The energy of the future: HHO dry cell generators.

a reply to: Bedlam

My favourite is when they add in their own calculations or change the baselines simply to claim "over unity", it still the exact same thing it was before, energy is conserved, but they go to great troubles to "prove" overunity

Hilarious.

Oh and of course the guy who knows a guy who ran his Jeep for a year on a bottle of water.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Bedlam

I don't know if it is zero or not, but it seems o make a difference.

There has been some legit research done, and the effect is minor, and varies from one engine setup to the next. But it's like 1% at best.

Back when the acetone craze went around, I decided I'd give it a try in my old beater. It actually made a difference! Wow! I got a good 15% increase in gas mileage. But I smelled a rat, and got the old lady to put or not put the acetone in each full tank o' gas, and give me a code number for that tank's mileage. At the end, she revealed which code numbers were acetone and which were not. There was NO difference in mileage.

I had driven differently with acetone than I did without, and never noticed it.

It turns out that way with the "HHO generators" as well.

originally posted by: TheChrome

I'm not really looking at gasoline. I am looking at things such as: A forklift runs off propane. So do some cars. What prevents us from running cars off Hydrogen? Oh, yes Oil companies will fight that just like Ford and Chevy fought Tucker.

There's a lot of reasons why not, and one is that it's less efficient. That hydrogen won't make itself.

For a car, propane is easy to store because it's liquid under pressure, even at temperatures that you encounter in automotive service. It's also stable, and a big molecule that doesn't migrate through gaskets and lines like hydrogen.

The combustion temperature is comparatively low, and the flame front speed is comparable to gasoline vapor, so a car designed for gasoline works ok with propane. Propane is also readily available, and it's a byproduct of petroleum. So it's cheap. You literally pump it out of the ground mixed with crude.

Hydrogen you have to make, with electricity, at a loss. It's small for a molecule, and you lose a lot of it in storage and distribution. It's got a high combustion temperature, and a fast flame front, so engines designed for it are not your typical gasoline engine. In fact, it's sort of miserable to build one, so mostly what you see with hydrogen cars is that they're fully electric and use fuel cells, like the Toyota Mirai.

There's also only about 10 hydrogen fueling stations in the US.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: Bedlam

Hilarious.

Oh and of course the guy who knows a guy who ran his Jeep for a year on a bottle of water.

If you want a real treat, go read the lore on "Joe Cells".

If you don't believe in them, they don't work. It's quantum, dude.

a reply to: TheChrome

Lol! You claimed to be an engineer in another thread. If you really think something as obviously BS as this is so touch or go in the truth department, let me know what bridges you built and I'll make sure I'll avoid them.

why split the water molecule. Just freeze it. It produces a huge amount of force.

a reply to: jlafleur02

It's another one of those things where you produce a lot less energy mechanically than you remove in terms of thermal work.

And it takes forever.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: TheChrome

I'm not really looking at gasoline. I am looking at things such as: A forklift runs off propane. So do some cars. What prevents us from running cars off Hydrogen? Oh, yes Oil companies will fight that just like Ford and Chevy fought Tucker.

There's a lot of reasons why not, and one is that it's less efficient. That hydrogen won't make itself.

For a car, propane is easy to store because it's liquid under pressure, even at temperatures that you encounter in automotive service. It's also stable, and a big molecule that doesn't migrate through gaskets and lines like hydrogen.

The combustion temperature is comparatively low, and the flame front speed is comparable to gasoline vapor, so a car designed for gasoline works ok with propane. Propane is also readily available, and it's a byproduct of petroleum. So it's cheap. You literally pump it out of the ground mixed with crude.

Hydrogen you have to make, with electricity, at a loss. It's small for a molecule, and you lose a lot of it in storage and distribution. It's got a high combustion temperature, and a fast flame front, so engines designed for it are not your typical gasoline engine. In fact, it's sort of miserable to build one, so mostly what you see with hydrogen cars is that they're fully electric and use fuel cells, like the Toyota Mirai.

There's also only about 10 hydrogen fueling stations in the US.

Thanks for your input. I know that wet cells are less efficient than dry cells, so I was looking for potential design ideas. I already have looked at many of the designs out there, but I am putting together a model to build using SolidWorks. What I don't know and have not tested, is how much drain on a typical 12V battery such a system would be.

Just from the passive observer standpoint, the energy required to pass through the electrodes that convert the water into gas, is not more than replenished by the alternator of the vehicle. Truly, I have other ideas up my sleeve. I am just starting with ground zero.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TheChrome

Lol! You claimed to be an engineer in another thread. If you really think something as obviously BS as this is so touch or go in the truth department, let me know what bridges you built and I'll make sure I'll avoid them.

Ha Ha! Well if we disagree on everything, then perhaps humor should break the ice...

originally posted by: TheChrome
Just from the passive observer standpoint, the energy required to pass through the electrodes that convert the water into gas, is not more than replenished by the alternator of the vehicle. Truly, I have other ideas up my sleeve. I am just starting with ground zero.

