HHO Truth

lol

if i put a 1 hp horse on a treadmill and the treadmil is hooked up to a generator and that is hooked up to an electrolizer and all is operating at 100% efficiency then how many liters of browns gas could he produce in one minute?

This is what they were trying to teach everyone in them fancy buildings of learning. How to apply physics and measurements of real world applications. I truely am sorry that for you and others it is more important to come off as being intellectually superrior rather than to gain understanding of real world applications. Regardless of your failure to seek understanding there is an answer to the question.

a reply to: deadeyedick
I know that you have good intentions but what others have pointed out is correct; you don't understand what you are writing about.
Get yourself a basic physics book and try to understand the meanings of energy, power, and work. Posting without that basic knowledge is not helping you explain your concepts.

a reply to: pteridine

as do i feel that many of you have good intentions

are you saying that what i ask in the post you responded to is impossible to figure?

i have already figured it to be 6.254 lpm

i do not mind being wrong if i am but i am asking for the correct answer when someone deems my answer wrong.

logic tells me that if it is a question that is physically possible to perform an expierment on then math should be able to predict the answer

James WATT would be ashamed of the frame of mind that most people have these days.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

i have already figured it to be 6.254 lpm

It's going to be more like 6.9 liters per minute, meatballing it. You finally stated it in a way I could figure out what you wanted for an answer.

Of course, that's a perfectly efficient horse on a perfectly efficient treadmill and a perfectly efficient hydrolysis cell, none of which actually exist.

Oh, and James Watt understood the difference between power and energy, and could use units properly.

a reply to: Bedlam

so 1hp=6.9lpm browns gas=42.3btu/min

in the op i had it figure as being 4.3

anyhow now that figure should be fairly equal to the amount of browns gas it would take to run a 1 hp motor at wot givin that the fuel delivery system is efficient? am i right there? does it work both ways if all variables are equal?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Bedlam

so 1hp=6.9lpm browns gas=42.3btu/min

Not so much - 1 HP for a minute = 6.9liters of oxyhydrogen.

anyhow now that figure should be fairly equal to the amount of browns gas it would take to run a 1 hp motor at wot givin that the fuel delivery system is efficient? am i right there? does it work both ways if all variables are equal?

No...EVERY PART has to be 100% efficient. As in...no heat. No noise. No friction. No losses anywhere.

You're not going to come close though. ICE's run about 20% efficiency, with a Carnot limit somewhere about 46%.

a reply to: deadeyedick
You calculated it based on theory and assumed that everything was 100% efficient. As has been explained, this is far from the real case. I mentioned that a backyard electrolyzer would be lucky to be 50-60% efficient. The most efficient IC engine is a turbodiesel at about 42% [the reason that fuel cells were dropped from the DOE research plan] and when one adds in losses from a vehicular drivetrain, we are looking at 20-25% overall efficiency.

and i have noted that several times... the goal is to figure it completly efficient then figure in the losses as new data arrives. i call it a starting point.

however the figures of only being 25% efficient do not hold water when one goes into real world testing. Once your water is warm the rate of exchange is about 5-10 lpm per1000watts depending on conditions.

that is the point of my thread is to highlight the false math that exist so far in this process that is far from understood. My conclusion based on most responses here is that we need more understanding of factors that are currently unknown that are making most debunkers seem full of it. Cause so far the numbers in the op stand as not being debunked. stating that someone is undereducated does not count as a correct answer in debunking you must show your work.

Getting caught up in something like not knowing how to figure out what 1000wpm is not debunking
My units of measure may not be known to most of you but that does not mean they are incorrect. only giving correct answers and showing work will do it.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Once your water is warm the rate of exchange is about 5-10 lpm per1000watts depending on conditions.

The water will conduct more as it warms up. The current flow is also really noisy and tough to measure accurately. Yes, that's well known. And if you don't have that gas both dry and at STP, you're not going to get a valid volume measurement, either.

that is the point of my thread is to highlight the false math that exist so far in this process that is far from understood.

It's understood really well, as electrolysis of water has been going on since about 1799.

My conclusion based on most responses here is that we need more understanding of factors that are currently unknown that are making most debunkers seem full of it. Cause so far the numbers in the op stand as not being debunked. stating that someone is undereducated does not count as a correct answer in debunking you must show your work.

Just because you don't understand the answers doesn't mean you didn't get them. It helps if the work you're showing is correct and makes sense. W/m doesn't, and you still don't understand why.

Getting caught up in something like not knowing how to figure out what 1000wpm is not debunking
My units of measure may not be known to most of you but that does not mean they are incorrect. only giving correct answers and showing work will do it.

No, you don't know radical new units. You don't understand them, and you're just... wrong.

a reply to: Bedlam

lol
it is quite simple
1w=1joule per second
1000w=1000joules per second
1000w per min=60,000 joules

about 120w of chemical energy is in 1l hho atm
1hp=745w=6.26l hho

note that my figure of 120w=1l hho could be wrong but it is the amount it would take to produce 1l hho so it should stand to reason that it works both ways. Someone smarter than me would have to verify that it works both ways. The term hho refers to browns gas and has been noted in this thread to very in quality depending on conditions when made.

It was my goal to get a better understanding of how much hho it would take to run motors and i believe i have done that here. Note that most engines never run long at w.o.t.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
about 120w of chemical energy is in 1l hho atm
1hp=745w=6.26l hho

note that my figure of 120w=1l hho could be wrong but it is the amount it would take to produce 1l hho so it should stand to reason that it works both ways. Someone smarter than me would have to verify that it works both ways. The term hho refers to browns gas and has been noted in this thread to very in quality depending on conditions when made.

