply a storage medium. The combustion cycle is notoriously inefficient, however, so a more efficient way to access energy would be a marked improvement. That and you don't pollute the air, fund terrorists, fund politicians, etc. Hydrogen is the future, it only makes sense. It's everywhere. There won't be an overnight transition to a hydrogen economy. Technology must build upon itself. Fossil fuels are here for quite some time, but the phase out will begin soon.
Last edited by therm8; 05-23-2006 at 08:32 PM.
05-23-2006, 08:47 PM
#28
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In the hills between San Miguel and Parkfield - "up in the boonie lands", Central Coast of California, Wine Country
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It still runs on gas
[QUOTE=ALP22]
BS all the way dude. Even if the torch could run on his HHO or "electrolysed water", where does the energy for the electrolysis come from?
If the show I saw on CNN was on this one - then you still have to have gasoline it just cuts the consumption down from 10-50%. The gas powers the engine, generates electricity which is fed into the kit and then the two reactive gases are fed in with the regular gas. It makes a lot of water and that might not be so good for an engine, especially the rotary type. The Service Manger at Valley Mazda in San Louis Obispo CA has a old rotary that they were using as a planter! Well they start doing so because it began to rust out. The good news is that there is a little space that could be used for the hydrogen generator. The Service guy (a super rotar head- has one or two of his own) says they can do a conversion to hydrogen in Japan for about 40K.
BS all the way dude. Even if the torch could run on his HHO or "electrolysed water", where does the energy for the electrolysis come from? If the show I saw on CNN was on this one - then you still have to have gasoline it just cuts the consumption down from 10-50%. The gas powers the engine, generates electricity which is fed into the kit and then the two reactive gases are fed in with the regular gas. It makes a lot of water and that might not be so good for an engine, especially the rotary type. The Service Manger at Valley Mazda in San Louis Obispo CA has a old rotary that they were using as a planter! Well they start doing so because it began to rust out. The good news is that there is a little space that could be used for the hydrogen generator. The Service guy (a super rotar head- has one or two of his own) says they can do a conversion to hydrogen in Japan for about 40K.
$8.00
05-23-2006, 10:21 PM
#30
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In the hills between San Miguel and Parkfield - "up in the boonie lands", Central Coast of California, Wine Country
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They will charge you "pollution points". Water vapor, the end product of hydrogen combustion is a "Green house gas" just like CO2, oxygen, etc. and everybody knows how bad Green hOuses gases must be as they contribute to Global Warming... And this would add to the humidity as well. Enron was pushing the Tokyo accord which would permit big companies to trade Carbon release points just like they trade pollution credits (I don't want to preach to the choir but this is a practice done in places like San Franciso - companies are permitted to release a set amount of pollution, if they go under that limit they can sell, for real money, the legal right to pollute to another worse company. This was the plan under Clinton - Just look up on the internet: three words together: Clinton, ENRON, Global Warming - this was way back in the 90's.) Using that same logic - your car would make water pollution. Also only distilled water can be used because the Cat ions (don't ya hate cats) like calcium and sodium stick to the electrodes or gather in odd batches in the fluid surrounding them - you would have to filter it and use resins to pull our the Cats, else you have to put in a lot of energy and distill the water, like you do at a desalinazation plant - I suppose you could do it slowly with solar farms - just big plastic bags hanging over a body of water - but even then most water, like in septic systems, is also full of organics, volitiles, and neutral molecules - like dissolved pesticides, alcohol, etc. You are going to have to do your distilling at just the right temperature to get around most of these - in a lab even tap water must be distilled 3 times to get something really pure - lots and lots of energy required for that. The best low cost (energy cost) source for hydrogen turns out to be petrol, or at least oil well by products..... I suppose everyone could put in solar cells on their roof, use daylight to make their own hydrogen/Oxygen - compress it and pack it up for their car, and sit around waiting for enough to form....But since I live in Wine country I want an * they will run on grape alcohol and olive or grape-seed oil. My exhaust will inspire chefs everywhere!
