It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# HHO Truth

page: 2
4
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 09:25 PM

if 12l is about 156% efficient then 8l would b about 100% efficient.

by your figures i deduced that that was what you said.
I was talking about 8 liters of hydrogen and you weren't clear in your earlier reply if you were talking about that 8 liters, but based on your clarification, you're apparently talking about 8 liters of HHO, not hydrogen. I never mentioned 8 liters of HHO which is why I didn't follow your question, but I think I do now.

To make 8 liters of HHO in one minute with 1000 watts would require 104% electrolyser efficiency using the same calculation methods.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 09:38 PM
Arbitrageur

here is the origional figures i had in the op that seem to be close to what you are figuring.

on top of these figures we still have the addition of things like koh and certain radio frequencies that aids in the seperation of the bonds

I stand firmly behind the claim i made in the op of 12 lpm but as i stated that is personal expierence and had nothing to do with my other figures i made

3.658kwh to seperate 1liter of water
219.48 kwm
219480 wpm
119.282 wpm=1lhho
edit on 10-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 09:52 PM

You can do all kinds of things to change the electrolysis efficiency, and yes they do have an effect, bringing the efficiency from one value under 100% to another value under 100%. But none of them will get around the physics described here meaning none will get you over 100%:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

That says it takes at least 237,100 Joules for electrolysis of one mole of water, and if the water is cold with density of 1.0 then there are about 55.56 moles per liter, so it takes 55.56 x 237,100 Joules for electrolysis of 1 liter of water, if the losses are zero, which they never are.

Here is an interesting link on HHO:

A journalist's guide to HHO (run your car on water)

Which he follows up with proof:

The proof that HHO is a scam

I stand firmly behind the claim i made in the op of 12 lpm but as i stated that is personal expierence and had nothing to do with my other figures i made
You do that in spite of the fact you said you're using the same source I cited which talks about all the uncertainties in trying to make accurate volume measurements of HHO? If you're paying any attention to that source I'd think you'd be somewhat less firm about the accuracy of that claim.
edit on 10-1-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 10:09 PM
Arbitrageur

I am thanking you for the links and will check them out.

I am going to deduce your statments again.

Are you implying that nothing can effect the bond structure of water other than what someone tells you?

Have you ever researched the effects of koh on the structure of water and how it alone can begin to weaken the bond structure.

Are you aware that they have successfully broke the bonds of water with sound alone?

Your info seems to be spot on but there are other factors here.

Are you aware of the energy potential that is in 1l of browns gas and that it is possible to run an engine on it but the only thing we are really debating is how much it takes?

Using my figures in the op we can successfully determine how many lpm it would take to run a generator.

That ultimitly is my goal.

So far the closest answer i have found is that on avarage 700 liters of brns gas is eaqual to 1 gal of unleaded. If you have come across a different answer then by all means fill me in. Someone the other day said it would take around 42000l to = one gal. of unleaded. That figure is crazy.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 10:48 PM

I stand firmly behind the claim i made in the op of 12 lpm but as i stated that is personal expierence and had nothing to do with my other figures i made

As long as the generator understands that it should all go as you calculated.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:27 AM

Are you aware of the energy potential that is in 1l of browns gas and that it is possible to run an engine on it but the only thing we are really debating is how much it takes?

Using my figures in the op we can successfully determine how many lpm it would take to run a generator.

That ultimitly is my goal.

So far the closest answer i have found is that on avarage 700 liters of brns gas is eaqual to 1 gal of unleaded. If you have come across a different answer then by all means fill me in. Someone the other day said it would take around 42000l to = one gal. of unleaded. That figure is crazy.
It's more common to find energy values of hydrogen gas. Once you determine the values for that, it's easy to convert liters of hydrogen gas to liters of brown's gas; just multiply by 1.5.

From this source (pdf), a gallon of gasoline has 130,000,000 Joules.

From this source, the energy density of H2 (STP-Standard Temperature and Pressure) is 3.2-3.5 watt-hours per liter. Convert that to Joules per liter and it comes out to 11,520-12,600.

Now compare the energy content of gasoline to hydrogen H2 gas, it's 130000000/11520 on the high end and 130000000/12600 on the low end which comes out to 10,317-11,285 liters

To convert liters of hydrogen to liters of Brown's gas, multiply by 1.5, and you get:

15475-16927 liters of Brown's gas needed for the energy in a gallon of gasoline, approximately, using those sources.

16,201 liters (The midpoint of that range) is nowhere near 700 liters or 42,000 liters so I don't know where you got either of those numbers, but you can see where I got my numbers. I did another calculation using other sources and came up with something pretty close so I'm pretty sure both 700 and 42000 are way off.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:21 AM
OP why don't you put your cell on an accurate digital scale and find out how many grams of water you are converting to hho per min. that way you can accurately calculate whether over unity or otherwise.
You require about 2 to 5 lpm hho just to idle a 50 cc/4 stroke scooter on hho and 5 to 10 lpm to drive this scooter on the road.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 08:53 AM

bedlam

that is watts per minute

Watts per minute is not a unit. It's not power, it's not energy. That's even worse.

That might be because the 'standard way' is correct and this isn't.

3.658kwh to seperate 1liter of water

You at least got the units right here. That's kW times hours, which is energy, which is what you'd want. Watts per minute is Watts divided by hours, which doesn't make sense.

no this does not have to be exact and we can call it browns gas

Why? In what way is "Brown's gas" anything but dirt common H2 and O2 produced by electrolysis without bothering to separate it? Why try to cloak it in mystery?

currently there is not even any close guesses.

i like the idea of converting to hp or ftlbs

like i said my goal is to put it in more general terms

You can't convert Watts per minute to hp, because hp is an energy unit and W/m isn't anything at all.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 08:58 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Notice I didn't need to know any of that for my calculations.

