Doest the electrode size shape and material make a significant differencs?

Does the voltage make a difference?

I'm not sure why you want higher conductivity....conductivity per se won't necessarilly improve the electrolysis...after all detergent will increase the conductivity but probably won't help the electrolysis.

Does water temperature matter?

Del

You see Del, this would be a good opportunity for you to do a bit of publicity for the Junk yard Battery contest! You could end up with a contester for the biggest post yet!

"Does water temperature matter?"

Yes; the warmer the water, the more effective the electrolysis.

Why do you all bother with something as complicated as electrolysis?

j.

Hydrogen production for ballooning during the French Revolution: An early example of chemical process development

Author: Janis Langins ^a

DOI: 10.1080/00033798300200381 Publication Frequency: 4 issues per year Published in: Annals of Science, Volume 40, Issue 6 November 1983 , pages 531 - 558 Subjects: History & Philosophy of Mathematics; History of Engineering & Technology; History of Medicine; History of Science & Technology; Medical History; Formats available: PDF (English) Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions

• In order to give pricing details we need to know your country. Please register and/or sign in to identify your country.
  
• Sign In
• Online Sample

Well, I'm primarily looking for consistency so that I can fairly evaluate the results and I simply figured that the better conductor I could use that was also safe would probably be best, although I don't think that that will improve the accuracy, but it will save me one step in the next stage in the case that the results are favorable.

If the results are not favorable and i'm sure they're consistent then I've lost nothing by using a better conductor.

Toomuchfun in his answer below has answered all your and my own other questions and helped me a lot too.

I have found that a blend of distilled white vinegar (5% advertised) and distilled water will produce copious amounts of HHO. To one gallon of distilled water add 1/2 cup of distilled white vinegar. I pre -warmed the blend up to about 80 degrees on the kitchen range, poured about 1/2 gallon into a clear plastic vessel about 12" tall and inserted an electrode packet that consisted if 11 ss wall cover plates, spaced 1/8th" apart, and all plates were energized, neg then pos. No neutral plates. I connected the wires to a single 12 volt battery that had been fully charged. In less than 3 seconds the entire vessel was a white cloud of bubbles, all but the bottom 3/4 inch. You can drink the vinegar and the water. What could be safer.

Toomuchfun

I agree that vinegar (or any other acid) will improve the conductivity of the water and avoid the chlorine problem, BUT... Those stainless steel wall plates ARE dissolving, if very slowly, leaving a number of various kinds of metallic ions dissolved in the water. I certainly would NOT drink the water remaining after electrolysis. In fact, it just might be illegal to flush that water into a public drain system, because of the dissolved metals.

That's just what I wanted to hear.

Thank you so much for answering my questions and for your additional info too, that's a more detailed and informative description than i've seen anywhere on the web.

Sorry! - I should have said that my original thanks were directed toward Toomuchfun.

But thanks also to dkwarner and don't worry, i won't be drinking it or disposing of it in the drain system, I have a contact in hazchem and he will help me with that.

You haven't made any effort to separate the O₂ and the H₂ so you have an oxygen & hydrogen mixture in the correct ratio for an explosion. You might make your apparatus a bit more sophisticated and separate the two gases. I don't know why they call a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen Brown's gas. I would think that something more the colour of the results of an explosion would be more appropriate, flesh burns, bloody body parts, debris of whatever got demolished in the resulting explosion, etc.

"would tap water be better than distilled water?"

Why would you want to take all the impurities out of the water just to add them back in to make it conduct better. It is these impurities that make the water conduct at all.

If you need an additive use salt. No one will question your hydrogen plant using sea water. May if you are using up all their fresh drinking water. Which may be the next big crisis if hydrogen production becomes a feasible source of fuel for automobiles.

Dear ozzb,

If you lived by the sea you would recognize that salt and metal don't mix. There is no doubt that salt and water will make an electrolite. But table salt when exposed in an HHo booster creates clorine. Both damaging and deadly. Therefore salt should not be considered. AS for water other than distilled, all of those minerals and disolved salts in the water will precipitate out of the electrolite. Other than the gentleman being named Yull Brown, this is often the the reason some folks call HHO Brown's gas. I have had as much as 3 " of this crud occur in a 1/2 gallon booster before I finally through the mess out and started again. BY THE WAY, I am not the discoverer of the vinegar and distilled water concept. The ancients from Egypt, Greese and elsewhere around that region used citric acid to gold plate their jewelry. Vinegar is just another form of citric acid. Being distilled, it is about as pure as that sort of substance can get. As for the distilled water, it contains no impurities to precipitate out. without the addition of the vinegar, it makes a horrible electrolite. Any water can be distilled, so its point of origin is irelevent.