05-23-2006, 10:37 PM
#31
Senor Carnegrande
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^ There would be localized water vapor, perhaps. But the total amount of water "in circulation" on the earth's surface would not change one bit. CO2 on the other hand is a different story. You're talking about a gas that was previously locked away deep underground, since the days of the dinosaurs. Of course, I still think that man is not responsible for global warming, but whatever.
Another video from CNN:
Click here
Similar to the other one, but this one points out that they are getting thousands of calls per day, some of which are from major companies like Lockheed Martin.
Another video from CNN:
Click here
Similar to the other one, but this one points out that they are getting thousands of calls per day, some of which are from major companies like Lockheed Martin.
05-23-2006, 11:02 PM
#32
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In the hills between San Miguel and Parkfield - "up in the boonie lands", Central Coast of California, Wine Country
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Global Warming
[QUOTE=BaronVonBigmeat]^^^ Of course, I still think that man is not responsible for global warming, but whatever.
With you there, Baron.
I worked with this Nobel Prize laurette mathimatician once, he was a "Celestial Mechanic" - one of those wizards who calculates where the eath, moon, etc. will be when you do a space launch. Back then, 3 body problems were all the new rage and fracticles were a new art form...He said that there is some sort of a weather cycle that is caused by a combination of effects: a little variation in orbit , combined with annual earth tilt - it rans a short cycle course of about 18.5 years and there are some bigger cycles as well. He said that back in 72, or so, we were at the end of a cooling cycle, (an old TV program called "In Search Of', hosted by that great scientist 'Spok', of star treck fame - lamented the approach of the new ice age because pack ice was not melting up in Alaska that year) Our mathematician said we were going to br entering a warming cycle, which would then return to a cooling cycle - They were also using some of his stuff for hurricane predictions... It's been, a while but, as I remember, supposedly the change from hot to cool is marked by increased hurricane activity for about 20 years, which is where we are now, according to NOAH, and people are starting to say Global Warming is causing Global Cooling. The Gang down at the Monterey Bay Aquarium says there is an 'anchovie vs sardine cycle" that runs every 20 years due to cooling of the ocean currents. Sardines are just now begining to return to our Costal Waters....bringing us full cycle back to water - bet temperature effects the hydrogen chamber reactions; wonder how the hydrogen kit would work in a Michigan winter- what say?
With you there, Baron.
I worked with this Nobel Prize laurette mathimatician once, he was a "Celestial Mechanic" - one of those wizards who calculates where the eath, moon, etc. will be when you do a space launch. Back then, 3 body problems were all the new rage and fracticles were a new art form...He said that there is some sort of a weather cycle that is caused by a combination of effects: a little variation in orbit , combined with annual earth tilt - it rans a short cycle course of about 18.5 years and there are some bigger cycles as well. He said that back in 72, or so, we were at the end of a cooling cycle, (an old TV program called "In Search Of', hosted by that great scientist 'Spok', of star treck fame - lamented the approach of the new ice age because pack ice was not melting up in Alaska that year) Our mathematician said we were going to br entering a warming cycle, which would then return to a cooling cycle - They were also using some of his stuff for hurricane predictions... It's been, a while but, as I remember, supposedly the change from hot to cool is marked by increased hurricane activity for about 20 years, which is where we are now, according to NOAH, and people are starting to say Global Warming is causing Global Cooling. The Gang down at the Monterey Bay Aquarium says there is an 'anchovie vs sardine cycle" that runs every 20 years due to cooling of the ocean currents. Sardines are just now begining to return to our Costal Waters....bringing us full cycle back to water - bet temperature effects the hydrogen chamber reactions; wonder how the hydrogen kit would work in a Michigan winter- what say?
05-23-2006, 11:05 PM
#33
Registered
Originally Posted by BaronVonBigmeat
Of course, I still think that man is not responsible for global warming, but whatever.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled thread...
