Water Fuel

[bascule]

Wikipedia article on Brown's gas, a.k.a. "HHO gas":

 

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

 

In 1966, physicist Dr. William Rhodes patented the first water torch (U.S. Patent 3,262,872). In 1977, Yull Brown expanded upon the patent to produce a similar water torch (U.S. Patent 4,014,777). In 2004, Dennis Klein, of Hydrogen Technology Applications (HyTech) patented an, again, expanded version of Brown's water torch (U.S. Patent 6,689,259).

 

Skeptics point out that there is no solid evidence for any of these unusual properties, and suggest that all the observations could be explained by normal electrolysis and ordinary diatomic hydrogen and oxygen. Proponents seem reluctant to perform direct comparisons of Brown's gas with hydrogen/oxygen mixtures produced by more conventional means.

 

Claims that Brown's gas could be used as fuel for cars and other everyday energy needs are also met with skepticism, because it has not been demonstrated that it can be compressed to fit into a reasonable space without becoming dangerously explosive. Even proponents of some forms of the gas acknowledge that it is chronically unstable-rapidly degrading into basic H2 and O2 gas. It is thus unsuitable for storage, and can only be produced on demand. This makes the gas impractical for automotive use, as stored electricity used for on-demand electrolysis would be more efficiently spent on a purely electrical propulsion system. Even if storage problems are overcome, the gas's capacity to store energy is limited by the first law of thermodynamics, and thus offers no unique energy storage characteristics when compared to "normal" hydrogen. Conventional electrolysis of water into hydrogen already achieves theoretical energy efficiency of up to 94% (see main article on electrolysis for a complete discussion of efficiency), and no study on Brown's gas has properly researched the efficiency of the production process.

[woelen]

woelen' date=' do you know anything about Dr. Ruggero Maria Santilli? It seems the principles behind this thing are based on his research...

 

http://magnegas.com/

 

I mean, does he have any papers? Has he been peer reviewed?[/quote']

There is indeed a peer-reviewed paper about this subject. I posted a link to it further up in this thread. Whether it is real or fake, that has to be decided by other people, who try to independently reproduce the making of this HHO gas and to study its properties.

 

Of course, I have serious doubts on all of this, but I'm inclined to wait and see what independent research on this subject will yield. As I mentioned already, a few dutch students can go working full time at a university on this for three quarters of a year or so and I'm really eager to see their results.

[bascule]

There is indeed a peer-reviewed paper about this subject. I posted a link to it further up in this thread. Whether it is real or fake' date=' that has to be decided by other people, who try to independently reproduce the making of this HHO gas and to study its properties.

 

Of course, I have serious doubts on all of this, but I'm inclined to wait and see what independent research on this subject will yield. As I mentioned already, a few dutch students can go working full time at a university on this for three quarters of a year or so and I'm really eager to see their results.[/quote']

 

Have you checked this out? Sounds like "HHO gas" is actually a relatively old discovery, originally called "Brown's gas"

 

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

 

In 1966, physicist Dr. William Rhodes patented the first water torch (U.S. Patent 3,262,872). In 1977, Yull Brown expanded upon the patent to produce a similar water torch (U.S. Patent 4,014,777). In 2004, Dennis Klein, of Hydrogen Technology Applications (HyTech) patented an, again, expanded version of Brown's water torch (U.S. Patent 6,689,259).

[woelen]

Yes, I've checked that out, while reading your post with the fairly long quote.

I largely agree with this page and the sceptics, which are expressed in that. But still, I think independent research on this subject will be useful. So, although I have serious doubts on this, I do not dismiss it completely as rubbish. I wait until independent research is done on this and then I decide, whether it is rubbish or something really new and great.

[lethalfang]

I don't care if you can make HHO and make it stable.

The basic thernodynamics has not and will not have changed.

You go from H2O to HHO: if absolutely no heat is lost during this process, a minimum of X amount of energy is required to do so.

You go from HHO go H2O: if absoutely no heat is lost during this process, the maximum possible amount energy you can extract from this process is X.

 

So the theoratically best you can do is to get nothing, and you cannot do the theoratically best.

[woelen]

@lethalfang: The conservation of energy is not the issue over here. No claims are made of making more energetic material than what is put into the material by means of electrical energy. So, this is not a point at all.

