Hydrogen is Hot

What fuel will be used to generate the electricity to drive the hydrolysis? Fossil fuel of some type? Or can enough solar be brought to bear to power all needs? Considering losses, it makes far more sense (from a net-energy-usage view) to simply use the electricity directly once it's been generated. Or if solar is not a reasonable option (at this point, it's not) put the fossil fuel directly into your tank and skip all the conversion losses!

That is thinking in the box

The total conversion of gasoline energy to movement is low.

The problem with Hydrogen is storage. It is hard to contain (diamonds do it best), takes up lots of room unless solid.

Brad

Today Hydrogen is thought of as the magic fuel which could solve so many problems. Major advantage being that it is abundantly available in nature. However, cost of production & safety in distribution still pose challenges. It is this break through that we all are waiting for.

I know the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Co has been experimenting with solar/wind powered electrolyzer which produces a small amount of fuel and is used to run a internal combustion generator. The cost of production makes it relatively impractical for commercial use at this time.

The lab is also extracting hydrogen from algae using a hydrogenase enzyme. The biggest obstacle in this process is the by-product of O₂, which the hydrogenase apparently cannot tolerate. How to suppress the O₂ by-product or to develop a more robust hydrogenase has been the focus of research for a few years now. It appears that algae would be an excellent source of hydrogen if it weren't for that pesky O₂ molecule. Easy to grow, even in the worst conditions (a species of algae was found growing underneath the thick salt layer that formed the Bonneville Salt Flats).

Every one here so far is thinking in terms of the normal technology offered from car companies. It is possible to use electrolysis to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen using either straight battery voltage from your car battery or really controlling the process by using a square wave generator to run the hydrogen generator.

Check it out on the internet you can build either an hydrogen generator or an hydroxy generator and use either one to augment your gasoline. Input the hydrogen or hydroxy at the intake of your engine and double your gas mileage rather simply.

Total replacement of gasoline is trickier. Anyone interested can go to a web site I found for complete instructions and color pictures of how to build and set up an hydroxy generator producing 1.7 lpm; which will work on most cars and offset gasoline usage by 20%-50%. Friends of mine are running down the highway using these units with no problems. One is mounted on a 1999 Chevrolet truck with a v8 and it gets close to 40. Go to: smacksboosters.com

Thanks for reading

Eddie

The thing that perplexes me is that while people are correct in stating that you can't PRODUCE energy, only transfer it and there are conversion losses, most don't take into consideration that the hydrogen isn't being created in the electrolosis process.

It's already stored in th water and is simply being dissociated. Since the fuel is stored in the h2o, the question, it seems to me, is what is the cost of the fuel (water) vs. fossil fuels. I'm no scientist, just a thinker and I'm not ready to give up on the idea of generating HHO on demand.

That takes care of the storage, production, transportation and dispensing issues.

I believe that the reason that we don't see corporate money funding research in on demand technology is that there's no money in it... water is still relatively cheap.

Once hydrogen fuel cell vehicles begin to really populate the roadways, you'll see hydrogen dispensed about ten cents cheaper than gasoline. Synical, I know, but most of the time it really is all about the $$$. JMHO

The problem is simple thermodynamics. It costs more energy to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen than you get back from combusting the hydrogen. Unless a large supply of free hydrogen is found (the closest we know of is the sun) it will continue to be a no-net-gain process. Better to just use the electricity directly than waste it on electrolysis.

Granted, but... If any of the claims hydrogen hybrid claims are true, and I have a couple or friends who with very basic equipment, claim to have increased their gas mileage by ~10 or more MPG, then they are traveling further on less gasoline regardless of the fact that they're having to drive their alternators harder to dissociate the HHO.

The cost of the water they use to make up the difference is neglegable. Part of the fuel used in generating the electricity to dissociate the HHO is actually the HHO, dissociated from the cheap water. They're driving farther while consuming less fossil fuel, polluting less, spending less, etc.

I'm not ready yet to believe that there is no net gain simply because driving further cheaper seems to dispel the math. 10MPG seems to be a net gain... or am I missing something?

TMF responding to the "Problem being simple thermodynamics! & The costs of energy!"