05-24-2006, 01:14 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by therm8
The same could be said of any fuel source, short of ripping atoms apart or cramming them together (even that's stored energy, but it was stored billions of years ago). Gasoline is not a source of energy either, but simply a storage medium. The combustion cycle is notoriously inefficient, however, so a more efficient way to access energy would be a marked improvement. That and you don't pollute the air, fund terrorists, fund politicians, etc. Hydrogen is the future, it only makes sense. It's everywhere. There won't be an overnight transition to a hydrogen economy. Technology must build upon itself. Fossil fuels are here for quite some time, but the phase out will begin soon.
More importantly this particular device is getting hydrogen from water. then combusting that hydrogen to get water again. Thermodynamics will tell you that thats a loosing ballgame. Sort of like putting a windmill on your car and trying to run it on the electricity produced. It simply will not work because of the losses during conversion.
If we want to get seriouse about using hydrogen in vehicles then we need to get away from the idea of generating it on the fly. We need to build about 50 new nuclear power plants and several large giga-amp hydrogen creation plants.
Then we just need to come up with a good solution for storing spent fuel rods. But that is a much smaller problem than dealing with the smog from hundreds of thousands of automobiles.
Bottom line is you cant run a car on water. you can run a car on batteries and use water to hydrogen to combustion as your means of converting power. but that is so inefficent that its better just to use DC motors.
05-24-2006, 04:56 PM
#35
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In the hills between San Miguel and Parkfield - "up in the boonie lands", Central Coast of California, Wine Country
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But nuclear means its a bomb........
[QUOTE=fourflush]
Then we just need to come up with a good solution for storing spent fuel rods.
We gotta solution - Yucca Mountain. This is located right out on the atomic test site where they did both above and below ground testing of atomic bombs.
And these are a lot less uncontrolled and hot than those toys. There is allready all the radiation you could ever want to run from, and testing never shut down Vegas. Yucca's got a cave carved into old Magma and surrounded by salt and Borax. If you had a spill who would know! (O.K. O.K. lots of people would know because some of my friends built all kinds of detectors) but the major reason we are not using Yucca, is someone thought it would make Los Vegas more scary and people would stop depositing their paychecks there ... Ooooh scary nuclears ( that's why you can't say NMR in front of patients- it has that scary N word...Ever wonder what's inside your smoke detectors....
The fear is all new, I Remember when they used to watch the mushroom clouds go up inbetween crap shoots there! Oh yah, some Russian said there used to be groundwater there - true- 10,000 + years ago it was an uplifted inland sea that dried up and left the salt and borax deposits - but it does not look like it is going to drop back down in the lifespan of the rods. Its a lot more dry than where they are currently storing the rods and a lot safer there in the wet basements of 3-Mile or Diablo.
(Hey, if we rub a little plutonium on the sides of our rotars and dumped in some water, would the reaction run them round and round?
)
Then we just need to come up with a good solution for storing spent fuel rods.
We gotta solution - Yucca Mountain. This is located right out on the atomic test site where they did both above and below ground testing of atomic bombs.
And these are a lot less uncontrolled and hot than those toys. There is allready all the radiation you could ever want to run from, and testing never shut down Vegas. Yucca's got a cave carved into old Magma and surrounded by salt and Borax. If you had a spill who would know! (O.K. O.K. lots of people would know because some of my friends built all kinds of detectors) but the major reason we are not using Yucca, is someone thought it would make Los Vegas more scary and people would stop depositing their paychecks there ... Ooooh scary nuclears ( that's why you can't say NMR in front of patients- it has that scary N word...Ever wonder what's inside your smoke detectors....
The fear is all new, I Remember when they used to watch the mushroom clouds go up inbetween crap shoots there! Oh yah, some Russian said there used to be groundwater there - true- 10,000 + years ago it was an uplifted inland sea that dried up and left the salt and borax deposits - but it does not look like it is going to drop back down in the lifespan of the rods. Its a lot more dry than where they are currently storing the rods and a lot safer there in the wet basements of 3-Mile or Diablo.
