Has anyone tried this?

[jonnybass]

I am sorry, this is way too brutal..... You must understand the laws of conservation of energy, to drive the electrolysis reaction to produce hydrogen, you must add a greater amount of electrical energy than the amount of potential energy evolved in the hydrogen gas produced. You cannot create more energy from something that does not already contain it. The difference is lost in heat etc.

 

It is irrelevant that a hydrogen flame burns as hot as the suns surface.

 

I am going to hang myself now lol...

 

Burt

 

LOL, there is already potential energy in the Hydrogen. Same as gasoline. That's why it's fuel.

[Burtess]

I am sorry, this is way too brutal..... You must understand the laws of conservation of energy, to drive the electrolysis reaction to produce hydrogen, you must add a greater amount of electrical energy than the amount of potential energy evolved in the hydrogen gas produced. You cannot create more energy from something that does not already contain it. The difference is lost in heat etc.

 

It is irrelevant that a hydrogen flame burns as hot as the suns surface.

 

I am going to hang myself now lol...

 

Burt

 

Please see bold text...

 

 

LOL, there is already potential energy in the Hydrogen. Same as gasoline. That's why it's fuel.

 

The key is that it takes more electrical power to generate an amount of hydrogen energy, thus why wouldn't you just use the full amount of electrical power to run the vehicle?

 

I should probably stop responding in this thread or I am going to get myself banned lol....

 

Burt:)

[jonnybass]

Please see bold text...

The key is that it takes more electrical power to generate an amount of hydrogen energy, thus why wouldn't you just use the full amount of electrical power to run the vehicle?

 

Because more energy is produced from burning the hydrogen than the electical energy used in the electrolysis to seperate the hydrogen from the H2O. That's what makes it viable.

 

Do you have any data that proves otherwise? I would like to see it.

 

You keep saying the same thing like a parrot, but I still don't know where you're getting your data from. Who the heck told you that it takes more energy to produce X amount of hydrogen via electrolysis than you would get from burning X amount of hydrogen???

[love2fishhave2work]

Here are some links for you guys to review

 

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/hydrogenenhance.html

http://hy-drive.com/main/Default.asp?Page=88

http://hy-drive.com/main/Default.asp?Page=107

http://www.chechfi.ca/gtdownload.htm

[Burtess]

A quick link I found (who knows how accurate the numbers are but makes sense):

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/4541.html

 

"Only four percent of hydrogen is made from water. This is done with electricity, in a process called electrolysis. Hydrogen is only made from water when the hydrogen must be extremely pure. Most electricity is generated from fossil fuel driven plants that are, on average, 30% efficient. Where does the other seventy percent of the energy go? Most is lost as heat, and some as it travels through the power grid.

 

Electrolysis is 70% efficient. To calculate the overall efficiency of making hydrogen from water, the standard equation is to multiply the efficiency of each step. In this case you would multiply the 30% efficient power plant times the 70% efficient electrolysis to get an overall efficiency of 20%. This means you have used four units of energy to create one unit of hydrogen energy (3)."

 

Burt

 

Edit: the (3) footnote = (3) Joseph J. Romm The Hype About Hydrogen: Fact & Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate 2004

 

 

Because more energy is produced from burning the hydrogen than the electical energy used in the electrolysis to seperate the hydrogen from the H2O. That's what makes it viable.

 

Do you have any data that proves otherwise? I would like to see it.

 

You keep saying the same thing like a parrot, but I still don't know where you're getting your data from. Who the heck told you that it takes more energy to produce X amount of hydrogen via electrolysis than you would get from burning X amount of hydrogen???

 

 

I already posted some data on post #11. We must also follow the law of Conservation of Energy, energy is neither created or lost from a system. Energy must be applied (electricity - which has already been generated at less than 100% effeciency) to cause the electrolysis of water, the products are H2, O2, and heat. So you then loose more energy from the system as heat. You put in more than you get out, thats it.

 

I am not going to argue this any longer, this is basic chemistry.