If I can be of more help, just let me know.

Toomuchfun

I think you can see why KOH is used and not NaCl : because the products are just H2 and O2, not Chlorine. Really, you shouldn't need to be so worried about using KOH, it is caustic, but in the concentrations that you need for electrolysis it would be only mildly caustic, not of the skin-stripping strength.

You could also use an acid without too many worries. A previous poster has suggested acetic acid, you could also use dilute sulphuric or nitric acids I think.

Electrode material is also an issue. Ideally you want them to be inert so that they do not take part in any side reactions. Platinum is very good but very expensive. Carbon may be an option. Copper is probably a bit suspect. Perhaps stainless steel?

Best of luck.

Stainless steel 316 us presently the material of choice. Nickel will work but has issues that make it not as good. Platinum would be great if it were affordable. There is a development company in Southern Cal. that is making claims about a carbon and metalic
coating on SS that they claim is superior. I haven't heard much more about that subject. My budget dictates that I use stainless steel. I modify the shapes of SS electric wall cover plates. I clean them, work over the surfaces, make a few other modifications, and they do an acceptable job for me. At $1.59 per part and 90 pieces to the assembly just for these parts alone I think many of us are content to work with what we have available so long as it proves to be durable. Some where in the inner workings of my modest gray matter I suspect the cost effective answer will be found in the development of ceramics. Have you even tried vinegar and water? Add a little red onion and a few cucumbers and it'll make a great salad.

Tomuchfun

Hello Toomuchfun,

What do you think of using aluminum? That was going to be my metal.

The reason I opted for that is I've read several old patents that claim good results with aluminum.

I didn't bother to try aluminum. I tried an even better conductor. Copper, and an excellent electrolite, salvaged battery acid, diluted.

What I got was a lot of sulfated material collecting on the neg electrodes and some very foggy bright pos electrodes. The electrolite turned a light green tint.

From this I determined that at least this combination of materials would not be among my first choices.

Knowing that aluminum is a much softer material and suffers from electrolysis issues even when dis-similar materials are attached , I ruled out aluminum with out trying it. I may at some time in the future attempt to electroplate nickel over aluminum and give that a try. But I will first have to determine whether or not that idea is even worth while persuing.

Tmf

Use aluminium and a solution of Sodium hydroxide and you won't need to even bother with electrolysis. The NaOH will remove the Al₂0₃ from the surface of the aluminium. The cleaned aluminium will react with the water to liberate H₂ and the process will repeat itself. Do a GOOGLE on the reaction between Aluminium, water, and NaOH. There are a couple of reactions that keep repeating and the end result is free hydrogen

Do it this way and you won't have to put up with people who criticize you for attempting to get more energy from your alternator to generate H_{2. If you design your reactor vessel correctly as the pressure of the hydrogen builds up the HaOH solution will be forced into a holding chamber temporarily stopping the hydrogen generation process.}

The question that remains is aluminium, distilled water, and NaOH going to be cheaper than gasoline.

Toomuchfun, can I ask how you get 90 pieces in the electrode assembly, when you said in your earlier post that you used just 11 plates?

Do you have two sets of 11 plates or just the one set?

If it's just the one set with neg and pos alternating then how do you separate the hydrogen from the oxygen?

I think I must have missed something.

I'll answer late question early I have a set of plans designed to electrolize the oxy. separate from the hyd. I decided that producing the gases separately would be two costly. Thermo's Law. nuff said!

I determined that I would not be storing either of the two gases as they are both highly explosive and I had no safe way to deal with said storage.

Single Duct oxy-hydrogen as patented by Dr William A Rhodes circa 1960 proved to be highly explosive, easy to make and with some research could be made on demand. No storage required.

Hydrogen Is highly explosive and only needs 1% by volume oxygen to conduct an explosion. Oxygen also has similar properties. There are two hydrogen atoms in the water molecule, but they are smaller than the single oxygen atom. As to their potential atomic performance, I read about it some where, don't remember the exact properties, but clearly this was enough to cause me to proceed.

Yes I stated that I used 11 electrode plates in the one experiment that I described. I also used vinegar and water, as the electrolyte. When I put the see through top on the see through container and prepared to capture up to 13 gallons by volume of the oxy-hydrogen, for some reason, that has yet to be determined the lid on the container exploded, and fragmented. I lost a finger nail as the result of a bruise, I was wearing safety glasses. If not I might have suffered eye injuries.

After far more investigation and more discovery I learned that If I expect to get the kind of performance out of the electrolizer that many are advertising as can be accomplished, I would have to build an electrolizer that had the capability of achieving that goal.

It was not going to happen with a jelly jar and a couple of electrodes. THEREFORE.