(Hey, if we rub a little plutonium on the sides of our rotars and dumped in some water, would the reaction run them round and round?
)
05-24-2006, 05:28 PM
#36
Bummed, but bring on OU!
Originally Posted by fourflush
Then we just need to come up with a good solution for storing spent fuel rods. But that is a much smaller problem than dealing with the smog from hundreds of thousands of automobiles.
Bottom line is you cant run a car on water. you can run a car on batteries and use water to hydrogen to combustion as your means of converting power. but that is so inefficent that its better just to use DC motors.
Bottom line is you cant run a car on water. you can run a car on batteries and use water to hydrogen to combustion as your means of converting power. but that is so inefficent that its better just to use DC motors.
I get where you're coming from. Hydrogen on the fly will never be efficient enough. But this device, assuming it does what it says, will benefit the development of hydrogen powered, well, everything.
Spent nuclear fuel won't be much of an issue in the coming years. The next generation reactors won't be using the same methods. The new designs are much more efficient in fuel usage, and packaging. Waste products will be greatly reduced. The problem with the old generation reactors is government regulation. They weren't allowed to enrich the fuel enough to use it for very long.
With battery technology and nuclear technology progressing rapidly, we might just see freedom from petroleum in our lifetime. Not to mention the people that have made plastic-like material out of soy and corn. I doubt it'll be anytime soon, and we'll probably see some interim measures before it happens (eg ethanol-electric hybrids, bio-diesel, etc), but it's exciting regardless.
05-24-2006, 09:59 PM
#37
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In the hills between San Miguel and Parkfield - "up in the boonie lands", Central Coast of California, Wine Country
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During WWII The Germans ran into a petrol shortage, one of the more creative solutions was a truck with a tank of manure that generated enough "natural gas" to keep it rolling with cargo. I believe they called them Schist Wagens.
05-25-2006, 01:38 PM
#39
Senor Carnegrande
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^ They don't say it explicitly. But basically, as many have said, you cannot generate hydrogen from onboard electricity, and then run the car off pure hydrogen. Let's say it takes 10,000 watts of electrical power to generate (x) amount of hydrogen. Okay great, now you burn the hydrogen in the engine, and you get say...3,000 watts of mechanical power. See the problem? It's the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Or as Bob Lazar (yes, that Bob Lazar, the UFO reverse engineer) explains:
Soo...if running from an onboard H2 generator violates the laws of physics, what's going on? Is it a scam?
Not necessarily. You can't run off 100% self-generated hydrogen...but you can make enough to inject a small amount in with your gasoline. Why would you want to do that?
Source--Hydrogen fuel basics
You inject a little hydrogen in order to help the flame of combustion spread faster and help the gasoline burn more completely. This merely a different way of doing what higher compression does. Actually, selling cars with diesel engines is probably a more cost-effective way to increase thermodynamic efficiency.
Speaking of United Nuclear, they are developing a similar hydrogen system too. Only their's is based on a hydride storage tank for hydrogen, and you charge it up from a home-based generator which uses wall current. You could mix it with gas for better mileage, OR you could run off 100% hydrogen (remember, it was generated at your house, from wall current, over a couple days). You'd only have a range of 75~100 miles per each $2k storage tank though. But hey, if you don't drive very far from home, it could work.
ANY claim of fueling a car with water, and having the water converted to Hydrogen quickly enough to power a passenger vehicle is pure B.S. The bottom line is simple physics. It takes electrical energy to break the Hydrogen-Oxygen bond in water and release the free gases... and that takes time. The more energy applied to the water, the faster the gasses will evolve... up to a point.
It is not possible to create sufficient amounts Hydrogen gas from water (on board the vehicle) fast enough to idle the smallest passenger vehicle. If you're towing a nuclear reactor behind the car, along with a motor home-sized Hydrogen generator, you might have sufficient power and volume to accomplish the task, but that kind of defeats the purpose behind the conversion.