We have identified the massive effort and costs with the production of liquid fuels produced from crude oil, beginning with the search and ending with the final distributor. However: somewhere along the way these costs get lost and never get to become part of the formula that the professional community uses to determine the value of the minimal cost, ( a little surplus electricity) vs the actual cost to produce the petroleum products.

It seems always that the beginning never starts until the energy present in the liquid fuel is being ignited, vs the energy present in the fuel gas is being created. All other "costs", ="losses" seem to be forgotten. If one is to truly compare "tit for tat", one must recognize that the ICE only works with multiple combustions turning weights. This same technology also works for Oxy-hydrogen fuel gas. Compare, if you may, all of those lost efficiencies to create the petrol, and include them in your calculations. Then get back to me!

Toomuchfun

Look into auto reforming of hydrogen from ethyl alcohol.

In 2004 Published for peer review in Science magazine 103 proof (51.5%) ran through a catalyst in an 700^oC exothermic reaction liberated approximately 80% of the total hydrogen.

Or 160% of the hydrogen from alcohol as they put it.

The majority of cost is in drying the alcohol for fuel. The feedstock for this process uses it before the costly part of the water removal.

Brad

I'll have to think on that one a bit.

Not sure I understand the logic... Why produce ethanol for the purpose of liberating hydrogen from it?

160% sounds impressive though!

Hello BArkels,

Welcome to CR4.

"Why produce ethanol for the purpose of liberating hydrogen from it?"

1) Because the carbon foot print is neutral.

2) The product is in a form that fuel cells can use.

3) 51.5% ethanol is cheap, easy to make, store, and transport.

4) It could stop the bleeding of the world economies by the petroleum factions.

5) I can be reformed at the power plant be it your car or a turbine generator.

6) It can be made from organic garbage.

7) The byproducts of its use are less toxic than biodiesel which is about the same as granulated sugar.

As you can tell I've had too much time to think about it.

Brad

All good reasons to be sure, assuming we're going to produce, transport and dispense hydrogen. I still don't see it getting to the consumer any cheaper than gasoline that way though.

Thanks for the info.

The way it will get to the consumer is anyone who has the ability to distill can make it anywhere.

You produce, transport, and dispense 103 proof locally.

Just an idea

Brad

No, it is not possible. HHO has been proven to be a scam and hoax. And don't show your tinfoil hat by attacking me, just go to the "Water for fuel, scam?" thread and read.

HYDROGEN IS HOT---------- All of the responses are nothing more than the same old arguments for and against the Hydrogen as fuel for cars that have been presented in several hotly argued positions from the supporters vs the nay sayers and skeptiods. Some address the issue as the production and storage, on board, of hydrogen. Others address the issue more correctly as the created on demand oxy-hydrogen single duct fuel gas.

No matter what your position happens to be, the fact is that hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles is not practical. However: the Oxy-hydrogen single duct fuel gas, "not stored" but created on demand is a realistic option.

The Laws of thermodynamics are correctly applied where brute force production of said fuel gas is performed. However there is on going research that seems to be in defiance of this law where modern technology is being applied. Modern technology has produced micro chips that are fantastic conductors with minimal energy losses. It is through the advancement of this form of technology that is providing the break through to better performance.

There was a time when we used brute force to mow our lawns. No engine power was available. Today we have harnessed so much "brute force" that we now ride around on that thing that mows our lawn. It is considered progress. At one time those little engines used a magnito and moving contacts for the electrical energy to fire the spark plugs in those engines. Today they all have an ignition system that uses a high voltage coil and an internal chip to accomplish the same work with much less trouble and maintenance. Having made this comparison, " I invite the nay sayers and skeptoids to address this issue from the point of view, that there is no possible way, that modern technology cannot find a solution to the barracading issue of the Law of thermodynamics."

In fact, if the Scientists and Engineers are so brainwashed that they cannot even see the possibility of such an accomplishment. what are they good for. The lessons of the past are well learned, however it is the lessons of the future that we seek.

TMF

As a matter of definition, technology (based on scientific understanding) cannot exceed the bounds of science (on which the technology is based). Do you see the circular logic there? The laws of thermodynamics are laws based on our current scientific understanding of the process. Technology based on that scientific understanding cannot transcend the laws. Our current scientific understanding says that if you take water and do some things to it and end up with water at the end, no useful work has been performed, and in fact you will have spent energy for no net gain. That's the science. If you want to change the technology, you need to find some new science that explains the process.

