HHO Water Temp Effect?

It probably is not a straight forward answer but since the reaction is endothermic I suppose that the higher the temperature the better for the process.

According to the Wikipedia articles on the topic, the answer is "yes, it does".

The higher the temperature of the water the less electricity is used, therefore it is just combining energy needed for the process....In fact if you go high enough in temperature you don't need electricity at all....There are some other tweaks that can be made such as electrode material and shape, and various chemical compounds added to the water...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting

No and yes. If the heating process of the preheat is considered there is no difference in the energy required. This is especially important if you are paying for this initial energy. If you are not paying for the initial preheat then you will use less energy.

Electricity is one of the most expensive forms of energy usually. Do a price comparison between with the initial heat and the electrolysis vs. the electrolysis only.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Two Faradays of charge will produce one gm mole of oxygen and two gm molesof hydrogen irrespective of temperature. However, the voltage will depend on the resistivity, which can decrease with increase in temperature.

This can reduce the energy consmed.

Not quite. One faraday produces 1 gm.eq of any substance. For hydrogen, equivalent weight = atomic weight = 1 = 1/2 molecular weight (MW = 2). So one faraday produces 1 gm = 1/2 gm.mol. Two faradays produce 1 gm.mol (2 gm).

In the case of oxygen, equivalent weight = 1/2 atomic weight = 8 = 1/4 molecular weight (MW = 32). So one faraday produces 8 gm = 1/4 gm.mol. Two faradays produce 1/2 gm.mol (16 gm).

Yes, and the reason is diffusion limited current at the electrodes. Hotter is better. Diffusion limited current is sort of a function of overvoltage, and vice versa, thus for a given level of applied current, there is the potential to lower overvoltage (and thus the applied voltage) by increasing temperature, up to a certain limit. The Butler-Volmer equation may be of some use in understanding this better (or not).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler-Volmer_equation

ARE GAS PRICES KILLING YOUR BUDGET? RUN YOUR CAR ON WATER! EASY PLANS!

It won't work.

I agree with that, but what we are talking about is simply the rate at which hydrogen can be produced at an electrode.

I never would plan to totally replace the normal fuel of any engine with enough hydrogen to replace it on a BTU/BTU basis. Running small quantities of hydrogen on nearly any engine that relies on liquid fuel will possibly improve overall combustion efficiency by increasing the burn velocity when ignition takes place. This results in more power being output from a given volume of fuel, thus requiring less fuel to go the same distance. This apparently works especially well on some of the heavier fuels that are known to be hard to burn in ICE, such as Bunker C.

I would also rather obtain my hydrogen in a pure stream, and not "dangerously" mixed with oxygen as in these "HHO" schemes (in which there is really nothing new, no such thing as HHO, just an admixture of H2 and O2 in air. One proven method of having hydrogen at any sought flow rate and pressure (just based on the scale of the chemical reactor, and its pressure rating) is CCHOD, or catalytic carbon hydrogen on demand (from aluminum metal). By-product is simple aluminum oxide that can be sold, or sent to landfill. Let your imagination decide where the aluminum comes from at what price.

I suppose OP could be talking about hydrogen production on a vehicle to (supposedly) increase efficiency, but he didn't say that. It's been kicked to death, rightly, more than once on this forum.

Yes, there are some ideas that need a good solid kicking to death. Drill here, drill now is not one of them. I am a firm believer that good old fashioned hydrocarbons will be the major transportable fuel for many, many years to come. Not saying where the liquids will be derived from.

I also happen to believe that if we were really serious about it, we could produce enough biodiesel from algaeculture to power our entire fleet from now on. Not to mention producing jet fuel from water and carbon dioxide (driven by nuclear reactors) - Navy already has this capability.

I'd like to thank everyone so much for the feedback. Especially SolarEagle. answers with links are the greatest ! ! ! I was able to read the info in the three links and then progress to other information from within them. While I don't believe the claims of HHO enthusiasts/scammers, I do believe in improving everything. Every step closer to a good answer is worth taking, even if there are several more steps to be taken before we should actually pay money for them!. Although there was info on higher temperature electrolysis, I could not find info on efficiencies that a NORMAL person could achieve at home with a little HHO toy setup. I was thinking 200 deg F and they were playing with 800 deg C. WOW. Wish I could find stats on the difference between room temp cracking and 200 deg F cracking !! Thanx everyone Harold

Get some semi-log paper (or chart in Excel) and put the room temperature data at one end, the 800 °C data at the other, then where the line intersects 200 °C, you have a pretty good guess.