It is not possible to create sufficient amounts Hydrogen gas from water (on board the vehicle) fast enough to idle the smallest passenger vehicle. If you're towing a nuclear reactor behind the car, along with a motor home-sized Hydrogen generator, you might have sufficient power and volume to accomplish the task, but that kind of defeats the purpose behind the conversion.
Not necessarily. You can't run off 100% self-generated hydrogen...but you can make enough to inject a small amount in with your gasoline. Why would you want to do that?
Due to the fact that Hydrogen gas burns so much faster than Gasoline, engines with compression ratios greater than 9.5 to 1 are very susceptible to damaging predetonation (engine knock). For this reason, Hydrogen conversions are not recommended for vehicles with turbochargers, superchargers, or compression ratios greater than 9.5 to 1. Also, because of the higher compression, different ignition system, and host of other factors, the Hydrogen Fuel System will not work on diesel engines.
You inject a little hydrogen in order to help the flame of combustion spread faster and help the gasoline burn more completely. This merely a different way of doing what higher compression does. Actually, selling cars with diesel engines is probably a more cost-effective way to increase thermodynamic efficiency.
Speaking of United Nuclear, they are developing a similar hydrogen system too. Only their's is based on a hydride storage tank for hydrogen, and you charge it up from a home-based generator which uses wall current. You could mix it with gas for better mileage, OR you could run off 100% hydrogen (remember, it was generated at your house, from wall current, over a couple days). You'd only have a range of 75~100 miles per each $2k storage tank though. But hey, if you don't drive very far from home, it could work.
Last edited by BaronVonBigmeat; 05-25-2006 at 01:50 PM.
05-26-2006, 06:46 PM
#40
Still plays with cars
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Winning 8
no, I don't want to pay 3.50 for a gal of water.
There is a machine where I work that sells it for $6.40 a gallon ($1.00 for 20oz).
Seriously though, I bet it will need to be some super-filtered water that will cost lot. Normal tap water has small amounts of many different particles that will probably need to go.
02-24-2010, 01:07 AM
#41
This has been a popular topic on the forums. There are three threads that talk about this "miracle of science"... yes I too am skeptical. However, what I was looking to find was not seen in the other threads. I wanted to see more than educated conjecture. Doesn't it bother anyone else, that we are forming opinions about a technology that we have no direct experience with? Extending that a bit more, so far (in our threads), the advisers we have sought advice from, also lack direct experience with this technology?
All I'm looking for, is for someone, to have actual experience installing or testing this technology in a RX8 rotary engine.
There is an installer here in Vancouver Canada, that specializes in this installation. If nothing less, I can be the first test case.
One question that was not asked in the threads I've read, and that was "Does anyone know if our cars utilizes the full %100 of power produced by the alternator?"
So, how much is left over?
All I'm looking for, is for someone, to have actual experience installing or testing this technology in a RX8 rotary engine.
There is an installer here in Vancouver Canada, that specializes in this installation. If nothing less, I can be the first test case.
One question that was not asked in the threads I've read, and that was "Does anyone know if our cars utilizes the full %100 of power produced by the alternator?"
So, how much is left over?
Last edited by Gyro_Bot; 02-24-2010 at 01:15 AM.
02-24-2010, 01:31 AM
#43
Metatron
iTrader: (1)
"Does anyone know if our cars utilizes the full %100 of power produced by the alternator?"
So, how much is left over?
I'm not a scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.
Think about the physics involved - if the alternator is making (for example) 200 watts, the engine had to use about 400 watts of force to turn the pulley, and this took about 800 'watts' of gasoline energy to make, so even if you used the alternator to power an electric motor, you'd only get about 100 watts of actual usable force out of it.....it's a loser proposition.
This 'exclusive electrolysis secret' process has been around for a hundred years - it's called 'electrolysis' and it's free to anyone to play around with and generate hydrogen and oxygen. It's very inefficient and produces very little usable gas - it doesn't take Big Oil to buy this technology and lock it away - it just plain doesn't work....