Before we had the silicone micro chips that can hold whole massive quantities of information, we used vacuum tubes and resistors and capacitors and transformers, in quantities that filled whole rooms that took days to solve math problems that today are solved in mili seconds in credit card size calculators. I am quite certain that Scientists and Engineers of our former years that had no knowledge of the micro chip felt exactly the same way as your post reflects what might be your opinion. "Modern technology is leaving those of you who continue to refer to" "based on current scientific understanding" far behind. I have discussed this same issue on forum after forum and thread after thread, and the result is always the same. For the optimist the glass is half full and for the others the glass is always half empty.

TMF

Hello Toomuchfun,

Then there are those who see a glass a 50% of maximum capacity.

Your Hydrogen car system works because the flame front is accelerated burning the fuel at more optimum time in the power stroke and not some as part of the exhaust stroke.

Sorry not rocket science just flame propagation.

My issue with the system is not the Hydrogen but the Oxygen in perfect proportion and mixed with the Hydrogen then piped to the engine for combustion. A loose hose or failure can be dynamic to say the least. It doesn't help some of the companies selling these kits have bad track records and dubious marketing schemes.

Try a test. Take two Identical party balloons and fill one with pure hydrogen and the other with the mix. Light them remotely and record the results. The pure hydrogen will go whoosh and burn fairly fast but the Oxygen has to mix with the Hydrogen to burn slowing the reaction (the balloon breaking helps speed the mixing). The pre mix has no such limit and goes bang. Don't do this to close to windows etc.

To make the example extreme most of the people on the Hindenburg lived, the same volume of premix would have also killed everyone on the ground with the shock wave.

The concept is sound, the safety hasn't met Murphy and his incompetent minions yet.

Brad

Hello Brad, Happy to respond to your comment. I have already had one explosion too many, thank you. This; is what I know for certain and you can bank on it. The flame propagation rate for oxy-hydrogen fuel gas is mach 7.5. And you are correct that the flame propagation rate is part of the issue to consider. In fact as most Ices in cars are already advanced 6 to 10 degrees, to protect your engine one must retard the spark. The more HHO in the fuel blend the later you must retard the spark. By the way, on a previous thread here on CR 4 I have made this same observation, and was sevearly chastised by Vicini, a guru, who stated that flame propagation was un important. What do you think about that! My glass is only 1/2 full, and I am looking to find a way to fill it.

TMF

Please explain how any of those advances were based upon a fundamental change in our understanding of the underlying science. What you are suggesting is akin to exceeding the speed of light or cancelling inertia, not just better use of the same scientific concept. In your example, a vacuum tube and a microchip are basically the same thing - a switch. To apply your suggestion to your example would be to completely remove the switch and maintain a method of changing state. Not possible without a fundamental change in our understanding of the physical world. I'm not claiming that our current understanding is complete or even entirely correct, just that new technology based on existing science will not get us where you want to lead.

So you're saying a system that converts less than 22% of the energy of gasoline into motion takes perpetual motion to improve it? Odd Hemming Motor news in CR4 just had an article of Shell getting well over 300 MPG in 1974.

He talks about paradigm shifts of thinking caused by technology. He obviously is not a Classical scientist per se. You are arguing a different subject- over unity, He is arguing it works so what if it does not follow thermodynamics and others are saying it doesn't. I'm saying this is how it works- If you burn all your fuel at 90 degrees after TDC if nothing breaks you will improve efficiency.

As I stated earlier this concept of using Hydrogen to ignite gasoline for higher efficiency is sound, being hawked by con men and snake oil salesmen is not.

Would I buy one of these systems? Not! To many issues to baby sit. I could freeze nitro and vacuum the fumes strait from solid to do the same thing. (frozen nitro is fairly inert) That doesn't mean it is a good idea.

Is there a way to do hydrogen and gasoline for improved efficiency? Couldn't do any worse than the auto makers knew Shell was getting over 300MPG in 74 and are selling cars that get 20-40MPG in 2008.