 

What makes this interesting is the possibly completely new kind of bonding and new applications of orbital theory and quantum mechanics. So, if HHO is real, then it definitely is important, at least from a fundamental scientific point of view. Whether it can be applied in a practical setup is another point.

[bobd441]

Hello, a Newbie here!

 

That's not the point.

The point is free energy' date=' work, and thernodynamics.

If you begin with water as a fuel, and ends with water as a waste, there is no friggin' way any energy can be extracted for work. [/quote']

 

Not being in the science or physics field, please pardon my stupidity or foolishness, but could it be that there is some 'free' energy with the result of LESS water as waste?

 

Just a thought to someone who watched that video and was thinking about the 'potential' of all the water we have around here waiting to be burned as fuel! LOL

[woelen]

No, there is conservation of matter (even more specific, under the conditions, given here, there is conservation of elements), and there is conservation of energy. So, the amount of water input to the system will be exactly the same as the water-output after "combustion". Also, no energy pops up out of nowhere. The amount of energy gained in "burning" the HHO will be at most equal to the amount of electrical energy, consumed by making the HHO. In practice it will be less.

[lethalfang]

Hello' date=' a Newbie here!

 

 

 

Not being in the science or physics field, please pardon my stupidity or foolishness, but could it be that there is some 'free' energy with the result of LESS water as waste?

 

Just a thought to someone who watched that video and was thinking about the 'potential' of all the water we have around here waiting to be burned as fuel! LOL[/quote']

 

Well, the water he claims as fuel has to go somewhere or become something. If it is to become something else, then it requires work because water is of the lowest free energy of all molecules that can be made from hydrogen and/or oxygen atoms. It the waste is water, then he gains nothing. Unless, of course, he's claiming nuclear fusion. LOL

[doG]

Well, the water he claims as fuel has to go somewhere or become something. If it is to become something else, then it requires work because water is of the lowest free energy of all molecules that can be made from hydrogen and/or oxygen atoms. It the waste is water, then he gains nothing. Unless, of course, he's claiming nuclear fusion. LOL

It does. Some of the allegedly converted water burns off as hyddrogen and oxygen. SOme of it goes back to being water. Is there some reason you keep thinking that he's getting back as much water as he's putting in? That's the only way your "nothing" claim holds up.

[Guest_Jim*]

It does. Some of the allegedly converted water burns off as hyddrogen and oxygen. SOme of it goes back to being water. Is there some reason you keep thinking that he's getting back as much water as he's putting in? That's the only way your "nothing" claim holds up.

I'm pretty sure that what lethalfang was trying to point out is that in chemical processes however much energy there is before you start, whether it's in bonds or heat, is how much there will be when you stop. Since water is simplest thing hydrogen and oxygen can make it would therefore take energy to force it to be come something else, so the only energy you'd get back is what you put in if the end product is water. Imagine a car that can make gasoline by going in reverse, have it go from point A to point B then back to point A in reverse using the same path. The end result is nothing has been gained, nothing has been lost, and nothing has happened.

[concrete_hed]

I just read http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/international_journal.pdf. It is a scientific analysis of the HHO gas basically. If your smart and you understand lots of intelligent words then u might understand it more than me, but from what I gathered, it involves magnets, electricity (but not as much electricity as normal electrolysis of water uses) and something about reversing the magnetic polarisation on something. If you want to read it yourself, read the first 2 pages and the last 3 or 4, you might be able to understand it more than me.

[gonelli]

Hasn't this forum shown HHO gas systems being a loss of energy, rather than a gain?

[Klaynos]

Hasn't this forum shown HHO gas systems being a loss of energy, rather than a gain?

 

Yeah, it's actually a requirement of the universe... you always spend more energy splitting the water than you get reforming it.

[gonelli]

Yeah, it's actually a requirement of the universe... you always spend more energy splitting the water than you get reforming it.

 

That's alright then, I was beginning to think I had forgotten something that made it defy such principles.

 

On that note, is all the belief in HHO being so wonderful the result of poorly researched news reports, or is there someone out in the world you claims to have evidence?

[Klaynos]

That's alright then, I was beginning to think I had forgotten something that made it defy such principles.

 

On that note, is all the belief in HHO being so wonderful the result of poorly researched news reports, or is there someone out in the world you claims to have evidence?

