Almost... You see, there is no need for a corporation to make HHO. You put water in a tank on your car and that's it.

So buy one. What are you waiting for?

Dennis Lee? You're going to be waiting a long long long time...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Almost... You see, there is no need for a corporation to make HHO. You put water in a tank on your car and that's it.

So buy one. What are you waiting for?

Dennis Lee? You're going to be waiting a long long long time...

I'm here to share info. Is that a problem for you Rush? And if so, why?




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I'm here to share info. Is that a problem for you Rush? And if so, why?

No. Of course not.

You ought to love MEG

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Most people don't know these things so it's up to someone to let them know.

What's MEG?




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I'm here to share info. Is that a problem for you Rush? And if so, why?

No. Of course not.

You ought to love MEG

Interesting.

---

Scorpions - Wind Of Change

What's MEG?

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

That belongs in the free energy post Misfit shows us a few posts down. But it is interesting. I have a bunch of movies on it but no companies selling it yet.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Almost... You see, there is no need for a corporation to make HHO. You put water in a tank on your car and that's it.

That is the part that won't work. Where does the energy come from to turn the water into hydrogen and oxygen (it has to come from someplace)? Remember that you get less energy out than was put in.

How this application works seems to be just the application of electricity. You have 2 electrodes in the water and hydrogen splits out and rises to the top. Similar to what the Germans did in WWII to make Heavy Water. Now they made thousands of gallons of the stuff, Heavy Water, but they made it by spliting the H20 with electricity. So maybe a battery to get you started and then recharge the battery as you go along. Hydrogen was used by the Germans to make fertilizer. I don't know that process. The Germans did add lime and phosphate to the water to make it VERY caustic, this made the Heavy Water split out and combine better. All this was explained on the Discovery Channel when they talked about the ferry boat sinking during WWII in Finland, I think.

If you are going to have a battery aboard to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and allow it to recombine, you would be better off just running the car from the battery. The conversion from water to hydrogen and oxygen and then back is no better than break even.

---

BOINC WIKI

There is no "turning back" into water proccess needed. Water is the natural exhaust after the HHO is combusted. Passive result, not needed proccess.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I see that we are basically on the same page. I would really like something like this for cars.

The one thing that you have to worry about is the pollution created by the power plant that creates the electricity used to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. However, this can be fixed too - as long aspeople get over the idea the nuclear power plants are bad. Yes, solar electric, wind, and hydroelectric don't polute while in operation, but each one has its problems. Solar has a toxic waste stream in production, wind kills birds, and hydroelectric kills fish.

Actually I read in a journal somewhere that some hydroelectric dams produce as much CO2 and methane as a fossil fuelled power stations.

> mighten it have bEEn this Mystique ? International Rivers Network

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

Thank you, nobody.

:)

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Thank you, nobody.

:)

You are quite Welcome MrGray.

< you might want to see this also: Hydropower and Carbon Trading - 'Comments on Projects' . . .

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

Amazing, isn't it, nobody.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Amazing, isn't it, nobody.

Very 'Amazin' MrGray . . . and thEn thErE's *Fizzy Science*

>

There are a number of reasons for the low awareness of reservoir emissions even among policy makers and scientists working on climate-related issues: the science is still relatively young, comparatively little has been published on it in peer-reviewed journals, and numerous uncertainties about net emissions lev­els remain to be resolved

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

There is no "turning back" into water proccess needed. Water is the natural exhaust after the HHO is combusted. Passive result, not needed proccess.

Uhh... the 'HHO is combusted' is the 'turning back into water' process.

Energy is lost when power is drawn out of the battery. Energy is lost when the water is cracked into hydrogen and oxygen. Energy is lost when whatever process is used to turn the hydrogen and oxygen into this 'HHO' stuff. Energy is lost when the 'HHO' is combusted. Energy is lost when converting the energy released in combustion into mechanical energy (and LOTS of it). Energy is lost at all steps of the process, mostly through waste heat. You likely WOULD be better off, as far as efficiency is concerned, to just hook that battery up to an electric motor and run the car that way (fewer opportunities for energy loss, and electric motors can be WAY more efficient than ANY POSSIBLE internal combustion engine).

This thread is for educational purposes so...

Can you prove your statements?

No more random input. Please document so something may come of all this typing.

Thank you.

There is no "turning back" into water proccess needed. Water is the natural exhaust after the HHO is combusted. Passive result, not needed proccess.

Uhh... the 'HHO is combusted' is the 'turning back into water' process.

Energy is lost when power is drawn out of the battery. Energy is lost when the water is cracked into hydrogen and oxygen. Energy is lost when whatever process is used to turn the hydrogen and oxygen into this 'HHO' stuff. Energy is lost when the 'HHO' is combusted. Energy is lost when converting the energy released in combustion into mechanical energy (and LOTS of it). Energy is lost at all steps of the process, mostly through waste heat. You likely WOULD be better off, as far as efficiency is concerned, to just hook that battery up to an electric motor and run the car that way (fewer opportunities for energy loss, and electric motors can be WAY more efficient than ANY POSSIBLE internal combustion engine).

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I think we're getting a little off track insofar as the laws of thermodynamics debate is going. Seems to me the real key point of the video is the use of hydrogen in place of other fuels, including for such applications as welding, produced on a usable scale by a device that simply plugs into a standard outlet. Regardless of which way you slice it, hydrogen, either raw or HHO, would be the ideal fuel to burn because it does not pollute. It would probably be better to do that than use batteries or hydrogen fuel cells to power the car directly because, sooner or later, those batteries wear out and have to be carefulyl dealt with so as not to pollute themselves.