Brad

I have a couple of comments on the use of hydrogen in motor vehicles. One of the main issues is portability of the energy source. Someone mentioned that it is more efficient to simply use the generated electricity than to perform electrolysis and then recombine it and get work back out of it. It is true that electrolysis is less efficient, but it meets the goal of portability in a way that battery electric cars cannot. No matter how good a battery gets, it still takes substantial time to recharge it. Hydrogen can be made using any available energy source and then transported and dispensed like propane or gasoline. A refill would be possible in a matter of minutes.

Here are three interesting websites on the use of hydrogen.

This one from the DOE is way down the pike in terms of applicability, but posits the use of Generation IV nuclear plants to power thermochemical hydrogen production.

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2004-06/dnl-npm061404.php

This one from Honda is about a test vehicle that they are marketing in Southern California starting this summer. It is a hydrogen fuel cell car. They are doing it in So CA because there are some hydrogen filling stations in place there.

This one is from Air Products about hydrogen filling station projects that they have going on now.

Energy will be consumed. Anytime that you want to move a vehicle from A to B, this will have to happen. The idea behind hydrogen development is to move it without using carbon based energy. This is possible, but needs development in efficiency and scaleup to commercial development.

I am intrigued by the 'hydrogen hybrid' ideas. Stretching the effectiveness of gasoline use is good. This, however, works like all other hybrid propulsion schemes, by using 'down-time' in the vehicle's duty cycle to store energy for later. For constant running, this would be a drain on the system due to energy losses in the alternator, rectifier, electrolosys system.

Enough for now.

Would appreciate feedback on my previous posting regarding extraction of H from algae. No water involved (except that which is required to grow the algae...and for that matter, gray water would suffice). Energy used in the extraction process comes from the photosynthesis. NREL has put a lot of money and time into this research. What do you all think?

WindGenMan

I have seen a program on it. Farming hydrogen is a good concept if:

Growing the algae does not take more equipment costs than output value.

A dense form of storage can be achieved.

The square foot per power output is better than solar.

The lobbiest don't get the politicals to undermine it.

Brad

Hello Windman, I certainly don't wish to throw water onto your fire. Unfortunately, however inexpensive that it may be to grow the algae, the problems begin with the space needed, the growing season for said material, maintenance of area and a whole host of other issues that surface to even be considered , before your concept could be realistically viable. It sort of falls in the same issue of creating methane for fuel. We all know it will work, but the digester requires construction, and almost constant if not regular batch feeding, and many other issues to work out before it becomes a reality. It is fine for folks who want to return to living as was possible in the late 1800's, but I don't see it happening today.

TMF

Please refer to the sources listed below and give me your thoughts.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=19438&ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&pg=1

http://epmb.berkeley.edu/facPage/dispFP.php?I=25

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70273

WGM

Thanx for the links

Brad

Hydrogen production from water is a bust. It's the same thinking that an electric motor can drive a generator to produce electricity and somehow come out ahead.

If hydrogen is produced, it is too valuable to burn in your car, like pouring 100 year old scotch in your tank.

Electrolysis would be able to increase the efficiency of our current power generation though. The biggest problem with electricity generating is matching production that likes to be at a fixed rate to variable loads. We need to get away from peaker plants that burn oil and natural gas during peak demand. Our power plants could have nearby electrolysis plants that take up excess production during off peak times, leaving the large turbine plants operating at peak efficiency.

Also, the coal fired, CO2 rich, warm exhaust can be used for your algae farming.

Dave (gmcgobus@aol.com)

Hi Dave:

In response to your comment:

1. Statement You Made: Hydrogen production from water is a bust. It's the same thinking that an electric motor can drive a generator to produce electricity and somehow come out ahead.

-----

With due respect. I have studied the process of creating Hydrogen from water for the past 2-3 months. I have viewed 936 youtube videos presented from various people around the world attempting to search for the answer. I have also read several of Stanley Meyer's complete patten documents: http://waterpoweredcar.com/stan.html and have sub-panel the works of 15 other inventors. My conclusion is that yes we can create enough Hydrogen to run an ICE which is attached to a generator which will create electrical power to attach to the electrical Cutty of my home and save money. The day is Sark and I will provide the complete answer to this process.