From 11 electrode plates there will now be 15. From a single cell (compartment with electrolyte separated from others) there will now be six, all fabricated into a single container. Six cells divided by 12 volts = 2 volts per cell, not 72 volts over all. As for the amperage draw that is largely controlled by the strength of the electrolyte. You need to keep the electrolyte as cool as possible while yielding sufficient HHO to satisfy the needed requirements. Generating heat is loosing energy, the more heat generated the more energy is lost and the faster you will need replacement electrolyte.

I am not a genius. I have learned that which I know thru experimentation, accomplished by myself and others who have generously shared their failures and success with me.

GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT, AND RECOGNIZE THAT WORKING WITH hho REQUIRES A LOT OF CAREFUL PLANNING.

Toomuchfun

Paulusgnome - I got a bit scared off by the official warnings on Potassum Hrdroxide.

What do you think of aluminum as electrode?

Put some aluminium in a solution of sodium hydroxide and you will get hydrogen straight away with out any need for electricity. Buy a can of Drano and pour it into a greasy drain. One of the functions of the sodium hydroxide is to turn the grease into soap which is soluble in water. Sodium hydroxide, water, and aluminum, combine to form hydrogen which generates bubbles to speed up the process of turning the grease to soap.

Don't smoke while you are standing over the sink cleaning out the drain, it could get exciting. Drano is sodium hydroxide and aluminium chips mixed together.

My son and I used copy rods from old carbon zinc batteries. Where the insulated wire was attached to the copper rods we placed the end of the electrode in a plastic pop bottle lid and filled it with melted parrafin wax. The carbon electrodes were quite inert chemically, and where the insulation was stripped from the copper wires, the bare copper was surrounded by the wax.

Thanks again Toomuchfun, you've been a great help on this subject.

Does living by the largest estuary in the USA count the Chesapeake Bay? If I take table salt and metal filings they will mix. But if you are talking about an electrolyte and galvanic corrosion you may have that anyway depends on your electrolyte and the metals.

As I understand it chlorine gas will only be produced if the salt concentrations are too high or trying to push excessive current thru.

Vinegar is acetic acid.

Distillation of your water will be just an added loss. Flushing the precipitate out before you get 3" of crud would be more economical.

<...use salt...>

Nope. The outcome is sodium hypochlorite solution instead of oxygen gas. Sodium hypochlorite degrades to sodium hydroxide and free chlorine gas relatively quickly.

"Don't do it, Ethel."

Everyone seems to want to use electrolysis to generate hydrogen. Why not a Nernst cell?

"Now you see," " Toomuchfun" doesn't know everything or even something about everything. I am interested in learning about
this thing you call an Nernst cell. No Joke!

Tmf

Nernst cell - just looked it up on Wiki and it's way over my head, but thanks for the suggestion anyway.

I too looked up 'Nernst cell', and found nothing relating to hydrogen generation. Can you please give more specific references or an explanation...

Thanks

Oops. Sorry about that. I was using industry slang and not being clear enough. In many respects, it is a fuel cell running backwards. With heat and a good catalyst, you can move ions across a membrane by means of a Voltage (the Nernst Equation). I've no clue about the efficiency.

My son and I tried to electrolyse water using salt NaCl to provide some conductivity in the water. We ended up with equal quantities of gas at both the anode and the cathode which might be a hint that we were generating H₂ and Cl₂ instead of H₂ and O₂. There should have been twice as nuch H₂ as O₂. I have since heard that comercial electrolysis cells use NaOH which is also known as lye and which is not a friendly substance. You may be forced into using KOH or NaOH.

If you tune the electrolizer properly, that is use only enough "ugh"

stuff to conduct a current through the electrolite and don't over do it. You should get a fog of tiny, almost microscopic little bubs, and some larger bubs, slightly smaller than 1/8th " diameter. It only takes 1.23 volts to make hho. The amperage will be dictated by the amount of that "ugh" stuff that you added to the water. If you were too cheap to use distilled water, you will quickly find out why folks call it Brown's gas.

Tmf

Do you mean the more vinegar you put in the more amps it will draw?

Yes the more anything you add to the Distilled water, the more amps you will draw. At some point you will achieve run-away amperage. That occurs when the electrolyte reaches the boiling point and becomes vapor fairly quickly.

Toomuchfun

Plain (pure) water is not a conductor so it will nor work: period. Tap water contains dissolved chemical sals that form ions.For any conductor to work it must be ionic or when dissolved and have it's ions separate into both positive and negative ions. Salt (sodium chloride) divides into sodium ions (+) and negative ions (-).

