It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

HHO Truth

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

true or false? according to physics it takes 119.282 watts to produce one liter of hho atm

For how long?

That is a meaningless statement, a bit like this.

It takes a car travelling at 60mph to move 1000 miles.

119.282 watts for 1 hour is the same ENERGY as 238.564 watts for 30 minutes.

You have missed out the time part. schoolboy error.




posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad

In this case, there is no rate given for the production. Why would a rate be needed for input? (other than the rate inherent to the watt)

It's 1 L, not 1 L/minute.

ETA: I'm all for correcting errors, especially mine. I just believe it's important to be correct when attempting to correct someone.
edit on 13-1-2015 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to do

I'm backing up to this post to clarify that. I'm attempting to cut to the chase in an effort to dismiss the notion of overunity even being possible with this particular process.

Trying to compare required input vs the output and get an idea of how much is lost due to inefficiency.
 


a reply to: Arbitrageur


So you put 15.9MJ in and you get 15.9MJ out if there are zero losses anywhere and if the result of the combustion is liquid water, which are obviously totally unrealistic assumptions.

That's the bottom line I wanted to get to.


About the bottom red arrow in the graphic you posted, that ~ 2.7 MJ figure is the energy provided by environment in STP conditions?



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
just to set one thing straight.

how much energy is used to light a 60 watt bulb for 1 hour. and watts per hour is the correct term.

a 60 watt light bulb on for 1 hour uses 60 watt hours of energy.

how much if used if it was on for 15 minutes?

it still uses 60 watts, it doesn't magically drop to 15 watts.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: bigx001


just to set one thing straight.

Let's set some further things straight...


how much energy is used to light a 60 watt bulb for 1 hour. and watts per hour is the correct term.

No, "watts per hour" is not a measure or unit of energy. A Watt is a unit of power, a Joule is a unit of energy. The conversion between the two:

1 W = 1 J/s

tells you what the units are for power... J/s. So saying "watt per hour" gives you:

1 W / 1 hour = 1 J/s / 1 hour; using the conversion of 3600 s = 1 hour, we get:

2.8E-4 W/s = 2.8E-4 J/s^2


a 60 watt light bulb on for 1 hour uses 60 watt hours of energy.

This is correct, because a "Watt hour" is completely different from a "Watt per hour". If you want to know how much energy it takes to power a 60 W bulb for 1 hour, as you asked in your second sentence:

60 W * 1 hour * 3600 s/hour = 60 J/s * 1 hour * 3600 s/hour = 216,000 J


how much if used if it was on for 15 minutes?

it still uses 60 watts, it doesn't magically drop to 15 watts.

Right, the power doesn't change, but the energy does:

60 W * 15 min * 60 s/min = 60 J/s * 15 min * 60 s/min = 54,000 J

Dimensional analysis is your friend.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigx001
just to set one thing straight.

how much energy is used to light a 60 watt bulb for 1 hour. and watts per hour is the correct term.

a 60 watt light bulb on for 1 hour uses 60 watt hours of energy.


You got it wrong the first time (there ARE no units of Watts/hour) and right the second - 60 Watt-hours IS the way it works. It multiplies, not divides. Saying "per" is saying "divided by". And that's the wrong operation.

Oh, and a 60 Watt bulb on for 15 minutes uses 15 Watt-hours of energy, but it draws 60W of *power* for that 15 minutes. Power, energy, they are not the same.
edit on 13-1-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
3.658kWh to seperate 1liter of water

so actually if that figure is correct it would be 1956.52174 J/s to produce 1l hho = ? continous watts


A watt is a rate?

The main problem i have is that a watt is defined as a joule/second and not only does that convey a rate but also a time frame at which the rate is happening. I think much of this confusion is not only from my understanding but also from the need to screw people every month on their electric bill.
edit on 13-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

More energy is needed to split water molecules than is recouped by burning the resulting gas.

If this is wrong, I'd love to see experiments that show that.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

I think it is right and wrong.