....and thanks for the bump of a 2006 thread.
So, how much is left over?
I'm not a scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.
Think about the physics involved - if the alternator is making (for example) 200 watts, the engine had to use about 400 watts of force to turn the pulley, and this took about 800 'watts' of gasoline energy to make, so even if you used the alternator to power an electric motor, you'd only get about 100 watts of actual usable force out of it.....it's a loser proposition.
This 'exclusive electrolysis secret' process has been around for a hundred years - it's called 'electrolysis' and it's free to anyone to play around with and generate hydrogen and oxygen. It's very inefficient and produces very little usable gas - it doesn't take Big Oil to buy this technology and lock it away - it just plain doesn't work....
....and thanks for the bump of a 2006 thread.
02-24-2010, 11:06 AM
#44
"Does anyone know if our cars utilizes the full %100 of power produced by the alternator?"
So, how much is left over?
I'm not a scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.
Think about the physics involved - if the alternator is making (for example) 200 watts, the engine had to use about 400 watts of force to turn the pulley, and this took about 800 'watts' of gasoline energy to make, so even if you used the alternator to power an electric motor, you'd only get about 100 watts of actual usable force out of it.....it's a loser proposition.
This 'exclusive electrolysis secret' process has been around for a hundred years - it's called 'electrolysis' and it's free to anyone to play around with and generate hydrogen and oxygen. It's very inefficient and produces very little usable gas - it doesn't take Big Oil to buy this technology and lock it away - it just plain doesn't work....
....and thanks for the bump of a 2006 thread.
So, how much is left over?
I'm not a scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.
Think about the physics involved - if the alternator is making (for example) 200 watts, the engine had to use about 400 watts of force to turn the pulley, and this took about 800 'watts' of gasoline energy to make, so even if you used the alternator to power an electric motor, you'd only get about 100 watts of actual usable force out of it.....it's a loser proposition.
This 'exclusive electrolysis secret' process has been around for a hundred years - it's called 'electrolysis' and it's free to anyone to play around with and generate hydrogen and oxygen. It's very inefficient and produces very little usable gas - it doesn't take Big Oil to buy this technology and lock it away - it just plain doesn't work....
....and thanks for the bump of a 2006 thread.
What interests me however, is the fact that despite the backlash, it seems people who have bought this technology haven't taken it back. I've never heard of anyone returning their purchase, and yet the only people that disprove of this technology, are the same people who have not purchased and installed it. I just wish, for some hands on experience.
I find that last part kind of disturbing.
I want to disprove of the whole idea about the HHO kit, but I need more than thoughts to do it. I don't know about you guys, but I don't base my opinion on other people's thoughts, that doesn't cut it for me.
I am interested in experiences. Then I will gladly have an opinion.
So... again, no one has actually tried it.
Last edited by Gyro_Bot; 02-24-2010 at 08:15 PM.
02-24-2010, 11:59 AM
#45
jersey fresh
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been tested (and actually never needed to be anyways), you just refuse to accept the answer which is the problem here. If you believe it works then go for it, scientific results cannot stop human stupidity.
The energy needed to break down the water does not surpass the energy gained from igniting the hydrogen, if it did you just crumbled 200 years of physics. Plus if you have the extra energy to seperate H from H2O why not just use that energy to further propel the car?
A tenth grade physics student can do the algebra to prove this wrong.
The energy needed to break down the water does not surpass the energy gained from igniting the hydrogen, if it did you just crumbled 200 years of physics. Plus if you have the extra energy to seperate H from H2O why not just use that energy to further propel the car?
A tenth grade physics student can do the algebra to prove this wrong.