 

Now, if they can figure out how to rig this to a vehicle and use the excess electrical energy generated by the vehicle (is there excess? I don't know, I'm no mechanic) to electrolyse a small amount of water to H2, and adding this very small amount of H2 to the combustion chamber alters the way the gasoline burns and makes it more efficient, and they do this in an affordable and reliable system that is proven to work, I will take one for each of my vehicles. But no guinea pig will I be....

[danbouck]

Now, if they can figure out how to rig this to a vehicle and use the excess electrical energy generated by the vehicle (is there excess? I don't know, I'm no mechanic) to electrolyse a small amount of water to H2, and adding this very small amount of H2 to the combustion chamber alters the way the gasoline burns and makes it more efficient, and they do this in an affordable and reliable system that is proven to work, I will take one for each of my vehicles. But no guinea pig will I be....

 

I believe this is what the topic is about. Not running 100% hydrogen.

 

The replies keep stating the same thing over and over again. I think it is time to move on. Everybody will think what they want and their opinions won't change.

 

When/If my little experiment works I will gladly share the conclusion with everyone.

[Zubris21]

I already posted some data on post #11. We must also follow the law of Conservation of Energy, energy is neither created or lost from a system. Energy must be applied (electricity - which has already been generated at less than 100% effeciency) to cause the electrolysis of water, the products are H2, O2, and heat. So you then loose more energy from the system as heat. You put in more than you get out, thats it.

 

I am not going to argue this any longer, this is basic chemistry.

 

Now, if they can figure out how to rig this to a vehicle and use the excess electrical energy generated by the vehicle (is there excess? I don't know, I'm no mechanic) to electrolyse a small amount of water to H2, and adding this very small amount of H2 to the combustion chamber alters the way the gasoline burns and makes it more efficient, and they do this in an affordable and reliable system that is proven to work, I will take one for each of my vehicles. But no guinea pig will I be....

 

 

The thing that you aren't considering, is that they aren't completing a full electrolysis of water.... The products are not H2, O2 and Heat as you state.... The product is HHO. The O-H Bonds ARE NOT being broken, therefore loss of energy (heat) is not as significant of a factor. Its actually more of a displacement reaction.

 

You refer to your data on Post #11, and Im not disputing the facts there-in. The problem is that data is from 2004, prior to this new HHO technology.

 

Now with that said I still DON"T think these little add on components will do anything for your vehicle of gas mileage. I think it is a SCAM like many other. The video that was posted shows a car that has been modified to run on H2O and gas, but it doesn't say how it was modified. I doubt very much that it was anything like what these websites are trying to sell you.

 

I do think the technology is on its way, but don't waste your money on purchasing, or installing these cells.

Edited June 8, 2008 by freshwaterfanatic

[Guest Johnny Bass]

How about this? Putting 2 ounces of Acetone in your gas tank with every 10 gallons of gasoline. Apparently the amount is so small it is diluted and harmless to your car.

 

Its supposed to increase your mileage by about 25-30 MPG!!(about a 20% increase).

 

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005...900069_Acetone/

 

Maybe you can try it out on an old car Dan and get back to us. Actually PM me, because there may be a shortage in Acetone after that.lol

[danbouck]

I believe acetone is in fuel treatments as it is. Usually up to 25%

[Guest Johnny Bass]

I believe acetone is in fuel treatments as it is. Usually up to 25%

 

I know it is an oil derivative but 25%??? Just Google "acetone in fuel" and you will hear lots of people that tried it and say it works.

 

The trick is there can't be any ethanol in the gas mix, from what I understand.

 

It wont hurt to try it, no?

[danbouck]

I know it is an oil derivative but 25%??? Just Google "acetone in fuel" and you will hear lots of people that tried it and say it works.

 

The trick is there can't be any ethanol in the gas mix, from what I understand.

 

It wont hurt to try it, no?