2. Statement You Made: If hydrogen is produced, it is too valuable to burn in your car, like pouring 100 year old scotch in your tank.

------

I appreciate the analogy about 100 year old scotch, although it reminds me of the time many years ago when my dad asked me to sit down with him the night before I was heading out off to Navy Boot Camp, and have a "MAN'S DRINK". I took a drink of Cutty Sark Scotch and shook my head, and said,"If it takes that for me to be a man, he might as well forget it." Yuck, could not stand the stuff.

OK back to responding to your answer. Several other inventor's which have shared their results of efficiency ratio's; have demonstrated that it is possible to create hydrogen to justify the process. What I have seen so far is that most of their attempts have been on too small of a scale to really be beneficial. They need to up their LPM in order to make enough hydrogen to make it functionally viable. Now as far as cost. You know that a 100 year old bottle of scotch, which I have no idea of what the value of that liquid could be; will probably be cheep in comparison to what it may cost to manufacture a hydrogen generator. I am at that stage right now. Designing and evaluating the most cost effective method to build a hydrogen generator; which will be creating enough LPM to support large ICE needs and in home needs.

3. Your Statement: Electrolysis would be able to increase the efficiency of our current power generation though. The biggest problem with electricity generating is matching production that likes to be at a fixed rate to variable loads. We need to get away from peaker plants that burn oil and natural gas during peak demand. Our power plants could have nearby electrolysis plants that take up excess production during off peak times, leaving the large turbine plants operating at peak efficiency.

Also, the coal fired, CO2 rich, warm exhaust can be used for your algae farming.

-----------

The hydrogen generator which I am designing will be be able to create enough energy to run an ICE/electrical generator, also the furnace, stove, and water heater. Yes there are several hurdles to over come in accomplishing this, although I accomplished many things in my life which have been considered impossible before I completed them. By the way there are 10's of thousands of people around the world working on designing hydrogen generators to meet these needs. So far there are only a few which are thinking of or attempting to design a hydrogen generator at the scale which I am doing. BTW I am going to share my design with everyone. So get over it. I recommend you place more of an effort into studying how to generate hydrogen and give up on being negative. I will not be waisting my time in rebutting mindless statements from people like you in the future. Keep your eyes open. Some day I may start posting results on youtube, and you can say I remember when we though it was not possible to accomplish this.

Hydro

Hi Dave:

Wow!! Was in a rush to take the family out to dinner. Kids and their spouses insisting on me hurrying up. The spell checker either eliminated or threw words all over my original response and I unfortunately did not review it before posting. Also I apologize for being a bit rude. My passion tends to flair up and I get a bit intense.

In response to your comment:

1. Statement You Made: Hydrogen production from water is a bust. It's the same thinking that an electric motor can drive a generator to produce electricity and somehow come out ahead.

-----

With due respect. I have studied the process of creating Hydrogen from water for the past 2-3 months. I have viewed 936 youtube videos presented from various people around the world attempting to search for the answer. I have also read several of Stanley Meyer's complete patten documents: http://waterpoweredcar.com/stan.html and have reviewed the works of 15 other inventors. My conclusion is that yes we can create enough Hydrogen to run an ICE which is attached to a generator which will create electrical power to attach to the electrical panel of my home and save money. The day is coming and I will provide the complete answer to this process.

2. Statement You Made: If hydrogen is produced, it is too valuable to burn in your car, like pouring 100 year old scotch in your tank.

------

I appreciate the analogy about 100 year old scotch, although it reminds me of the time many years ago when my dad asked me to sit down with him the night before I was heading out off to Navy Boot Camp, and have a "MAN'S DRINK". I took a drink of Cutty Sark Scotch and shook my head, and said,"If it takes that for me to be a man, he might as well forget it." Yuck, could not stand the stuff.

OK back to responding to your statement. Several other inventor's which have shared their results of efficiency ratio's; have demonstrated that it is possible to create hydrogen to justify the process. What I have seen so far is that most of their attempts have been on too small of a scale to really be beneficial. They need to up their LPM in order to make enough hydrogen to make it functionally viable. Now as far as cost. You know that a 100 year old bottle of scotch, which I have no idea of what the value of that liquid could be; will probably be cheep in comparison to what it may cost to manufacture a hydrogen generator. I am at that stage right now. Designing and evaluating the most cost effective method to build a hydrogen generator; which will be creating enough LPM to support large ICE needs and in home needs.