Right because we can not harness the power in a manner that is 100% efficient and wrong because imo the energy should be equal in joining or seperation.

However we also have the addition of chaotropic agents that raise the danger level in the process of seperation but also can do some of the work in seperating for us. Something as simple as adding urea to water can lessen the total amount of energy required to seperate.

Another great use for all these electrolizers is water purification.

Currently most engines are about 30% efficient at converting chemical energy to hp. By using a vaporous fuel you greatly increase that efficiently. Even the addition of a fast burning fuel like browns gas will cause your engine to burn gasoline at a greater efficient rate. Basically you end up with cleaner exhaust by adding a small amount of hho into the air intake.

The number one problem with hho in an engine with several pistons is the burn rate is too fast for the crank to recieve much force. It has worked in smaller engines. However if you start with an engine designed for h2 and you use other chemicals in your water then you are able to recieve a net gain.
edit on 13-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Another way to look at it:

Say you have some typists. Each typist can type 30 pages in 1 hour. Say you have 6000 pages to be typed up. Well, that means it'll take 6000 pages divided by 30 pages per hour, which equals 200 typist hours to get the project done. You could have 1 typist work for 200 hours, or you could have 10 typists work for 20 hours each, or you could have 200 typists work for 1 hour each. So the term "typist hours" makes sense here. It tells you how big the project is and how much effort it's going to take to complete it. It's up to you to determine how quickly the project will get done, depending on how many typists you assign to the project.

However, if you used the term "typists per hour," that doesn't make sense. It tells you nothing about how big the project is, or how long it will take.

So in this analogy, a typed page is similar to a joule. It's a fixed unit of work to be done. That's energy.

The typists are your Watts. They crank out those fixed energy units of typed pages at a rate of 30 per hour. Your typists are expending energy over a period of time. The more typists you throw at a project, the more typed pages you can turn out every hour. That's power.

The "typist hours" are similar to kiloWatt hours. In one hour, a single typist can produce 30 typed pages. That stack of typed pages is, like we said above, a fixed unit of work. So typist hours are, just like single typed pages, units of energy.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick


3.658kWh to seperate 1liter of water

so actually if that figure is correct it would be 1956.52174 J/s to produce 1l hho = ? continous watts

You're getting closer. You talking in kW h, which can be translated to J (not J/s) by the conversions we've been discussing in this thread.

(3.658 kW h) * (3600 s / h) * (1000 W / kW) = 1.3E+7 W s (i.e. thirteen million watt-seconds)

And we've all agreed that 1 W = 1 J/s, so:

1.3E+7 W s = 1.3E+7 (J/s) s = 1.3E+7 J to separate 1 L of water, using your starting number of 3.658 kW h.

In terms of dimensional analysis, you treat dimensions just like variables in terms of the algebra involved.


A watt is a rate?[/quote[
Exactly, just like miles per hour is a rate. A Watt is a Joule per second.


The main problem i have is that a watt is defined as a joule/second and not only does that convey a rate but also a time frame at which the rate is happening. I think much of this confusion is not only from my understanding but also from the need to screw people every month on their electric bill.

The rate is independent from the time frame. It's like saying that you're driving your car at a constant speed of 60 mph... that rate is completely independent of how long you drove the car far. When you take the rate and time frame, that's how you know how long you've driven. When you take your power and the time frame, that's how you know how much energy you've used or generated.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Trying to compare required input vs the output and get an idea of how much is lost due to inefficiency.
When you first asked the question I didn't get that but from your follow-up question I got that idea, so it's a good line of questioning, well done.



