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.

 

Open-Source Specs Posted for 200% Efficient Water Fuel Cell!

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
My understanding is that when you combust the HHO gas, yes you do get a small amount of water back - but the same amount of water you started with in the first place? Hell no!!


You are saying it in jest, right? Because if not, then you know just amazingly little about the world we live in. What is combustion, according to you? Never mind...




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
OK, already up to 4 pages so I am just going to give my perspective:

Input energy: 14.2 Volts @ 23.6 A for 12 seconds.

14.2V x 23.6A = 335.12W

335.12W x 12s = 4021.44Ws = 4021.44J (Joules)

(The output from a typical battery booster is not 12 Volts! It is typically 14.2 Volts, to force current through a 12V nominal (approximate) battery. The typical automotive battery voltage range (depending on charge conditions) is between 10 and 15 volts.)

Output: 1l of HHO/Brown's Gas

The energy contained in hydrogen gas (the combustible portion of HHO) is 241.8 kJ/mol H2 (241800 J/mol H2). If we assume 100% efficiency, the energy output would equal the energy input:

4021.44J ÷ 241800 J/mol = 0.0166 mol H2. Since a mol of H2 is equal to (about) 2 grams of mass, this gives an output of 0.0332 g H2. A equivalent molar amount of O is produced, which has a mass of (about) 16 g/mol O, meaning the oxygen portion of the production would be 0.0166 x 16 = 0.2656 g of O. That is a total mass of 0.2988 g of HHO gas produced.

There is another calculation we can perform:

23.6A x 12s = 283.2C (Coulombs)

A Coulomb contains 1.036 x 10^-5 Faraday units (mols of electrons), so

283.2 x 1.036x10^-5 = 0.00293 mol e-

The chemical equations for water electrolysis are:

(2)H2O -> (2)OH- + (2)H3O+
(2)OH- -> H2O + O + (2)e-
(2)H3O+ + (2)e- -> (2)H2O + H2


So the ratio of electron transfer to H2 production is 1:1

0.00293 mol e- = 0.00283 mol H = 0.00142 mol H2

0.00142 mol H2 = 0.00283 g H2

0.00293 mol O = 0.04688 g O

Total weight produced = 0.00283 + 0.04688 = 0.04971 g HHO

So we can calculate that what should be produced is either 0.2988g HHO (using energy equations) or 0.0471g HHO (using electrochemical equations). But the results of the experiment are not given in grams, but in liters. To convert, we need to know the density of HHO gas, a value which I have not been able to find on short notice. Without that conversion, or at least a weight of the contents of the bottle, the actual amount of HHO cannot be determined.

But all that is moot when we simply examine the video. At 0:33 we can see the output tube producing bubbles of gas in the liter bottle of water. At 0:37, the bottle is tipped over in the tub to begin measuring the output. Compare the rate of the bubbles with the rate of the water level change in the bottle after measurement. The two are not even close. This indicates that pressure had built up in the system due to the arrangement of the hose and the bottle. When the bottle was tipped over in the water, that pressure escaped form the hose into the bottle to equalize the pressure, effectively adding gasses which had already built up in the device's reservoir. This was not the result of 12 seconds of activity, but of an unknown amount of activity which started before the bottle was positioned.

Another problem is that no matter how fast the bottle was overturned, some of the liquid in it spilled out. That itself skewed the results. And finally, the measurement began at 0:37 and ended at 0:51 in the video, indicating 14 seconds instead of 12 as shown on the stopwatch.

Proper procedure would have been to have the hose operating under water, and to move it sideways under the measurement bottle when the experiment began. Poor technique: skewed results. No major breakthrough here, just simple electrolysis.

I should also point out that this was not pure water. It was stated in the video that they added 1g KOH (potassium hydroxide) per gallon of water, to act as a catalyst.

Edit to add:
reply to post by andrewh7

I could imagine this trick might work on rednecks




TheRedneck


[edit on 11/24/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

What you guys don't seem to be getting is that most of the water is consumed by this process. As in, gone, forever. Consumed, like fuel! And when you consume the water in that way, you get a huge amount of energy.

Uhh.. what chemistry / science are you getting this fact from? Because in the real world when H2 + (1/2)O2 is burned you get an identical amount of H2O (water) as a result and the same amount of energy released as it would take to separate that water again into hydrogen and oxygen.

I'm not against trying to find a way of separating H2O into H and O gas for use as fuel (for example some biological or nanotechnological substance that can split them - although in this case this substance would become the "fuel"), or even researching zero-point-energy theories etc., but like the past few posters have said you need to learn a little more basic chemistry, etc. to realize how ridiculous your statement of "water [...] Consumed, like fuel! [...] As in, gone forever." is.