02-24-2010, 12:10 PM
#46
Administrator
really? really? really this has been round and round already. do some reading like Popular Mechanics article http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...o/4276846.html
it doesnt work . the reason the person int he original post doesn't run the entire car on it is because he cant. it just displaces some of the gasoline. you might as well do a meth injection or water injection or switch over to a boosted ap and e85. it would be more efficient than what you can accomplish with these HHO devices.
although I think his idea of using electrolysis - the welder is plugged in already- on board and water to make the gas for welding is a nice idea. no need to lug tanks of gases around for most of your welding.
it doesnt work . the reason the person int he original post doesn't run the entire car on it is because he cant. it just displaces some of the gasoline. you might as well do a meth injection or water injection or switch over to a boosted ap and e85. it would be more efficient than what you can accomplish with these HHO devices.
although I think his idea of using electrolysis - the welder is plugged in already- on board and water to make the gas for welding is a nice idea. no need to lug tanks of gases around for most of your welding.
02-24-2010, 12:44 PM
#47
That's a good read Zoom! 
he actually tried to make it work. What interests me though, is the end of the article. Reading all of it, of course.
"Stay tuned.... still testing"
This statement doesn't sound conclusive. He's admitting there's good chance of placebo effect, and based on his friends results, the placebo effect might be on both sides of this fence. So if that's the case, having interest in seeing results (experience) is not out of the question. The topic remains interesting to me, until there is real evidence.
I'll be first to admit there are websites and HHO kits out there that look "more" bogus than others. I especially have a distaste for the marketing technique on these sites, its unprofessional and smacks of unscrupulous business. I would never buy a kit that was built into a steel tool box, for example.
If Mike Allen, from popular mechanics can't give a conclusive summary after all his testing... then, well, if a educated professional like him is "still testing" and refining his experimental methods, it's because he feels he needs to. Why does he feel he needs to? well, he's taking a scientific approach to make a conclusive statement, and to ensure his own bias isn't affecting the outcome. The unbiased data (either way ) is what I am interested in.
There are some advanced kits out there, (now members... don't sneer, some variants are hybrid dry and wet cell combinations. It is a bit more complicated than a home grown steel box version).
The website I've been reviewing recently, is this one:
http://hhokitsdirect.com/articles/
Please don't flame, I am genuinely expressing my interest in this avenue. I don't think this topic is a Pandora's box, I mean, it should not be. I am not selling anything here, just disturbed that no one has hands on experience. I'm also a little disturbed by the negative stand overall, which is 100% based on educated conjecture (sound and reasonable conjecture I might add). But, again... like Mike Allen (thanks zoom) the unbiased facts aren't in, they are still testing.
he actually tried to make it work. What interests me though, is the end of the article. Reading all of it, of course.
"He's experimenting with several vehicles, and actually getting some consistent results—fuel-economy improvements to the tune of 10 to 12 percent on diesel trucks pulling trailers. He's tinkering with some of the same things Giroux is suggesting. We're looking into ways to refine both his and my experimental methods. But I'm convinced there's a lot of placebo effect. I also think that these mods may be increasing fuel economy independently of the HHO injection. So stay tuned, because we're still testing. Once we get some more data onboard, we'll be dyno testing."
This statement doesn't sound conclusive. He's admitting there's good chance of placebo effect, and based on his friends results, the placebo effect might be on both sides of this fence. So if that's the case, having interest in seeing results (experience) is not out of the question. The topic remains interesting to me, until there is real evidence.
"So, last month I received an electrolyzer, fabricated by my old Monster Garage partner, Steve Rumore at Avalanche Engineering out in Colorado. Steve cleverly designed the device into a steel toolbox, making it portable—just the ticket for someone tinkering with HHO/water/hydrogen/Brown's Gas*powered conveyances"
If Mike Allen, from popular mechanics can't give a conclusive summary after all his testing... then, well, if a educated professional like him is "still testing" and refining his experimental methods, it's because he feels he needs to. Why does he feel he needs to? well, he's taking a scientific approach to make a conclusive statement, and to ensure his own bias isn't affecting the outcome. The unbiased data (either way ) is what I am interested in.
There are some advanced kits out there, (now members... don't sneer, some variants are hybrid dry and wet cell combinations. It is a bit more complicated than a home grown steel box version).