About the bottom red arrow in the graphic you posted, that ~ 2.7 MJ figure is the energy provided by environment in STP conditions?
Your electrolyzer can be in STP conditions, but if you have no other source of heat or energy besides electricity, that 2.7MJ will also have to come from electricity. Remember the HHV value of hydrogen of 141.83 kJ/g which is the energy content between hydrogen gas and liquid water? Convert the joules to kWh and you get 0.0394kWh/g, or 39.4 kWh/kg, where this EU report says potentially all that energy might come from electricity (which would include the 2.7MJ in our example):

2014 - Development of water electrolysis in the European Union

Here, we describe ‘efficiency’ as energy input in kWh per kg of hydrogen output. For commercial technologies (alkaline, PEM, AEM) this energy is supplied in electrical form, with a theoretical minimum electrical energy input of 39.4 kWh/kg H2 (HHV of hydrogen), if water is fed at ambient pressure and temperature to the system and all energy input is provided in the form of electricity. The required electrical energy input may be reduced below 39.4 kWh/kg H2 if suitable heat energy is provided to the system. High temperature electrolysis, such as PEM steam electrolysis and particularly solid oxide electrolysis could have lower operating costs if the electrolyser were co-located with a low cost or waste heat source, than if all the energy were provided through electricity.
So to rephrase that in the numbers from our example, if all energy input is provided by electricity (which is the default assumption in the efficiency measure described above), the required energy is 15.9 MJ. If you have a waste heat source available, you can reduce the 15.9MJ requirement by up to 2.7MJ, since that will be provided by the waste heat, instead of electricity.


originally posted by: deadeyedick
3.658kWh to seperate 1liter of water

so actually if that figure is correct
As I've been trying to explain in my calculations here, that number is incomplete. It's the change in energy between gaseous water and hydrogen, not between liquid water and hydrogen. It relates to the explanation above that if you have a source of waste heat you can get close to that figure if the waste heat provides an additional 0.751kWh, but the total energy requirement if the only input is electricity is 3.659kWh + 0.751kWh = 4.410 kWh, per liter of liquid water.


I think much of this confusion is not only from my understanding but also from the need to screw people every month on their electric bill.
I'm getting screwed on my electric bill, but it's because of the aftermath of the fraud of Enron etc, and not because of any confusion on units. There are people who understand all this stuff and don't find it that confusing, but if you're not used to dealing with this stuff, I can understand how it might seem confusing.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

so 1J/s would be 1JX1second

Here is the problem i see in a watt

1w=1j=1sec
by assigning a time value to the definition of a joule you are also assigning that same time value to a watt

without foregoing logic we can determine that 1 watt = 1 sec bu definition

the only way to get into diminsional view of it is to forget that a watt has been defined as a second

if we forget that then we can arrive at the false understanding put forth today.

yes i am hopeless because i stuck to the basic math principles

if you do a simple search you will find that many agree with me and have determined just as i said a kWh is a false but it does remain steady as a rate for billing.

You can find much info that shows the need for such definitions was derrived from the need to charge people money.

It is a sham and i refuse to forgo logic.

I will stick to hands on applications

I also admit that by all current standards i am wrong in what i am saying and you all are right



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

While 1 watt = 1 joule per second, it also equals 2 joules per half-second, half a joule per two seconds, etc.

So no, watts have no fixed duration. All they have is a fixed rate.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Lets now look at current applications of fuel economy and tail pipe pollution. Years ago we learned that coming out of our exhaust was a large amount of pollution and unburnt fuel. This was a big reason in poor gas milage. The fix would logically to design a fuel delivery system that would deacrease the amount of fuel being put into an engine. Other than going from dripping gas to spraying gas not much has changed. To clean the exhaust they added in a type of filter to remove much carbon but the unburnt fuel was simply rerouted back into the engine with not much done to adress the problem of the fuel delivery system in the first place. This has amounted to a continued problem of engines being horrible in efficient.



A gasoline engine that delivers gas vapor and air at the correct rate will out perform any current vehicles rated mpg. it is simple math and i think many here love math.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
One other method that has been used to run an ice on hho has been one that is seemingly impossible but i will try to explain it for you. One way to seperate water into gas is by fire. So givin that many have accepted that the burn rate of hho is too fast for most ice. They started to inject hho as many others have but they went a step further and also injected a small amount of water mist as close to water vapor as they could get. This created a chain reaction in the combustion chamber that last longer than hho alone. This is how many vehicles in china are running on water.