It doesn't work both ways.That's what we have been trying to tell you. Many "someones" have verified that. The IR drop across the electrodes makes heat when current flows, which is energy that can't be used for electrolysis. That means you are already on the losing end and can't even break even with a 100% efficient, completely frictionless engine.
Engines are not 100% efficient, so you can never recover the total amount of energy that you put in. Think about why an IC engine has a radiator and cooling circuit. If it were efficient, all energy would be converted to motion and no cooling would be necessary. Think about why transmission fluid gets hot. Energy losses. Think about why tires get hot when driving. Energy losses.

I think now we should discuss the myth put forth in this thread by others that nothing except a set amount of force can seperat water bonds. Since we now have a set level of energy it takes to create a liter of hho or browns gas from pure water we can now determing if things such as salt,koh and magnetic fields can loosen the bond structure of water. My claim of overunity in the op just may prove to be true at certain angles. I other words the rate of hho production of 120w needed to make one liter of hho could be reduced if the bond structure of water is decreased before electrolsis.

This is easily proven many times over already in many places and all you have to do is fire up the old google box and dive in.

I will try to give a simple answer here.

Saltwater has a lower freezing point than pure water.

Do you get it? The weaker the bond the lower the freezing point.

en.wikipedia.org...

Can we now agree that 12liters of hho at 1000w per minute is possible?

If not then please explain.

originally posted by: Bedlam
The misunderstanding is between you, energy, power, and units.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
about 120w of chemical energy is in 1l hho atm

Wrong units, I think, but I don't know what "atm" means. You still don't understand the difference between power and energy. Watts is power, which is energy per unit time, so you need to multiply watts by time to get the energy. What do you mean by "atm"?

Here's how you can calculate a theoretical value.

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

One mole of an ideal gas will occupy a volume of 22.4 liters at STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure, 0°C and one atmosphere pressure).

This means one liter of H2 contains 1/22.4 mole, which is 0.04464 mole.

Now multiply 237,100 Joules per mole of hydrogen from this source, by 0.04464 moles per liter which gives you 10584 Joules per liter for hydrogen gas at STP.

A watt is 1 joule per second, so if you convert joules to watt-seconds, it's 10584 watt-seconds.
Divide by 60 to get watt-minutes= 176.4 watt-minutes
Divide by 60 to get watt-hours, a more commonly cited unit = 2.94 watt hours, per liter of hydrogen.

To get the figure for Brown's gas, which is 2/3 H2 and 1/3 O2, multiply by 2/3

2/3 x 2.94 = 1.96 watt-hours per liter.

This means the energy content of 1 liter of HHO at water's freezing temperature is just under 2 watts, for one hour, not 120 watts for an unspecified period of time. At warmer temperatures the gas will be less dense so the energy content per liter will be lower. You can use the ideal gas law to see how much lower at various temperatures.

Also that assumes that all the combustion by-products will be in liquid water form. If some of the combustion by-products are water vapor, the available energy will not match the "237,100 Joules per mole of hydrogen" figure.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
I think now we should discuss the myth put forth in this thread by others that nothing except a set amount of force can seperat water bonds. Since we now have a set level of energy it takes to create a liter of hho or browns gas from pure water we can now determing if things such as salt,koh and magnetic fields can loosen the bond structure of water. My claim of overunity in the op just may prove to be true at certain angles. I other words the rate of hho production of 120w needed to make one liter of hho could be reduced if the bond structure of water is decreased before electrolsis.

This is easily proven many times over already in many places and all you have to do is fire up the old google box and dive in.

I will try to give a simple answer here.

Saltwater has a lower freezing point than pure water.

Do you get it? The weaker the bond the lower the freezing point.

Saltwater has a lower freezing point because of the ionic content. The strength of the bonds in water are not changed. Electrolysis of salt water would provide hydrogen and chlorine gas. This has to do with oxidation potentials.

Be careful with your experiments lest you end up as a Darwin Award winner.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

how is 120watts not a specified amount of energy and time
1w=1joule per second

if you extend that measurement to 60 seconds then 120w=120joules times 60 seconds
.002kWh

so what you are saying is that i am supposed to use a measurment that has two actual time values
that is not very kosher

either way i get the same answer i think


atm was a reference to atmospheric pressure

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Bedlam

bs

1 horse power is = to 33,000 foot pounds per minute=746 watts continous
3.658 kwh to seperate 1 liter of water

1 HP is power, not energy. Watts are power, not energy.

kWh is energy. But HP is not, nor is HP/time.

Conversions were off in the first place and you're just grinding your gears...don't try climbing a hill of bs that will continuously have more sh!t piled on.

POWER IS NOT ENERGY. Hit the whiteboard and try again. To be a self-taught scientist requires making mistakes you'd normally learn about in school and understanding them. Be humble, accept you messed up and try again. I majored in Quantum Mechanics and Industrial Psych. While my education was pricey, it helped give a firm foundation of those that preceded me that made mistakes and I payed to have them drilled in my brain. Since you're going a different method, be prepared to get drilled in the brain by those already in the know.

You even mention 1 Horse = 1HP which isn't correct either. This was a general way to measure output of steam engines prior to their improvements...

FYI - 1 hp = 746 watts

a reply to: pteridine

that would be a great honor for me givin that i believe most of this to be bs.

Chaotropic agent