Molecular things (organic chemicals are not ionic, hence they will not work.(vegatible oil, motor oil and the like)

If you will use sodium hydroxide (lye) it will work without the evolution of chlorine.Or, you could use potassium hydroxide. It will work just as well.

For what it is worth, you have hit on the physical chemistry of sodium hypochlorite synthesis (bleach) from the chlor-alkli process.

you are right about potassium hydroxide, you could use nitric acid in whater with platinum/copper plates. personnaly I have often wonder if using an active metal such as sodium or calcium for the electrodes in an acidic solution, again nitric acid is best but sulphuric or muriatic acid would be good too, would significantly increase hydrogen production?? basically catalytic elctrodes....

Back when nobody cared about such stuff our chemistry class threw (note the word "threw" - we knew to stand way back) about a 4 ounce chunk in the school pond to see how big an explosion it would make. I'd rate it somewhere between an M80 and half a stick of dynamite. A whole electrode should make quite a bang! Plus, machining the stuff tends to make quite a bit of fuss.

My high school Chemistry teacher started our first lesson by saying the purpose of Chemistry class was to provided those that were interested in Chemistry with enough knowledge to prevent their demise before they knew enough to make a useful contribution to the ongoing knowledge of Chemistry.

Small mistakes due to much enthusiasm and not enough budget can be tragic.

Mistakes made by adults that should know better help improve the gene pool by removing themself.

BAB

You didn't mention the MANY secondary explosions caused by bits of the original chunk blown in all directions (including back toward the thrower), nor the fact that the other product, besides hydrogen, is NaOH - Sodium Hydroxide (also known as lye) which causes nasty burns if it gets on your skin.

Yes, we did the same demonstration, also way back when... I also did the equivalent with a piece about the size of a pea in a beaker of water, many times over the years. Occasionally the peas I harvested grew a bit too large, and I had to clean off the ceiling and...

Sulfuric acid should be ok. It's easy to get, cheap, and has a very low vapor pressure so it will not evaporate away. The concentration is easy to monitor with a lead acid hydrometer.

Charles Pooley

I feel that as you are looking for a "cheap" way, before you start making gases from the above suggestions, you should first understand that the two gases (Oxygen & Hydrogen) you will produce, if mixed together, may form back into water with rather a large (dangerous) explosion.

What you are making is dangerous. Funnily enough, the Oxygen is even more dangerous than the Hydrogen is as Oxygen needs very specialised storage, ask at any hospital!!!!

Oxygen, when mixed with Nitrogen (as in air for example) is far less dangerous....

Furthermore, making these gases from anything that uses electricity from the mains, even if stored in a battery, is not cheap.

You should first concentrate on getting the electricity in a reasonable quantity, but without paying for it (other than the initial investment in hardware of course) eg. Solar or wind energy for example.....(though Wind is really solar energy as well!!)

Unless you fix this problem first, then find a method of storing the gas (a good compressor also needs a lot of energy input), you are done for with regards to the "cheap" idea.....sorry!!

Thanks Andy Germany,

I'm aware of the dangers of mixing hydrogen and oxygen and my setup will collect them separately and keep them separate.

Actually, I meant to say "cheaper" rather than "cheap" and since this is my first attempt I would not set my sights so high as to presume I could do it cheaply rather than just cheaper, which is a lot less ambitious and because it's incremental then I'm looking to advance small step by small step.

Of course I could be wrong and be mistaken with my very first step but anyway, Thanks again for your input.

AGREED! I'd discharge the O₂ immediately to atmosphere, then use the native air for combustion.

First things first. Start by calculating the energy required to break a mole of H - O bonds to produce your hydrogen. Assuming 100 % efficientcy, that's your starting point for input power. Obviously, you need more than theoretical, but it's a good place to start.

Toomuchfun Here. Tad, Let me collect the responsibility for my typo.

Citric acid vs. acetic acid. I sometimes get a little worked up and identify one material when I mean another similar sounding material. As for the possible damage that could be done to an ICE, this should be eliminated through the placement of two bublers between the Booster and the intake manifold. These are also recomended to prevent backflash from reaching the booster. Given all of the warnings posted on sulfuric acid, and holes in assorted shirts, from just tightening a battery cable carelessly, along with the warnings on draino and red devil lye etc. I find vinegar to be mild. If it can cause the attention getting explosion that I had happened to me, and still be this mild , I prefer to use it until someone can convince me that it is more dangerous than something else.