I don't know what you mean by that exactly but it seems to make no sense.

Both the process of converting water to gas and the process of converting mechanical to electrical energy in the alternator are far less than 100% efficient so of course the energy the electrodes need is way more than is replenished by the alternator of the vehicle, how can you say it's not more?

Now if you put a humongous battery in the bed of a pickup truck, you can make up for the shortfall with energy stored in the battery, which is what these guys did but they were still making futile attempts to do the impossible which is what you said, lower the current to the electrodes so it's less than the alternator output.

2004 Dodge Pickup Runs on 100% Water


Despite their false claims they were doing it, their equipment showed otherwise and you can tell from their reaction at points they are concerned about the high current draw, as if this is a solvable problem that they can fix by tweaking something. They don't seem to understand that any "tweak" that would "fix" that problem would break the known laws of physics.

And I have to agree with the other comments that any engineer should understand these basic concepts about less than 100% efficient processes regardless of their engineering specialty, so I don't care what kind of engineer you are, no competent engineer should be saying "the energy required to pass through the electrodes that convert the water into gas, is not more than replenished by the alternator of the vehicle."

That's something I'd expect from the two amateur comedians trying to make that truck run on water, not from an engineer.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: TheChrome
Just from the passive observer standpoint, the energy required to pass through the electrodes that convert the water into gas, is not more than replenished by the alternator of the vehicle. Truly, I have other ideas up my sleeve. I am just starting with ground zero.

I don't know what you mean by that exactly but it seems to make no sense.

Both the process of converting water to gas and the process of converting mechanical to electrical energy in the alternator are far less than 100% efficient so of course the energy the electrodes need is way more than is replenished by the alternator of the vehicle, how can you say it's not more?

Now if you put a humongous battery in the bed of a pickup truck, you can make up for the shortfall with energy stored in the battery, which is what these guys did but they were still making futile attempts to do the impossible which is what you said, lower the current to the electrodes so it's less than the alternator output.

2004 Dodge Pickup Runs on 100% Water

Despite their false claims they were doing it, their equipment showed otherwise and you can tell from their reaction at points they are concerned about the high current draw, as if this is a solvable problem that they can fix by tweaking something. They don't seem to understand that any "tweak" that would "fix" that problem would break the known laws of physics.

And I have to agree with the other comments that any engineer should understand these basic concepts about less than 100% efficient processes regardless of their engineering specialty, so I don't care what kind of engineer you are, no competent engineer should be saying "the energy required to pass through the electrodes that convert the water into gas, is not more than replenished by the alternator of the vehicle."

That's something I'd expect from the two amateur comedians trying to make that truck run on water, not from an engineer.

Good post! You bring up some valid points! As with all things you must calculate the cost. My question is this: Is it less expensive to pay geologists to find oil deposits, then design and build the equipment, then drill for the oil or gas, then have it refined, then sell it at a gas station?

Is the cost for doing such things, less than the draw on a battery from of a hydrogen dry fuel cell?

We have a lot of great mathematicians on this planet, but I am asking them to do the math without lobbyist handouts.

a reply to: TheChrome
Whether the cost of getting hydrocarbons out of the ground is one dollar on one trillion dollars doesn't change the laws of physics and won't allow you to run a truck on water.

In reality a lot of the power they got is from coal powered electric plants so they are charging the battery ultimately with burning coal (and other sources of power entering the grid). So it's more or less a coal powered truck, not a water powered truck, when they are draining the battery to run it on HHO.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: TheChrome
Whether the cost of getting hydrocarbons out of the ground is one dollar on one trillion dollars doesn't change the laws of physics and won't allow you to run a truck on water.

In reality a lot of the power they got is from coal powered electric plants so they are charging the battery ultimately with burning coal (and other sources of power entering the grid). So it's more or less a coal powered truck, not a water powered truck, when they are draining the battery to run it on HHO.

You can't run a truck on water true. That is because trucks are designed to run on hydrocarbons. Forklifts are designed to run on gas, and therefore more prone to run on something such as HHO. If trucks were run on the same basic technology, then there would be less dependence on hydrocarbons. Small 2 stoke engines from what I have seen, can run exclusively on HHO. Motorcycles etc. They are less complicated.

So the real answer is, re-engineering what we currently use, for a different method.

'HHO' or whatever you want to call the perfect mix of hydrogen & oxygen is a viable fuel with major drawbacks being storage volume, explosive volatility and cost to produce. The only 'safe' way to use it is to produce it on demand and the best practical application I've seen is welder/blowtorch uses because it's so clean and least likely to contaminate the weld. Somewhat popular for small applications such as jewellers etc these days.