3. Your Statement: Electrolysis would be able to increase the efficiency of our current power generation though. The biggest problem with electricity generating is matching production that likes to be at a fixed rate to variable loads. We need to get away from peaker plants that burn oil and natural gas during peak demand. Our power plants could have nearby electrolysis plants that take up excess production during off peak times, leaving the large turbine plants operating at peak efficiency.

Also, the coal fired, CO2 rich, warm exhaust can be used for your algae farming.

-----------

The hydrogen generator which I am designing will be be able to create enough energy to run an ICE/electrical generator, also the furnace, stove, and water heater. Yes there are several hurdles to over come in accomplishing this, although I have accomplished many things in my life which have been considered impossible before I completed them. By the way there are 10's of thousands of people around the world working on designing hydrogen generators to meet these needs. So far there are only a few which are thinking of or attempting to design a hydrogen generator at the scale which I am doing. BTW I am going to share my design with everyone. So get over it. I recommend that all of the people who have the ability to make a change, place more of an effort into studying how to generate hydrogen and give up on being negative. I will not be waisting my time in rebutting mindless statements from negative people in the future. Keep your eyes open. Some day I may start posting results on youtube, and you can say I remember when we though it was not possible to accomplish this.

One other comment:

Stanley Meyer made a statement in his, "Water Fuel Cell Technical Brief, The Birth of New Technology"; which I do not fully understand as of yet. I will share it with you all now. In Section 1, of the,"Water Fuel Cell", he states. "After all, the energy contained in a gallon of water exceeds 2.5 million barrels of oil when equated in terms of atomic energy. Water, of course, is free, abundant, and energy recyclable." It may take us a while to fully develope our technology to achieve the results of this statement, although it gives us a goal to work for. CLEAN ABUNDANT ENERGY!!!!

Hydro

aka: HydroRamPac on YouTube

Congrats HydroRamPac, regarding your response to this thread, Hydrogen is hot!

I too, Toomuchfun, regularly get chastised, by the main stream of supposed "Technology Superior Persons" regarding my views about the possibility of wide spread use of Hydrogen and Oxy-hydrogen as the future for our energy needs. We know by now that Oxy-hydrogen is a form of fuel gas that should never be stored, however it is superior to any other of fuel gas that we can easily produce with todays wide spread technology. And: of course it can be made on demand and used immediately, fairly safely. I personally see the reasonable possibility that the oxy-hydrogen, when used to power up a fuel powered generator could also be creating the energy to electrolize water in a way that the Hydrogen is captured and stored and the oxygen is released back into the atmosphere. Additionally, batteries such as those used in forklifts can also be used for energy storage when the generator is not in use. Some of this energy would then power up the oxy-hydrogen generator until the generator is again up and running and producing it's own fuel source. Unfortunately, I see the term "Hydrogen" all too often used when "Oxy-hydrogen is the correct fuel source. I am aware that "The Peoples Republic of California" now has up and running, Hydrogen refueling stations spread around that state. That is good! However it requires the fuel to be carried on board the vehicle, like propane.

The development of the Oxy-hydrogen Generator is imminent, and currently being refined by numerous individuals who could care less about the Law of Thermodynamics. After all, there is only the Court of Scientific Opinion, that can convict a violator, and it has no powers of punishment, other than bad mouthing, those who choose to continue the work that has been ongoing for more than 100 years.

I have read articles that indicate that remote Cell Phone Towers are all ready utilizing this technology for their energy requirements. There is also a home in Northern New Jersey that is already functioning on the Hydrogen, Solar,Battery technology.

"Good luck"

TMF

I see the term "Hydrogen" all too often used when "Oxy-hydrogen is the correct fuel source.

Hello Toomuchfun,

The reason Hydrogen is used and not Oxy-Hydrogen is Hydrogen is considered fuel while Oxygen is considered an oxidiser. Hydrogen will burn with other oxidisers.