Regarding the amperage comment, again you are correct. And run away amperage does occur (boil away of electrolyte) if too much concentrate is added to the solution however No one has mentioned that the comprehension of the electrolysis issues today points to the use of minimum voltages and lower ampreages being used to saturate the electrodes, up to the point of causing some division of the atoms. This condition is then excited by the pulsing of approx. 60,000-40,000 and 20,000 volts in cycle pressured by milli-amps of energy.

and finally regarding HHO. The term HHO, Brown's Gas, Klines Gas, and a few others including the very proper patented Single Duct oxy-hydrogen fuel gas are all terms used by society today to describe the two gases , oxygen and hydrogen when they remain in relative presence tho no longer attached.

Regarding safety issues the carelessly created info that is available on the internet is the very reason I began posting to begin with. YOU are invited to review the many posts that I have made on several similar forums a CR4.

Your advice and suggestions are will taken!

Toomuchfun

Toomuchfun.

I have read some of your earlier posts. Frankly, I am not sure what you are trying to do. Do you believe that HHO is simply O2 and H2 in a 1:2 ratio? If so, where is the novelty, as this has been done for hundreds of years?

If you think this gas is novel in some way, what does it consist of, and what unique properties does it posses?

Are you trying to improve the efficiency of this well understood process? If so, where is your data. All the parameters are easy to measure.

Do you believe that pulsing produces more gas than described by Faraday's laws?

What do you mean by "the very proper patented single duct oxy-hydrogen"? This seems to be a fairly useless patent, by "Dr." Rhodes (he actually has no degree).

Tad

Toad let me address this by the numbers.

1 you must have confused said earlier posts with some of your fellow skeptoids. I HAVE NEVER DESCRIBED THE WATER MOLECULE WITH HAVING ANYTHING OTHER THAN 2 HYDROGEN ATOMS AND ONE OXYGEN ATOM. PLEASE DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!

2 As for " my opinion that this is a novel gas." I have a great deal of experience working with explosives. "NO" I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY GAS THAT IS SO POWERFUL THAT JUST A COUPLE OF CUBIC INCHES IN VOLUME, IF IGNITED CAN CAUSE PERMANANT HEARING LOSS. And just a bit more could cost a person their life. It can however power an ICE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT!

3 I HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE TO YOU OR TO ANY OTHER SKEPTOID. LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO ACCOMODATE STUPIDITY.

4 Regarding your suggestion that I might be making some kind of comparison to Faraday's Law. Clearly if you were ever hammered by high voltage, you must have suffered brain damage.

5 I suggest that you get to know a little bit more about Dr. William A. Rhodes. and his professional back ground before you further disgrace yourself. It is a well published fact that Dr. Rhodes was a Dept. Head, research scientist and instructor at the University of Arizona, You might remember, that state between New Mexico and California.

Tmf

Tad, you are talking to a brick wall, let them go and if they show up selling or making claims beyond reason, turn them into the FTC, they are on this.

Good answer.

VG comments.

Would like to offer an alternate plan:

A sealed pressure vessel, filled with sodium 'nuts'; controlled injection of water vapour at just the proper rate to control the reaction.

The reacted sodium module can be exchanged & re-refined at a remote site; in effect a chemical 'battery'.

While tricky to handle, should be no more hazardous than any other 'high energy density' source; i'm convinced that we're too complacent w/ petrol's hazards, as an example

Tad, very well said!

It's amazing how much misinformation exists on the internet regarding water electrolysis. Much of it from sincere but undereducated dabblers. But also too much of it from "free energy types" who feel proud of their refusal to accept standard scientific knowledge, and claim to know better. And then there are the outright scammers. I hope experimenters will at least check with mainstream sources of scientific information for safety precautions.

This is something I was listening to on NPR and it is something you will want to know about. We are talking huge efficiencies here. Here is the URL http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16343702

Researchers have developed a more efficient way to extract hydrogen from biological materials using a bacterial fuel cell. Bruce Logan, one of the scientists working on the project, discusses the efforts and whether the new method might change the debate over biofuels.

Bruce Logan, director of the Hydrogen Energy Center and professor of environmental engineering at Pennsylvania State University

One more thing to think about, in regard to using stainless steel for the electrodes. SS typically has a high percentage of chromium in the alloy. When dissolved, as will eventually happen in this usage, that will appear as ions of hexavalent chromium [Cr⁶] (likely very little of the less hazardous trivalent chromium [Cr³]) and will make the bath regulated as hazardous waste. There are severe penalties for improper storage and disposal.

Alfred, While you served the Navy, I was a member of ARADCOM.

My job included the dis-joining and re-joining Hurcules missels from the ajax booster cluster, replacing igniters and rocket motors, and launcher maintenance. We had some folks killed also. 26 good men died in a single explosion at Sea Girt New Jersey. The cause. A static spark from someones wool jacket liner ignited an igniter before the safety officer could get the ground strap in place.