The website I've been reviewing recently, is this one:
http://hhokitsdirect.com/articles/
Please don't flame, I am genuinely expressing my interest in this avenue. I don't think this topic is a Pandora's box, I mean, it should not be. I am not selling anything here, just disturbed that no one has hands on experience. I'm also a little disturbed by the negative stand overall, which is 100% based on educated conjecture (sound and reasonable conjecture I might add). But, again... like Mike Allen (thanks zoom) the unbiased facts aren't in, they are still testing.
Last edited by Gyro_Bot; 02-24-2010 at 12:55 PM.
02-24-2010, 01:08 PM
#48
electrolysis isn't the only method for busting apart water...
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...gen_from_Water
AllH2 - The cell is a combination of magnesium, aluminium and stainless steel. It weighs .061 lbs. and has a lifetime shelf life. It's dimensions are 3" X 12" X 1/4". This cell when immersed in seawater releases hydrogen gas.
So there's all kinds of solutions. I still don't think that water is the answer though. Electric power will win in the end. We just need to improve our development techniques for producing electricity.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...gen_from_Water
AllH2 - The cell is a combination of magnesium, aluminium and stainless steel. It weighs .061 lbs. and has a lifetime shelf life. It's dimensions are 3" X 12" X 1/4". This cell when immersed in seawater releases hydrogen gas.
So there's all kinds of solutions. I still don't think that water is the answer though. Electric power will win in the end. We just need to improve our development techniques for producing electricity.
02-24-2010, 01:38 PM
#49
Administrator
well see he did keep testing and was so annoyed at people who kept saying he didn't test this , that or the other thing he then partnered with Dateline NBC and took everything to an EPA certified lab and did not just HHO but also fuel heaters, fuel-line magnets and acetone fuel additives for one big test fest
http://www.origin.popularmechanics.c...o/4310717.html
Mind you a more friendly to "strange" ideas Coast to Coast AM and host George Noory also tested HHO kits and ALSO found they just didn't work
http://green.autoblog.com/2008/07/18...er4gas-system/
but of course his results are not believed because they didn't do something or other the right way, according to hho proponents and commentors on that link
and was so annoyed at people who kept saying he didn't test this , that or the other thing he then partnered with Dateline NBC and took everything to an EPA certified lab and did not just HHO but also fuel heaters, fuel-line magnets and acetone fuel additives for one big test festhttp://www.origin.popularmechanics.c...o/4310717.html
Mind you a more friendly to "strange" ideas Coast to Coast AM and host George Noory also tested HHO kits and ALSO found they just didn't work
http://green.autoblog.com/2008/07/18...er4gas-system/
but of course his results are not believed because they didn't do something or other the right way, according to hho proponents and commentors on that link
02-24-2010, 05:23 PM
#50
That's it, that's exactly what I wanted to read.
Mike Allen is a reputable scientist, I really admire the extra mile he went (wasn't meant to be a pun, but... heheh) with the EPA certification lab.
His take on this is well received, in my book.
Well, so much for me being hydrogen hopeful. I really have to give Zoom some credit here, in my own searches all I seem to find is educated opinions and biased pros and cons of this technology. Mike Allen is a key person to have an opinion on this.
Thanks Zoom44, full credits to you. I hope you don't mind me reusing your links, if I ever come across this discussion again. Exactly what I was looking to use.
Cheers!
Mike Allen is a reputable scientist, I really admire the extra mile he went (wasn't meant to be a pun, but... heheh) with the EPA certification lab.
His take on this is well received, in my book.
Well, so much for me being hydrogen hopeful. I really have to give Zoom some credit here, in my own searches all I seem to find is educated opinions and biased pros and cons of this technology. Mike Allen is a key person to have an opinion on this.
Thanks Zoom44, full credits to you. I hope you don't mind me reusing your links, if I ever come across this discussion again. Exactly what I was looking to use.
Cheers!