Look up combustion reactions. When any fuel is consumed, it's not "gone forever" - whether it's hydrogen or gasoline. The mass itself is not broken up into energy like a nuclear reaction as you seem to think - the same amount of mass is released from a combustion that is put into it, just in different chemical forms (with less potential energy). The energy of the combustion comes from the chemical transformation and potential energy stored in electron orbits.

I'm certainly not against finding ways to convert matter into pure energy, it's just that H2O / H+O doesn't work that way in this setup (unless there's something I'm missing about the construction of this "fuel cell").

Now as to using electrolysis to separate water into H and O and then using that gas to increase gas mileage, this is absolutely a valid and proven technique - it works. It's not free energy, and you're not going to run your car on water only, but in combination with gasoline this does seem to help improve the combustion efficiency of gasoline in some engines.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by ac500]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crastney
it's just an engine that uses WATER as FUEL - if this becomes mainstream (which it wont!), then eventually there'll be water shortages. No one in their right mind is going to use water as fuel when there's more need for water as a drink to stay alive!


I'm sorry but "eventually there'll be water shortages"?



What about rising sea levels due to global warming?

Never mind that. What about most of the earth's surface is covered by water?

Research the term "Luddite", please ...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by crash15
well does anyone know how to calculate the efficiency of this devise?
i know that 12 volts X 23amps = 46watts
making 5liters of HHO a minute with 46 watts seems reasonable without breaking the laws of thermodynamics...

but i don't know for sure..


check that formula crash.

p
_____
I E

wattage=amps volts
Amps= watts /volts
Volts= watts/amps

I'm getting a different number.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
[quote
Research the term "Luddite", please ...


Rawfolds Mill ! Those crazy Luddites well they just went crazy, destroyed everything! Could you imagine that today?
Good call on that one, thats some long ago reading.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I think the biggest problem would be keeping the water temp down, if they are producing anywhere near this amount of gas... and I don't think they are. It looked a lot like there was a hole in the bottle.
There are good designs out there, but you won't find them claiming overunity.
I think the biggest problem they are having is keeping the temp down over time.
If you can find it, check out Bob Boyce.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I have a question.

Next month the weather will change and everything outside is going to freeze and stay that way for a few months.

Will the frozen water inside the device improve its performance?


[edit on 11/24/09 by makeitso]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I don't know what a real Joe's cell does, but the others need protection from the cold.
A "joe's cell" is a completely different entity. (and yes, "entity" was the word I meant to use.)



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Thanks,
Thats a serious drawback.

Another question.

Won't I loose the extra mileage I would have expected to recieve from the HHO when the car's Oxygen sensor see's all the extra oxygen from the H2O byproduct in the exhaust and it signals the cars computer to add more fuel?

I mean, thats what the Oxygen sensor does. It tells how much oxegen is in the exhaust and tells the computer to lean or richen the fuel mix.

Also, isn't that water vapor going to shorten the life of my motor by causing rust inside the intake, valves, cylinder walls, rings, piston head, exhaust manifold, catalytic converter, and exhaust system?

I've read that some manufacture's are making ceramic sleeves for the cylinder walls, ceramic coatings on piston heads, and ceramic lined exhaust manifolds to help avoid some of these problems in racing motors, but I want to save money on fuel, not spend it on rebuilding my motor.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I call shenanigans !!!!!! You're not a redneck at all!!

Lol my head is spinning after all that, ouch...




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso

Won't I loose the extra mileage I would have expected to recieve from the HHO when the car's Oxygen sensor see's all the extra oxygen from the H2O byproduct in the exhaust and it signals the cars computer to add more fuel?

As I understand the operation of a modern ECM (Engine Control Module), excess oxygen does enrich the fuel, but it also decreases the intake. In any case, burning HHO will not produce excess oxygen. The resulting chemical would be H2O, water. If anything, since the HHO is injected into the air flow rather than the fuel, it would actually decrease the amount of oxygen available, and cause a leaner mixture.

This could be postulated to be one way some manufacturers of similar systems are able to show such otherwise improbable results... but if that is the case, a simple adjustment in the ECM would do the same thing for a much lower cost.


Also, isn't that water vapor going to shorten the life of my motor by causing rust inside the intake, valves, cylinder walls, rings, piston head, exhaust manifold, catalytic converter, and exhaust system?

No. gasoline already produces water during combustion, which is why a well-tuned engine will have water dripping out of its exhaust pipe when first started on a cold morning. Anything that contains hydrogen will become water upon reaction with oxygen, and gasoline is a hydocarbon. HHO will increase the amount of water, but most engines already have aluminum pistons and heads, as well as coatings on the cylinder walls (the latter to reduce wear as much as to prevent corrosion).