AS I am experienced in handling explosives, and I value my body, I have designed an explosion resistant container, I cannot speak for anyone else. I have nothing to sell. My good advice is given to promote safety. I cannot be responsible for anyone else's actions.

Yes silver is the better conductor by far, but too expensive for what we are trying to accomplish, that is reduce our dependence on opec.

Toomuchfun

Toomuchfun,

The truth is your response to Tad makes clear you are too Toomuchthefool.

So you bolted a bunch of pieces of explosive equipment together. That does not make you an expert in handling explosives. When you can describe the chemical and industrial processes in manufacturing explosives and in fact why they are explosive, you will be on the way, but only on the way, to being an explosives expert.

I see, reading down from where I entered, that I am not the only one that picked up on the supreme ignorance of one of your fellow fools, who was proposing to make an electrode out of metallic sodium.

It sure wasn't our fine fellow Toomuchthefool, "experienced in handling explosives" who picked up on the explosive proposal to craft a sodium electrode, was it.

If twenty six service people were killed in Sea Girt that only tells me that all your experience in handling explosives is worthless. People trained in safe procedures for handling explosives would not all be gathered close enough for one blast to kill all twenty six.

Everybody reading these posts should be warned. There is no magic process for separating the oxygen and hydrogen molecules of water without more energy than is involved in their unity.

Some of Toomuchthefools fellow "experimenters" are very dangerous. Read some basic chemistry texts, straight through not just for what you want to know, before getting involved in these dangerous games. Then you may not get involved.

Read straight through the report of the sodium fire that I posted and you will get an idea of just how dangerous a proposition our fine Toomuchthefool, "experienced in handling explosives," let by without comment.

Be happy that some of us on this web site, and I am by far not the best educated of them, intervene to point out the errors and dangers some here would get you into.

Again, read the Government report on the sodium fire, before getting into the types of activities that some fools are proposing on this web site, activities like manufacturing a sodium electrode for electrolysis of water.

j.

Settle down JJ.

You have done your duty and let them know the extent of the danger they may be putting themselves in.

Now sit back, relax, and watch the head lines for domestic explosions and fires.

You should also remember that the world needs more candidates for "Darwinian Awards". We are not an endangered species we can afford to loose those that ignore well founded warnings.

I just hope there is not to much collateral damage.

BAB

we need to just flag toomuchfun and get him off this site!!! I wrote a similar responce and he just starts a new thread.

And censorship train is leaving the station! Get a grip, guys! You don't have any better answers. If you did your egos would force you to post them. Everyone has the right to post as long as they are not in violation of the rules and as far as I have read no one here is.

At least he is trying to create something useful and positive. It seems that all you try to do is shoot the messenger.

Blue

No. I wouldn't censor these twits.

But I would advocate that the operators of the site establish a policy that tags posts of nut cases who post in ignorance of the laws of nature, those long settled.

There is valid experimentation and questioning of scientific theory, but the folks that do it are easily separated from these nut cases whose every line screams nut because they offer no material data and resort to basing their assertions, all too often, on quoting false authority.

I myself have some serious questions about quantum conclusion going all the way back to Young's two slit experiment (As I just posted on a different thread), but I don't offer phony, unsupported conclusions, although I am fully aware that some of my questions might be considered heretical.

j.

You are in violations of the rules. The post on HHO are no different than chatting on how to make TNT. HHO is dangerous, it borders on fraud, and the people that keep spouting about it are not engineers.

We have answered all the questions about how you cannot break the first through third laws of thermodynamics, yet all the HHO guys can come back with is things about how Tesla did this or whatever. TESLA didn't break the laws of thermodynamics.

Toomuchfun is not creating anything useful. Hydrogen of any kind (except in fusion) is not a source of energy, its a battey, it stores energy for use later. Now you supporters comeback with laboratory , traceable data on how HHO is thermodynamically better than all the other fuel sorces, then we will see who's got it right.

These guys really go crazy when you ask for data or experimental results. They don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics or Faraday's laws. When I asked Toomuchfun for data, he said that he did not have anything to prove. Huh? I thought that was the point, to prove the laws are wrong. If you ask for data, you are a "skeptoid".

Tad

& proudly so!

The "laws' of physics & chemistry have been determined by direct observation & expiriment by our 'best & brightest' in a period exceeding 300yr; at worst they might have missed a small something. I believe that there is no thing stated incorrectly, based on observable data.

Our chance to improve things will mostly reside in our ability to adapt the 'laws' as they truly exist, to the new needs our society presents; the more timely the better

The people they have bolt those things together are the ones considered expendable.

Whatever you said.. nobody is going to listen to. This people are way too optimistic and inovative for you. I think you subscribed to a wrong forum.