It was proposed as a substitute for gasoline back in the 60s (look for 'Browns Gas') but the cost of production was the immediate killer for it back then (Gasoline less than $0.30 per gallon and the energy equivalent in Browns Gas costing over $2.00 for the electrical energy input). We passed that equivalency some time back and an industrial setup using bulk purchased electrical energy could produce the 'water fuel' significantly cheaper than gasoline now so it's just the storage and volatility that's holding it back now (these are major issues). What's needed is a means of converting it to a form that's liquid at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure and I suspect that has been achieved but the hike in production costs have pushed it past gasoline again.

As for producing it on the fly powered by a vehicle's alternator - it's a lose/lose proposition as has been stated several times previously. Electric vehicles are a far better alternative.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
'HHO' or whatever you want to call the perfect mix of hydrogen & oxygen is a viable fuel with major drawbacks being storage volume, explosive volatility and cost to produce. The only 'safe' way to use it is to produce it on demand and the best practical application I've seen is welder/blowtorch uses because it's so clean and least likely to contaminate the weld. Somewhat popular for small applications such as jewellers etc these days.

It was proposed as a substitute for gasoline back in the 60s (look for 'Browns Gas') but the cost of production was the immediate killer for it back then (Gasoline less than $0.30 per gallon and the energy equivalent in Browns Gas costing over $2.00 for the electrical energy input). We passed that equivalency some time back and an industrial setup using bulk purchased electrical energy could produce the 'water fuel' significantly cheaper than gasoline now so it's just the storage and volatility that's holding it back now (these are major issues). What's needed is a means of converting it to a form that's liquid at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure and I suspect that has been achieved but the hike in production costs have pushed it past gasoline again.

As for producing it on the fly powered by a vehicle's alternator - it's a lose/lose proposition as has been stated several times previously. Electric vehicles are a far better alternative.

Thanks for your comment. We use Nuclear Energy which is highly unstable etc. The limited amount of electricity passed through a hydrogen cell, is not much more than other automobile components. We should be able to manage the instability of HHO. My problem is, I think 90% of people go with the flow. I am not that sort. I generally will contradict and test any theory. For Pete's sake, scientists don't even understand dark matter.

www.wired.com...

originally posted by: TheChrome
You can't run a truck on water true. That is because trucks are designed to run on hydrocarbons. Forklifts are designed to run on gas, .

Oh dear, the gas a forklift runs on IS a hydrocarbon....

and therefore more prone to run on something such as HHO

Wrong, that is because their fuel injection/carburetor system is designed to deal with a gas, not a liquid!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TheChrome
You can't run a truck on water true. That is because trucks are designed to run on hydrocarbons. Forklifts are designed to run on gas, .

Oh dear, the gas a forklift runs on IS a hydrocarbon....

and therefore more prone to run on something such as HHO

Wrong, that is because their fuel injection/carburetor system is designed to deal with a gas, not a liquid!

You are right, when I said hydrocarbon I was referring to gasoline, but propane-butane-methane are also hydrocarbons in gas form. My point was the difference of running on liquid fuels and on gas.

By the way, I found this link. Looks like General Motors is actually looking into this already. Looks like I'm not so stupid as some make me out to be on this thread!

General Motors of Canada and Hydrogenics Corp., Ontario, Canada, are dipping their collective toes into the hydrogen economy, testing the viability of hydrogen-powered industrial vehicles. GM is using a pair of fuel-cell powered forklifts that rely on hydrogen for fuel at its Oshawa Car Assembly Plant.

machinedesign.com...

a reply to: TheChrome
The forklifts in the article are electric. The fuel cells replace the existing batteries. These fuel cells are just a different type battery to provide electricity for the motors.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
These fuel cells are just a different type battery to provide electricity for the motors.

Sort of yes, though to be more accurate, call them a form of energy storage rather than a battery since a battery has certain characteristics the hydrogen storage lacks. But the article confirms your idea when it says the cost of producing the hydrogen depends on the cost of electricity, which gets back to what I said earlier, that if the electricity is generated by burning coal, ultimately the forklifts get their energy from burning coal.

Hydrogen does have some potential energy storage applications though and this is one of them, though it has some advantages and disadvantages compared to batteries. This is a test so they will have to see how the test goes.

As has already been mentioned, hydrogen gas is difficult to contain since the molecules are so small they tend to leak through seals, and while liquid hydrogen is easier to contain, it takes more energy to produce which hurts the economics.

There's no fundamental flaw in using hydrogen to store energy, just economic and engineering issues. If those can be solved hydrogen could be used in more energy storage applications, where solar and wind for example don't always generate all the power when it's needed, so hydrogen could be used to store it until it is needed, if the economics can be worked out.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sort of yes, though to be more accurate, call them a form of energy storage rather than a battery since a battery has certain characteristics the hydrogen storage lacks.

Ok, Ill try to remember that. I just called it a different type of battery to point out that the fuel cell provides electricity for the motor as opposed to the hydrogen being combusted in the engine like gasoline/diesel/propane, etc.

The OP seems to be looking at ways to use hydrogen combustion in an engine. The article he just presented doesn't support his goal.