 

AFAIK it's pretty much just media hype... What might be true is that if you create the hydrogen using a cleaner energy source than car engines then you can store and distribute that hydrogen for use in cars... But atm I don't think the savings from mass energy creation in power stations is good enough to balance out the energy loss to make it any better in terms of total carbon output to conventional cars.

[duke007]

read http://www.energyoptions.com/tech/browns.html

 

it is called brown gas (HHO), rather that exploding it implodes. It is made by using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then back again. 1 litre of water makes 1860 litres of HHO (dont ask me how that works but thats what it says in the article).

 

I dont think that this is possible, when u recombine hydrogen and oxygen u get water again, not some HHO gas. If you ask me its bull, unless i see it with my own eyes (not through the tv) then i'll believe it, but i reckon its fake

HHO gas is H+H+O in gas form, 2x Hydrogen and 1x Oxygen, which when combined forms water. You get HHO from water. This guy claims to get a super increase in gas milage from his device. http://waterfuelproj.blogspot.com All the way from South Africa

[UC]

HHO gas is H+H+O in gas form, 2x Hydrogen and 1x Oxygen, which when combined forms water. You get HHO from water. This guy claims to get a super increase in gas milage from his device. http://waterfuelproj.blogspot.com All the way from South Africa

 

BEATING A DEAD HORSE.

 

It's utter and complete crap and will remain that way for all eternity, no matter how many conspiracy theorists and con artists claim otherwise.

[Farrah Day]

I know this thread is long dead, but as I've just joined the forum and have some experience in this area, I thought I'd throw in my two-penneth.

 

Firstly, the term HHO, is a real misnomer. This abbreviation in itself creates much confusion as it suggests something that it is not. Believe it or not, this is the Water Fuel Cell laymans term simply for 2H2 and O2. The stoichiometric gases resulting from simple everyday electrolysis. It's wrong, it's misleading and it's confusing, but there you go, that's all it is

 

Unlike in a chemistry class at school where the gases resulting from electrolysis are kept separate in order to show the two-to-one ration when water is broken down, hydrogen and oxygen are simply common ducted together. We have a mixture of H2 and O2.

 

HHO, yes, sometimes known as Brown's Gas has long mislead people into believing that this is some mysterious gas with mysterious properties. It's all nonsense that has gained momentum because of the uneducated and ignorant.

 

When you electrolyse water you get 2H2 and O2, nothing more.

 

The implosion aspect of this gas mixture is also something that has allowed to evolve all sorts of crazy ideas, again giving credence to mysterious properties by the uneducated.

 

Consider this:

 

We have 2H2 and O2. To get these gases from 2H2O, we added energy, so when recombined to H2O, they will naturally give up this energy, in the form of electricity in the new hydrogen fuel cells, or heat in an internal combustion engine. However, 2H2 and O2 cannot recombine into the water molecule before the H2 and O2 molecules first dissociate into atoms. And this is partly where the implosion argument comes from.

 

From an internal combustion engine aspect, energy is added to the 2H2 and O2 in the form of heat. It ignites, but the initial process to initially convert the hydrogen and oxygen molecules to atoms is endothermic, drawing energy from the environment - effectively implosive. However, the following reaction whereby the atoms reform into the molecule is exothermic and more than compenstates for the initial endothermic reaction. And of course this all happens in a fraction of a second.

 

Also, and here's the crux of the implosion argument, in a cold internal combustion engine, as the 2H2 and O2 reforms into liquid water, it is many times less the volume of the gas, so this too adds another dimension within an internal combustion engine, effectively pulling up rather than pushing the piston down. However, once the engine heats up, the resulting water would tend to stay gaseous form rather than contract down to liquid form, so the latter reaction would no longer happen.

 

So there is no mystery here. Igniting 2H2 in O2 gases will give H2O liquid in ambient conditions which takes up many times less volume than the gases did. Simple everyday chemistry. No mystery, no unexplainable phenomenon occuring here... just known science at work.

 

As for Kleins welder, there is no discovery and no mystery here either. He's using an electrolyser to produce 2H2 and O2, which is common ducted and then ignited as it emerges from the blow torch. Simply common duct 2H2 and O2, nothing more, as used by all manner of hydroboosters!

 

How he can claim this to be his own invention and apply for patents is quite beyond me.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Farrah Day