WELCOME TO THE FORUM. I invite you to review the previous comments for this forum as well as multiple other CR4 forums that discussed this same subject from different angles. There is much to be learned. Given your past military experience, you will not have any problems culling the crap from the use full and educational information.

Toomuchfun

"Anytime anyone considers a conductor for anything,they should think about Silver.Think about Silver as a conductor,the shape and how it is placed."

Hi fellow guest Alfred.

re your above comment, when you said to use silver as a conductor it sounded like a good idea to me but as I read on i find i'm not sure whether you mean use silver as a conductor in the water or use silver for the electrodes because you went on to say "the shape and how it is placed." which sort of might indicate you were talking more about the electrodes than the conductor.

At first I thought you were talking about using powdered silver in the water as a conductor so now i'm confused.

Could you help me out here please?

Alfred,

Nukes eh? Sounds like you are talking about the "bomb" in AMR2. Quite a fitting name.

I might add that there is a fundamental safety hazard with what is commonly called Brown's gas, or HHO*. This is a mixture of H2 and O2 in the same ratio as found in water (and therefore, is ready to recombine at any instant in a powerful explosion). Typically, it results from what could be considered sloppy and hazardous electrolysis, in which the two gases are not collected separately, but together. Even (or especially) when in a perfectly sealed container, this gas is highly explosive. A simple static electricity spark can set off this bomb.

Hydrogen gas alone is hazardous, but not to the same degree. (A sealed container of H2 alone, when subjected to a spark will not blow up -- there is nothing for the H2 to react with.) Nevertheless, there are very rigorous safety standards for handling H2 in industry. Even H2 in properly designed and certified tanks and systems is hazardous. Hobbyists are wise to stay away from H2, unless the quantities produced are very small (i.e., enough to teach your kids about electrolysis.) Even in industrial systems, there can be leaks, and such leaks can lead to explosions because H2 burns easily in a very wide range of mixtures.

SO: H2 is dangerous. Mixed H2 and O2 is exceptionally dangerous.

* In the world of modern science and engineering there is effectively no use for this gas mixture that warrants the energy used to create it and the hazards associated with it. There are people who operate with a strong anti-science belief for whom HHO has magical properties -- the most prominent being that it can release more energy (during burning) than was consumed when in was created (via electrolysis). A high school chemistry text, read all the way through, will demonstrate many times over that this belief is unfounded. It is a central tenet of chemistry that reversible reactions require energy input in one direction and liberate an equal amount of energy in the opposite direction. There are, of course, losses in both directions. Therefore, in current state-of-the-art electrolysis (splitting) and fuel cell (recombining) processes, we'd expect about 38% overall efficiency. (75% in electrolysis, 50% in the fuel cell.) In labs, this "round trip" efficiency has been as high as 50%.

If you think you can improve on the efficency of making H2 as compared to a $300,000,000 plant that has over 35 patents to extract the most from the electrolysis of water, go ahead. These plants are located all over the Gulf coast of Texas, Oregon, and New Jersey.

Leave this to the professionals before you hurt yourself.

Isn't the process of product evolution moved ahead by taking the status quo and improving on it?

Providing it can be improved on and that is a matter of the material nature of things not empty assertions about improving the status quo.

For instance, the U.S. government keeps mandating higher and higher mileage requirements per gallon of gas. You can be sure those silly twits have no idea just how much, or how little energy is actually, materially, available in a gallon of gas.

To them its just words, empty notions, without the slightest idea of material possibility.

Hard fact. Anybody that extracts hydrogen from water or methane for that matter, by any method, electricity, super heated iron, or live steam on methane, has to expend more energy then they get from the hydrogen obtained. The only reason it is done is because the free hydrogen is worth the cost when applied for certain purposes.

It sure as hell isn't cheaper for car fuel than gasoline. Of course they keep screwing around with the price of a barrel of oil then it may well pay to get hydrogen by any method despite the cost.

j.

Jack,

Your post touched a nerve. I think perhaps the whole debate about this topic (and all similar ones such as over-unity machines) comes down to a division between those who accept and work with hard facts and those who hope the hard facts aren't true. Almost like speaking two completely different languages.

T.

reminds of when passing a series of clean water laws, an congress ask what range could the pH be. He was told 0 to 14. He said why are we allowing companies to dump water with pH of 6.5 to 7.5? He filed an amendment to lower the Ph requirment to 1 to 3. It was retracted fortuneately before the bill was passed

This may be an urban myth, but it must be based on some incident.

Hilarious! Especially if you described an actual incident (please tell me it's true). I must share this story with my chemistry students when we get to the section about pH.