You will find many little exactitudes in engineering: like there is no cold only more or less heat; Vacuum is only more or less pressure, etc.

The mindset of these ideals allow for leaps of understanding of how things work. They also hinder out of the box thinking, not because they are wrong but they give a set perspective.

There has been a major (cheap) breakthrough in HOH (H2O) to Hydrogen and Oxygen production using catalysts in the July 31 issue of Science. Eagerly awaiting my copy.

Brad

Good Afternoon UV, I will not challenge your explanation regarding Hydrogen/Oxy-hydrogen except to say that the term Oxy-hydrogen was patented by Dr. W. A. Rhodes circa late 60's early 70's, I don't remember the exact year, but it is called a single duct fuel gas. I have seen several abreviations for the gas, tho I believe that the atoms when separated are described as H1 and H1O1. I also have found the terminology to describe the hydrogen as monotromic and diatromic depending upon whether the atoms were split via brute force method or a combination of brute force and high frequency input combined. I have only been investigating this subject for about 6 years on a regular basis. I believe that I have fairly well figured out just what a high performance generator will need to incorporate to function at a near maximum level. My associates also believe that I am correct in my details regarding the matter. In fact I expect to receive a report on our latest testing in the very near future. I live in sunny Florida, but my associates live near Denver Colo.

Toomuchfun

Thus Oxy-hydrogen is a name of a process output and burning Hydrogen is a chemical function.

HOH is a more accurate label for water than H2O, not that H2O is incorrect. The product of single duct fuel gas (if I am not mistaken) is (2)H2 + O2 and some water vapor. If you can get (2)H1 + O1 the gas would be more unstable than the diatromic output.

Brad

From what I understand about the fracturing process of the water molecule is as follows. The brute force method manages to part only one hydrogen atom from the combination of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. By adding the high voltage pulsing frequencies to the mix, the second hydrogen atom, or at least some of them are also separated. However this separation is short lived, and if the fuel gas isn't ignited fairly quickly, this second atom will recombine with the oxygen atom. I am not a Scientist nor Engineer, however mechanically it makes sense to me, and thus far the experimentation seems to support the mechanics of the issue.

I have plans for a generator that actually parts the hydrogen from the oxygen with the oxygen being vented back into the atmosphere and the hydrogen being captured for future use. However, it is not exactly inexpensive to build, and unless I were to be able to extract enough to use for cooking, refrigeration and AC reliably I am not motovated to go to that expense at this time.

Good Luck !

TMF

Read the thread "Water for fuel, scam?" The end of the argument is that it takes more energy to make HHO than you get by burning it. When using an HHO generator on board a vehicle there is no excess electric power made by the generator to be used by the electrolysis process. The engine has to do more work to make the extra power to operate the electrolysis and there is a net loss in energy.

You can patent anything, whether it works or not, so just because Meyer patented a device it does not mean that it works. It has been proven not to work and no unflawed and independent test has ever found otherwise.

As for using hydrogen gas for fuel, its only advantage is being a bit more portable than the electricity used to make H. It is far more efficient to use the electricity directly by way of batteries. The average car can travel 350-400 miles without stopping, which may be farther than most drivers can go without stopping to go. To get similar range using H requires compressing it to 10,000 psi in a tank 5 times larger than a gasoline tank. Storage, transport and refueling are obstacles too. Very short-range fuel cell cars are possible using H, but making H in large quantities as would be needed if even 1/2 of all cars went to H as fuel would require many more electrical generating plants to be built. That sets the environmental nuts off, protesting the new electrical plants.

I have a challenge: Name any one source of energy that could replace fossil fuels and/or nuclear power that is not opposed by some environmental group. Any energy source large enough to power a medium city even.

Too many people are driven by wishful thinking into belief in things that do not work or into the belief that electricity comes from the wall outlet, that the sun will supply power without any huge collectors and that all CO2 emissions must be banned to "Save the Planet".

Did you read my second post? I have yet to receive a response regarding the URL's I provided. I just finished a workshop the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), toured the facility, read publications and listened to lectures by resident scientists. Hydrogen is considered a viable alternative to fossil based fuels, according to NREL, and I had the opportunity to learn about the various processes by which hydrogen can be extracted. Some involve the use photobiological technology to extract hydrogen from algae and certain bacteria. One uses intensified sunlight to generate enough heat to split methane into hydrogen and carbon. Another, uses integrated renewable energy systems to power an electrolyzer. None of these is anymore energy intensive than the extraction, transportation, production and storage of fossil based fuels.