 

 

Sorry meant 25% of the 1 liter bottle that probably works out to 2-3 ounces per 10 gallons of gas. I will do some research on this one.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Dan Bouck

[Weeds]

I've heard Acetone is an effective way of passing emissions testing. Never tried it myself. Here's a link on the subject with some decent reading

http://www.wisebread.com/can-acetone-drama...our-gas-mileage

[jonnybass]

Sorry to dig this thread up. lol

 

I have been reading a lot of forums about this topic and it seems that many people claim that this concept breaks everything from the laws of thermodynamics to the law of conservation of energy.

 

Well, Fox news reported that the U.S. military is having these devices installed in their Humvees. The U.S. military has technology so advanced that it would blow your mind. So, don't you think that U.S. military scientists/physicists would know about the laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy?

 

They built the nuclear bomb, so it seems to me that they would understand the law of conservation of energy, don't you agree?

 

If it was not possible, wouldn't they know?

 

To those of you who understand the science behind this better than I apparently do, can you please explain to me why the U.S. military is having these devices installed into their Humvees if it doesn't work?

 

No flaming please, just kindly answer the question.

[BillM]

I have some snake oil that will get your 100MPG!!!! Send Wester Union money orders to...........................

[jonnybass]

I have some snake oil that will get your 100MPG!!!! Send Wester Union money orders to...........................

 

Thanks for answering the question.

[BillM]

You believe Fox news?

 

The only thing I can see even involves water is what Roy mentioned on the first page. Water injection to decrease intake temps and increase HP...

 

Don't you think if this were actually true, people would have been doing it years ago?

[Raf]

that wasn't Roy.

[jonnybass]

You believe Fox news?

 

Do I belive Fox News? LOL, I hate Faux News!

 

But, even Faux News would have checked with the U.S. Department of Defense before they made such a claim.

 

So assuming that the U.S. military is involved as Fox News claims, you still haven't answered my question.

 

Don't you think if this were actually true, people would have been doing it years ago?

 

Is 1969 long enough ago? http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex51230.htm

 

I'm not saying that this works, because I don't know either way. I'm just curious as to why the U.S. Military would want a device installed into their Hummers that defy the laws of physics?

[camillj]

OK ... I cant take it any more .... as a guy who studied chemistry and physics in university I can say the following with some confidence (from personal experience) :

 

YES you can get hydrogen gas from water - and electrolysis is a VERY easy way to do this

 

YES Hydrogen gas will burn to produce an EXOTHERMIC reaction - in other words it will power things (like engines) - its a little bit explosive ... so you have to manage the burn .... but it does work !

 

The 'missing link' is to get the hydrogen out of the water AND to store it in an economically viable way ... what hasnt been discussed in this thread is harnessing things like solar power (to produce the electricity) to convert water to hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas (both sunlight and water are readily available and practically free)... and to store this in a way that can be used to enhance ) or replace the fuels currently in use.

 

While I am not sure we have already got commercially available and safe hydrogen fuel cells YET ... it would be VERY niaive to think this won't be accomplished in our lifetime ... the rising cost of and limited availabiity of current fossil fuels are at the point where it now makes SENSE to do so ... just like we used to think it wasnt commercially viable to separate oil from the TAR SANDS .... it wasnt ... THEN .. but it DEFINITELY IS ... NOW ... and billions of dollars are being invested (and made) proving it works ...

 

My guess ... less than 10 years ... probably will become an huge safety/legislation issue as people try to store Hydrogen they make themselves from solar power - and transfer this from storage into useable containers (in fuel cells) .... but wow ... come on folks what an exciting issue to be a part of...brace yourself ....

 

 

and here's a little link talking about the subject in some easy to understand terms ... http://www.theodoregray.com/periodictable/...01.1/index.html

 

Or ... go fish

Edited July 14, 2008 by camillj

[BillM]

that wasn't Roy.

 

 

Sorry bud, I atleast got 2 letters right!!!

[jonnybass]

The 'missing link' is to get the hydrogen out of the water AND to store it in an economically viable way ...

 

Thanks for that explanation camillj.

 

From what I've read, the idea that people are buying into involves burning the hydrogen as it's produced, thus no need to store it. A "Hydrogen on demand" type of system.