All of the esoteric comment concerning chemistry here is very interesting (matter of fact, I've been re-learning my high school chemistry on account of my current hydrogen converter for cars project - molecular and ionic formulae and the like), but my experiences may help readers separate the wheat from the chaff.

I first built a hydrogen electrolysis device in 1972 (as I recall), when the gas stations were all closed one morning. The car was a Chevvy Monza Spyder. The car got 16 mpg without the electrolysis system, 25 with it in operation. I only got a chance to tinker with it during one trip, after which business and professional concerns got in the way. Friends and I were also setting up a completely independent farmstead, using methane derived from livestock waste for fuel. I also set up my ten acre acreage and underground home using alternate energy sources (water rams raised water from a river to a pond, which in turn powered a Michel-Bank turbine that produced electicity. Two small engines were powered by electrolysis-derived hydrogen and gasoline - an experimental process at the time.

Another of my friends put a hydrogen electrolysis unit on local police cars, almost doubling their gas mileage. There is simply no doubt that hydrogen obtained by electroylysis will increase gas mileage significantly; neither does current demand negate the process, inasmuch as a very small amperage will produce the gas (as I recall, I didn't even have to beef up the fuses in question).

I am wondering about something perhaps all the chemists here can supply.
An airline captain friend of mine says a "scientist" friend of his believes the hydrogen will somehow deteriorate the car engine. My step-daughter drove the Monza for years after I equipped it with the hydrogen converter, and had no trouble with the car at all, but not being a skilled chemist like the guys here would have us think they are, I'm wondering. Can anyone here explain how that would happen (of course, I'm going to the local university to ask a professor, but two opinions are always good).

If you can't answer my question, maybe you can explain why you have all the other opinions - and choose to inflict them on everyone here.

I am wondering about something perhaps all the chemists here can supply.
An airline captain friend of mine says a "scientist" friend of his believes the hydrogen will somehow deteriorate the car engine.

This is only a worry if large quantities of hydrogen are injected into the engine. The amount injected by onboard "HHO" generators is infinitesimally small (typically 100 watts worth, in an engine rated at 150,000 watts), so just as you would expect no improvement in fuel efficiency (as verified by tests) you would also not expect engine damage. However, many of these "HHO" devices are poorly designed and constructed, so explosions are possible, many of which can be seen on YouTube. So in that sense, yes, there could be engine damage from fire.

One concern mentioned for engines that are actually powered by hydrogen (such as the BWM dual fuel vehicle) generated by off-board means (reforming methane or industrial electrolysis) is embrittlement of the iron and steel parts of the engine. However the BMW consumes about 4000 times as much hydrogen as produced by most of the HHO scam (perpetual motion) devices (with 100,000 kW engine output requiring about 400,000 watts equivalent of H2). Mazda has been working with real hydrogen-burning rotary engines, and these engines are thought to be somewhat more resistant to the effects of hydrogen than others.

Even in legitimate projects like the BMW and Mazda efforts, hydrogen as a fuel to simply burn at the 25% efficiency of an internal combustion engine makes little sense, environmentally or economically. If the hydrogen were generated by solar power, then at least its life-cycle cost to the environment would be relatively low. However, generated as it is today, from reforming methane, such a scheme is environmentally ludicrous: hydrogen is generated at considerable cost (dollar and environmental) so throwing away 75% of its heat value in and internal combustion engine just doesn't make sense.

But the short answer to your question is, when oxyhydrogen is generated on board as in the HHO scams, the quantity of H2 is far too small to have any measurable effect on either engine performance or longevity (aside from the explosion hazard).

Your reported gains would be history making, and in complete disagreement with studies at universities and elsewhere. Publishing your results in a peer-reviewed journal (such as "Combustion and Flame"), or the SAE publication, "Automotive Engineering" would help to separate yourself from the convicted fraudsters who usually promote these HHO scams. If your scheme works as you've said, it is worth many billions of dollars.

lies and more lies corvair got more than 16 mpg.

popular mechanics put the nail in the coffin, they did lab tests and it a no go!

Wow. I was combing the net looking for a good ratio of vinegar to water for electrolysis(for the purpose of better fuel economy) and I found this scary thread. I believe that all the guy was looking for was to get some help on the issue and all you lads are crying idiot terrorist. There really is no hope for humanity....

Your last statement may be correct, the jury's still out. But please keep in mind, it's much more "idiot" than "terrorist". Please don't anyone EVER forget to put safety first in any investigation, no matter HOW shaky the science involved!

The jury is back. Two people Have gone to jail over these fuel scams. Making H2 is not safe, nor economic.

As for humanity, we are save each time a thieving huckster goes to jail.....

What, where, and who went to jail? Do you have a link?