Some engines have actually reported better efficiency using water injection. The water doesn't burn, of course, but it helps control the temperature levels during combustion, making that combustion more efficient. It's an old hot-rodder's trick.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
reply to post by Ha`la`tha

I call shenanigans !!!!!! You're not a redneck at all!!

Oops... ummm... uhhh...

"Y'see, thu thang ee-us, he jest didn' turn that thar bottle over raight. Ye gotta start puttin' thu gas in thu bottle whal hits already in thu water. Udderwise, yew jest make uh me-uss..."

Better?


TheRedneck


[edit on 11/24/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster
 


Interesting. I think Bob Lazar is trying to sell these hydrogen generators also.

www.switch2hydrogen.com...

Edited to add On the first link, some guy points out some miscalculations and poor practices and calculated the efficiency at only 80%.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by ByteChanger]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
25 people flagged the post "important", but they don't really think that any bit whatsoever or they would have tried out this device. What a time-waster this thread is. Talk talk talk. No, the plans are there. Just do... thats it... there is no point to saying a word if the plans are right there. But again if the thread went on for that long without replication so therefore the plans must be incomprehensible and there is no point to me even looking at the obviously sorely mistaken lie of a website.


Yeah I find this very upsetting too. Is even ONE person out there actually trying to build and test this thing??

It seems like people just want to derail the thread with all sorts of pointless bickering back and forth about the semantics of "perpetual motion machine", "overunity", "closed/open system", "Efficiency", "COP" etc. But maybe that's the point eh?


And to all those who are saying you just get the exact same amount of water right back. Did you even watch the Denny Klein video that was posted? WHERE is that intense heat, hot enough to cut right through steel, coming from? The energy for that has to come from SOMEWHERE, doesn't it?

Clearly he is NOT getting all the water back. A small amount, yes, but not ALL. It's obvious to me that a tremendous amount of energy is being released as heat, but - whatever.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster

Is even ONE person out there actually trying to build and test this thing??

No.

Look up the page a bit and you will see why. I have already explained the calculations involved, as well as how the results were skewed. Now, exactly why would I spend money and time to build something that obviously does not work?

Feel free to build one. No one is stopping you; as a matter fact I hope you will publish the results for us to see. I actually hope you will prove me wrong. Seriously, I do! But until you do, I prefer to invest my time and money into ideas that have more foundation in fact.

Incidentally, are you claiming that this device somehow produces nuclear power from the water? That's what it is called when matter is turned directly into energy...

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Incidentally, are you claiming that this device somehow produces nuclear power from the water? That's what it is called when matter is turned directly into energy...


No, not nuclear power, heat. That's what you get when you burn fuel, isn't it?

Again, check out the Denny Klein video. He's getting a flame hot enough to cut right through steel. Now surely you guys will agree that it's impossible to get that kind of tremendous heat output AND get the exact same amount of water back, right? It's either one or the other, is it not?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


Exhaust system is the most at risk so you go full stainless to combat this. Internals can be saved by adding a tiny bit of oil in a direct injection engine from time to time, although most have not had major issues running water cars so far.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Impossible. They have some error in their research and experiment, but my mind isn't clear enough to find it right now...



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster

No, not nuclear power, heat. That's what you get when you burn fuel, isn't it?

Yes, heat produced from the difference in energy of the chemical bonds. H2 bonds contain a lot of energy and are easily broken. HO bonds (as in H2O, water) contain much lower energy levels. So when you go from atoms having high-energy bonds to atoms having low energy bonds, you get that energy difference in heat. But you still have the same atoms, just using different bonds with different energy levels to form different molecules.

What this guy is trying to do is break one set of low energy bonds (HO) and force the atoms to recombine with high-energy bonds (H2). The he burns the products, breaking high energy bonds (H2) and allowing low energy bonds to form (HO), making water again, and releasing the energy difference in the bonds. But it is the same amount of energy he used when he changed the bonds in the first place.


He's getting a flame hot enough to cut right through steel. Now surely you guys will agree that it's impossible to get that kind of tremendous heat output AND get the exact same amount of water back, right? It's either one or the other, is it not?

Nope, not impossible at all. And yes, you get the same thing back as when you started, only arranged in different molecules. The atoms that make up the water cannot disappear, except in a nuclear reaction. That is the actual definition of a nuclear reaction: matter itself is transformed into energy.

I hope that clears up some of the confusion. And that last post was not sarcasm; if you want someone to test it, then do so! If you prove me wrong, I take my crow with lots of mayonnaise.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The whole HHO thing is silly it requires as much energy to convert as you will get as far as adding fuel efficiency to a car what the scam actually does is add a resistor in parallel to the oxygen sensor. This leaning up the engine. This makes the car run more efficient, but it is dangerous because it can burn up the engine from being to lean. I believe hydrogen cars may become practical but youll still be using hydrogen generators hooked into a power grid.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join