It somehow doesn't deal with a few other issues - what are the partial pressures of other gases in that - for example, the gas mix evolved might contain dissolved air from the electrolyte released by heating, and water vapor also released by heating, and I notice it doesn't say "STP" anywhere, just atmospheric pressure. So the barometer might have been a bit low and the gas a bit warm. You can't tell. It's waaaaaaay too undefined.

This is part of why calorimetry is so tough.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 09:02 AM

Was i using pure water? Was i using an agent to help aid in the process of seperating the bonds?

I hate to tell you this, but there isn't an agent to "help aid in the process of separating the bonds". Adding in an electrolyte doesn't do anything to reduce bond strength. In fact, nothing will. It's going to take a certain number of electron-Volts to pop that hydrogen off, and it's always going to.

Resonance or magic catalysts won't help. It's going to take a fixed amount of energy to electrolyze water. You can do worse, but never better.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 09:05 AM
Most of what I have seen on "Brown's Gas" is good intentioned backyard experimenters misunderstanding and misinterpreting what they have done. The electrolysis product is just a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen in spite of Brown trying to claim it for his own. Be careful when you play with this, kids, because it doesn't take much activation energy to have the reaction reverse itself and that will be really noisy and disturb mom and dad.

If you do get near 100% electrolysis efficiency with your backyard electrolyzer, immediately file for a patent. This is actually very valuable for reasons unrelated to "free energy." The best that can be done with conventional electrolyzers is about 70% efficiency. The homegrown specials are lucky to be 50% efficient. This is because of the IR drop across the electrodes. Current flow across a resistor makes heat [think kitchen toaster] and energy converted to heat can't be used for electrolysis. Easy check on your electrolyzer: if it gets warm during operation, it isn't 100% efficient.
Then, there is the problem of getting the energy back out of the "Brown's Gas." Running a car on it with an internal combustion engine is good for about 25% efficiency with engine losses [heat] power train losses [friction-heat] and road losses [friction-heat]. It turns out that rather than wasting the electricity on electrolysis, it is better to charge a battery and use the power that way.
To help you out, here are the three laws of thermodynamics for poets:
1. You can't get something for nothing [this is what the over unity guys are trying to beat]
2. The best you can do is to break even
3. You can't even break even [this has to do with the entropy term; the wasted heat in all of your desired processes]

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 09:11 AM

Correct me if i'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, but your main grievance with the OP is with his lack of correct scientific nomenclature, rather than his experimental observations, which you seem to negate purely due to the 'probability' of his being incorrect by virtue of his incorrect nomenclature?

If you'll forgive me, incorrect terminology is a poor reason to dismiss his figures out of hand, if he was claiming to be a scientific fellow, then yes..but he stated quite clearly that his terminology is probably not accurate, but the important aspect of his experiential data gained through actual experimentation and not theoretical calculation, is what is most important in this context?

OP...have you obtained your results using stainless steel plates or using Titanium plates?

I understand Ti produces much more HHO than SS, and consumes significantly less energy to do so than does SS plates.

And for anyone else pondering the energy inherent in H2 and O2...remember that every space rocket launched do not use petroleum as their propellent, and do use H2 and O2 for a reason.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 09:13 AM

If you do get near 100% electrolysis efficiency with your backyard electrolyzer, immediately file for a patent.

Actually don't.

Immediately release your method and materials to allow thousands to replicate your results.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 09:28 AM

And the law of conservation of energy is your best friend.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 09:30 AM

originally posted by: PeterMcFly

And the law of conservation of energy is your best friend.

Well, generally, the few times I think I've broken it, after a few seconds of happy fantasy, I set about finding out what I screwed up. So far, screwups 4, overunity 0. Alas.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 09:34 AM

originally posted by: MysterX

If you'll forgive me, incorrect terminology is a poor reason to dismiss his figures out of hand, if he was claiming to be a scientific fellow, then yes..but he stated quite clearly that his terminology is probably not accurate, but the important aspect of his experiential data gained through actual experimentation and not theoretical calculation, is what is most important in this context?

If he can't even get basic units right, the likelihood he can do accurate measurements, correct experimental design and calorimetry closely approximates to zero.

THAT'S what's most important in this context.
edit on 11-1-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 11:24 AM

stainless is what i have used so far

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 11:43 AM

the likely hood that you can assertain what i can and can not do based on the way you percieve reality is very low.

the claim you made that nothing can effect the bond structure of water seems very false based on my observations.

for my benefit could you point me to where you come up with that info.

right off the bat that statment is false because something as simple as tempature has effects on the amount of current needed to perform electrolsis. i think you are a bit programmed in your reasoning but i leave the option open of me being wrong about that.

let's discuss the watts per min measurement i tried to use and you reject the whole op even though the op proved correct besides a misunderstanding in what i am saying.

would you still be butt hurt if i put the word continous in front of watts per minute? can you now phathom my meaning.

i think the other aspect is that i took the btu figures and divided by 60 and called it btu/min

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 11:58 AM
Is it true or false that a 5hp engine will take an amount of fuel that is at least equal to 5 hp?

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 12:00 PM
Is it true or false that an engine can run on gas vapor at a 14 to 1 oxygen to gas ratio?

new topics

top topics

4