Again it comes down to math. A certain amount of heat can release a certain amount of bonds in water.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
So many misconceptions

it's very basic that 1 watt = 1 joule per second and therefore 1 joule must = 1 watt * second
How it can be deduced from that, that 1W=1J=1S is beyond me.

Water injection is also a basic and simple thing that been in use for many decades but it has nothing to do with splitting water molecules. It can improve efficiency a little by utilising some of the energy wasted as heat to vaporise the water mist in the cylinder for extra 'bang' without using extra fuel. All the water molecules involved in the process make it to the outside world through the exhaust unchanged. It's a fine balance as too much water mist will actually impede the ignition.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick


so 1J/s would be 1JX1second

If you don't understand how one Joule per second is different from one Joule-second, then you're lost before you even started. A kilowatt per hour is not the same thing as a kilowatt-hour. I'm not sure how to explain this in a way that'll make sense to you at this point, as I've already simplified it.


Here is the problem i see in a watt

1w=1j=1sec

No, there is absolutely no basis in reality to say that a Watt is equivalent to a Joule is equivalent to a second. They are all measures of different things with different units.


by assigning a time value to the definition of a joule you are also assigning that same time value to a watt

No, time has not been assigned to the definition of a Joule as we've discussed it. One Watt is one Joule per second. A Joule is a Joule, regardless of how many are generated over a given time period.


without foregoing logic we can determine that 1 watt = 1 sec bu definition

No, a Watt is defined as a Joule per second. A Watt is not the same as a second.


the only way to get into diminsional view of it is to forget that a watt has been defined as a second

Or to realize that a Watt and a second aren't the same thing, which is the reality of it.


if we forget that then we can arrive at the false understanding put forth today.

The only "false understanding" presented here is your assertion that a Watt and a second are the same thing.


yes i am hopeless because i stuck to the basic math principles

You have shown quite the opposite so far. Your grasp of basic math principles is seriously lacking.


if you do a simple search you will find that many agree with me and have determined just as i said a kWh is a false but it does remain steady as a rate for billing.

Yes, it's used for billing because it's power multiplied by time, which is equivalent to the amount of energy produced. They could just as easily charge you by the Joule or kiloJoule or megaJoule, and it would mean exactly the same thing. Because they're not charging you for kiloWatts per hour, they're charging you for kiloWatt-hours.


You can find much info that shows the need for such definitions was derrived from the need to charge people money.

You've been provided the definitions for Watts and Joules already, which came from long before there was an electrical power industry in place to charge people money. Reality doesn't agree with your perception, so you're rejecting reality instead of trying to understand where your perception is wrong.


I also admit that by all current standards i am wrong in what i am saying and you all are right

If by "current standards" you mean using universally agreed upon units and then treating those units correctly when doing calculations, yes.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Just a wild guess, but as hydrogen has a very low ignition energy (8 times lower than methanol ie), you will most certainly suffer from preignition. Water injection might help with this. But you could also try runing it leaner, with lambda > 2.

See this doc (backfire at lambda < 1.5): www.fisita.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

that is the heart of many problems expiermenters find but do not know is happening. The first thought that comes to the mind is to advance the timing and that is correct but it ignores other problems as well. HHO will ignite far more easily than gas. There by creating often ignition by friction in the compression stroke before the plug even sparks the hho is burnt. That is how and why water vapor creates an extended ignition sequence and will often if other factors have been accounted for make your engine run.

I stated in another post that i have had sucess in running a 351 motor completle on hho by venting the exhaust into the air intake and slowing the burn rate with previous gummed up emissions but after about 20-25 min. it quit running because the engine had been cleaned of much of the carbon buildup from yrs of use.

I later proved this true to myself by adding a very small gasoline vapor into the hho mixture. First i deducted how much gasoline vapor needed to run just on gasoline vapor alone. Then i reduced the amount of gas vapor and added the hho vapor to the gas vapor. In the end it took very little gasoline vapor to run it and i could even completly remove the gasoline vapor for a minute of two and it would keep running until all the excess pollutents were burnt.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join