[Rich]

How dumb is it to fuel things on water instead of fossil fuels. I'm guessing saltwater is a no-no.. so we're going to use up all our freshwater (which by the way is more expensive than gas) to get around?

[Artem]

I am going to say that this is not true. I study science at university and this violates the first law of thermodynamics; which states energy can neither be created nor destroyed and in an isolated system the total energy is always the same.

 

Water is a molecule of H2O, Hydrogen H2 releases energy when it is reacted with oxygen to form water (H2O). So the problem here is that it is a circular reaction.

 

2 H2O + Energy --> 2 H2 + O2

which then reacts to

2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O + Energy.

You neither gain nor lose energy through this reaction and that is even if it does occur so that pretty much is theoretical proof that this device is a scam.

 

If you want to increase you're fuel efficiency the best way to do it is to work with your car. For every unit of gas burned you produce 1 unit of energy say. You want to make this unit of energy count for as much as possible. Ways to do this are simply making adjustments to your driving habits. This is especially important for long distance trips like going up north.

 

1. Use the gas and break pedal as little as possible. Accelerating very quickly, like flooring it after a green light is very inefficient. You put the car into high RPM and while you gain speed faster you burn more energy getting there. So if you are at a red light be light on the gas pedal and get to cruising speed fairly slowly, you want all the gear changes to be done at as low as possible RPM. The break pedal is the other one; you want to use this as little as possible, every time you break you are losing potential coasting energy which is burnt fuel. This doesn't mean disconnect your break and just pray for the best it means avoid the style of driving where you gas up to 130 get near the car ahead of you break down to 100 then gas back up to 130.

 

2. Speed is a bit more tricky. Every car has it's own ideal speed depending on a ton of factors, where the gears are set, how much HP the engine has, the aerodynamics of the car. What you want is to be in the very lowest RPM of your top gear. For my 03' Accord this is around 90 km/h or give or take but I still drive 100 on the highways just to save some time. Pretty much you should not be going above the speed limit, yes you save time but you burn more fuel. One of the few cases where time is not money. Also connected with point 1. is that you want to keep a constant speed, if you are going 100 go 100, not jumping back and forth between 95 and 105. Cruise control is ideal in this situation.

 

3. Take care of your car. Keep up to date with your oil change, make sure your tires are fully inflated, have a mechanic check under the hood that everything is in good order.

 

So to sum up, take your time driving, go the speed limit and try to cruise control and if you don't have that keep a steady foot to keep a steady pace. Fishing is about enjoying yourself, enjoy the drive up and the scenery as well. Save green by enjoying the greens.

 

Cheers

[jonnybass]

How dumb is it to fuel things on water instead of fossil fuels. I'm guessing saltwater is a no-no.. so we're going to use up all our freshwater (which by the way is more expensive than gas) to get around?

 

Freshwater is more expensive than gas? I can fill my gas tank with tap water for a few cents - Your water bill where you live must be thousands of dollars each month. Shower much?

[jonnybass]

I am going to say that this is not true. I study science at university and this violates the first law of thermodynamics; which states energy can neither be created nor destroyed and in an isolated system the total energy is always the same.

 

Water is a molecule of H2O, Hydrogen H2 releases energy when it is reacted with oxygen to form water (H2O). So the problem here is that it is a circular reaction.

 

2 H2O + Energy --> 2 H2 + O2

which then reacts to

2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O + Energy.

You neither gain nor lose energy through this reaction and that is even if it does occur so that pretty much is theoretical proof that this device is a scam.

 

Thanks for that write up Artem.

 

My question to you is: If this is such a basic violation of the law of conservation of energy, why is the U.S. Military having this developed for their Hummers?

 

That's why I dug this thread up - to ask the nay-sayers this question. It seems to me that the U.S. Military physicists probably know more than I do, so I was just wondering why they feel that this technology is feasible when OFC scientists know otherwise.

Edited July 15, 2008 by jonnybass