Please follow the links below and read the corresponding downloadable articles:

1. http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html#water

"Algal Hydrogen Photoproduction", Maria Ghirardi and Michael Seibert (2003)

2. http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html#split

"Photoelectrochemical Systems for Hydrogen Production," K. Varner et al. (2002)

3. http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html#solar

"High Temperature Solar Splitting of Methane to Hydrogen and Carbon," Jaimee Dahl et al. (2003)

4. http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html#renew

a. "Wind Energy and Production of Hydrogen and Electricity—Opportunities for Renewable Hydrogen"

b. "Renewable Hydrogen: Integration, Validation, and Demonstration"

I would appreciate your response to the above.

Regards, WindGenMan

Dear WinGenMan, I believe your signature line explains the lack of response "contempt before investigation." Pretty well sums it up.

Regards Dragon

I agree. I am quite disappointed with the lack of response.

Do not be disappointed. Be heartened. It has been my experience that some on this blog will not reply unless and until they can "damage" (they believe) another's theory or concept.

The lack of response means they 1)cannot find fault; 2)have not bothered to do the research; or 3) have been too busy shooting imprecations at other's ideas and dreams and just have not gotten around to you yet.

After all, this is a large forum, and they want to be an equal opportunity despoiler.

Continue with the work; it is more important than anyone's opinion, even mine.

Your friend, Dragon

You have presented several methods of potentially producing hydrogen. The algae method is in the very early stages.

I'm not sure what response you are looking for, except that your statement: "None of these is anymore energy intensive than the extraction, transportation, production and storage of fossil based fuels" is pure conjecture, at best. The algae method is at such an early stage, it is not possible to calculate the the economics.

Tad

Good Answer. Much of what has been considered impossible in the past is now fait accompli. A suggestion if I may: use a PWM (pulse width modulator) and a amplifier to cycle the D.C. on and off. About 20 KH is a good base line.

Regards Dragon

At this time Hydrogen is not the most practical and cost efficient way to go. There may be advances as you referred to, which will make it more possible in the future. I do not say we should not do research toward H power, but at present it takes more energy to make H than you get from using it. Reduce the energy needed or at least the cost of the energy needed to make H and discover some better ways to store it, transport it and refuel with it and it may be practical.

As long as it requires large amounts of electricity generated by the use of coal, natural gas or nuclear powerplants to make H, it will not be a viable alternative to fossil fuels. The need for electricity to make it, brings up the obvious energy savings of using the electricity directly, as in batteries. If the methods of making H you mention will work on an industrial scale, then it is entirely possible that H not made using electricity that will successfully compete against fossil fuels and eventually could replace them. I am definitely in favor of cheaper and cleaner fuel.

It is the marketplace which will finally determine what sources of energy we use, providing we keep the nutty politicians and environmental extremists out of the way.

Excellent Answer Art by Joe!! I was wondering if some one else would discover that bit of editing. I went back and re-read some of my old books on the subject and was quite surprised at the amount of Maxwell's work that has been edited.

You beat me to the post, but I hold no grudge.

Dragon

Your statement "the laws of thermodynamics, are based upon the reduction of maxwells theories" is not generally correct. Thermodynamics is based on the works of hundreds of people. Maxwell contributed a small but important fraction to this body of work, mainly in the area of statistical thermodynamics.

This is what makes thermodynamics so powerful. It is based on hundreds of years of observations and mathematical verification.

What theorems of Maxwell's that were "thrown out" do you feel are relevant, but ignored?

Tad

Tad,

You're being too kind. The claims about Maxwell's theories are just plain baloney. I quote from Maxwell's Matter and Motion, written in 1877:

"The total energy of any material system is a quantity which can neither be increased nor decreased..."

Still accurate today in its entirety.

For the critics of thermodynamics, I actually read the books. I'm guessing you're quoting some web site which quoted some other web site which ... Not good enough. Facts rule in this house.