Now, as to the "closed system" of the car being run on hydrogen... No one is doubting that energy is lost at all levels, but, two key questions that haven't been answered are: how much electricity, using this method, is required to convert the water to fuel, and can this current be supplied, either directly or through batteries in storage, by the engine's own generator? As it is, car batteries are recharged constantly by the engine's own attached generator. There would be some point where the battery is topped up and the extra energy generated basically goes nowhere (usable). Ergo, if extra batteries are added to the system, would this be sufficient?

I'm not saying the idea's perfect, only that the above two unanswered questions would make for some study into it all first, before seeing if we really would have to plug in our cars to generate fuel first.

---

I think we're getting a little off track insofar as the laws of thermodynamics debate is going. Seems to me the real key point of the video is the use of hydrogen in place of other fuels, including for such applications as welding, produced on a usable scale by a device that simply plugs into a standard outlet. Regardless of which way you slice it, hydrogen, either raw or HHO, would be the ideal fuel to burn because it does not pollute. It would probably be better to do that than use batteries or hydrogen fuel cells to power the car directly because, sooner or later, those batteries wear out and have to be carefulyl dealt with so as not to pollute themselves.

The exhaust of complete combustion of hydrocarbons (such as gasoline) is water vapor and CO2. The exhaust of hydrogen combustion is only water vapor. Both water vapor and CO2 are greenhouse gases. Switching to hydrogen combustion from hydrocarbon combustion would only switch from two greenhouse gases to one greenhouse gas. Since both water vapor and CO2 are natural components of our atmosphere, you can either say that both hydrocarbon and hydrogen combustion pollute or neither pollute. I would say that they both pollute.

Now, as to the "closed system" of the car being run on hydrogen... No one is doubting that energy is lost at all levels, but, two key questions that haven't been answered are: how much electricity, using this method, is required to convert the water to fuel, and can this current be supplied, either directly or through batteries in storage, by the engine's own generator? As it is, car batteries are recharged constantly by the engine's own attached generator. There would be some point where the battery is topped up and the extra energy generated basically goes nowhere (usable). Ergo, if extra batteries are added to the system, would this be sufficient?

I'm not saying the idea's perfect, only that the above two unanswered questions would make for some study into it all first, before seeing if we really would have to plug in our cars to generate fuel first.

Question 1: It takes 118 kcal of energy to convert 2 moles of water into 2 moles of hydrogen and 1 mole of oxygen.

2H2O -> 2H2 + O2, ΔG = 118 kcal.

Furthermore, it releases 118kcal of energy to combust 2 moles of hydrogen and one mole of oxygen into two moles of water.

2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O, ΔG = - 118 kcal.

(1 kcal = 1 kilocalorie = 1 food calorie = 4184 J (Joules) = amount of energy to raise the temperature of 1 kg (kilogram) of water (at, if I remember correctly, 4 degrees C) by 1 degree C. 1 mole of a substance is Avogadro's number (6.022 x 10^23) of molecules of that substance.)

Neglecting losses due to inefficiency, it takes the same amount of energy to crack the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen as is released when the hydrogen and oxygen is combusted back into water.

However, due to the second law of thermodynamics, (stated simply as 'heat spontaneously flows from warmer materials into cooler materials', or equivalently as 'concentrated energy diffuses over time'), there will always be some loss in efficiency in ANY process of energy exchange.

So, it is not possible to get the same amount of usable energy out of a hydrogen combustion engine as was put into making the hydrogen. To answer your second question, even if all the mechanical energy produced by that hydrogen engine went into running a generator that would charge the battery powering the hydrogen production, the battery would still discharge. Also note that in this case, zero mechanical energy would be available for actually moving the car.

The car battery in your gasoline or diesel powered automobile can be kept charged using only a SMALL portion of the mechanical energy produced in its engine because you don't try to synthesize the gasoline or diesel out of CO2 & H20 there at the automobile while in operation, as was being proposed that the 'HHOmobile' could regenerate the hydrogen and oxygen needed while in operation by cracking water in a tank.

I proposed to forget about hydrogen (and by extention HHO) combustion altogether and just go with an electric car because of inefficiencies and energy losses at all stages of any type of internal combustion engine. The typical 'efficient' internal combustion engine used in automobiles has an efficiency of about 20% (efficiency being defined as power out/power in -- that is to say the mechanical energy output of the engine divided by the energy produced in combusting the fuel). Most of this energy loss is due to either heat being lost out the exhaust, or due to heat being lost in heating up the engine (thats why you need a cooling system, to get rid of that heat before damage is done to the engine).

The best efficiency I have heard about in an experimental automobile engine is 42%.

Typical efficiencies in electric motors are between 80% and 95%.

If you are going for efficiency in a automobile, that is mechanical energy usable for moving the auto divided by the amount of energy you have to supply to the automobile, electric motors win hands down over ANY sort of combustion engine.

Thank you for your hard work, KWSN - MajorKong.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I think we're getting a little off track insofar as the laws of thermodynamics debate is going. Seems to me the real key point of the video is the use of hydrogen in place of other fuels, ...

The 'clever' trick would be to extract hydrogen gas from oil and natural gas at source and pump the CO2 liberated back down the source oil/gas well.

The geological strata there has kept the oil confined for millennia. If the oil/gas company are not too sloppy about their well heads, then the stuff should stay confined for a few millennia yet. The heat and pressure down there might even let the CO2 form carbonaceous rocks.

And then again, there could well be the sort of disaster as has happened with the mud volcano in Indonesia...


For whatever is proposed, the complete fuel cycle must be considered.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)