Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Chemistry => Topic started by: Atomic-S on 27/02/2008 04:42:54
-
I understand via Fox News that someone has invented a new fuel gas which consists simply of water, somehow electrolyzed to form "HHO gas". It is said to be useful in torches, and also as an automobile fuel. Details are somewhat obscure but it appears that this is handled and burned as a single gas, not as separate hydrogen and oxygen as in most such systems. Does anyone know anything more about this?
-
I understand via Fox News that someone has invented a new fuel gas which consists simply of water, somehow electrolyzed to form "HHO gas". It is said to be useful in torches, and also as an automobile fuel. Details are somewhat obscure but it appears that this is handled and burned as a single gas, not as separate hydrogen and oxygen as in most such systems. Does anyone know anything more about this?
If that compound really exists, I imagine it to be so "stable" to burn explosively with the light of a candle one mile away... [:)]
P.S.
(It means I think it wouldn't be stable at all.)
-
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=12218.0
-
The televised details were vague probably because there's nothing special about the 'single gas'; it is actually just oxygen and hydrogen mixed in one container at a certain ratio. HHO doesn't refer to any sort of special bonding or gas (hydrogen can only bond once). Water has a 2:1 ratio of Hydrogen to Oxygen, so the molar ratio of gases (to react completely) must also be 2:1, or HHO. This mixture is referred to as oxyhydrogen and is used in jewelry, aluminum and underwater torches. Electrolysis of water with the cathode and anode products fed into the same tube can create this mixture. This is often used as a chemistry lecture/class demonstration as it is simple to set up with a balloon as a collection vessel, it produces a sphere of brilliant flame when ignited and creates a very powerful, audible boom to wake up sleeping students.
-
See [http://www.santilli-galilei.com/HHO-IJHE-I.pdf].
-
I saw it.
The "anomalous" mas spec peak at mass 40 is almost certainly argon.
Even more absurd is the IR spectrum of hydrogen. It's a homonuclear diatomic. It doesn't have an IR absorbtion spectrum. The same is true for oxygen.
Whatever it is that absorbs in their sampel near 3000 /cm is also present in the oxygen sample.
The work was clearly not done by someone who knew what they were doing.
If you bubble an inert gas through diesel you will remove some of the more volatile components. This will give a residue with a higher flash point.
Whatever it is that absorbs in their sampel near 3000 /cm is also present in the oxygen sample.
If I could be bothered I guess I could identify it, as well as the other IR active species present. What's the point?
It's still nonsense
-
Perhaps Professor Santilli knows something not to be found in the textbooks read by 'Bored Chemist'. See Santilli's CV http://www.i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm (http://www.i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm)
-
Perhaps, but, he seems to know very little about analtyical chemistry.
His paper says "such and such an observation " is anaomalous but in fact it's commonplace.
Perhaps, in the meantime you might likre to look at "argument from authority" here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
-
I saw a website a while back (can no longer find the link), that said producing very small quantities of Browns gas (HHO) and mixing it in the petrol air mixture, gave a massive increase in efficiency. The website was saying that the benefit came not as a fuel itself but because the efficiency of the petrol burn was dramatically higher.
Unfortunately I never managed to find any info saying where this has been tested, either to prove or disprove it.
Any thoughts?
-
Brown's gas doesn't sensibly exist.
This has wasted time in the past
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=12218.0
It's hard to see that it helps if we waste more time on it.
-
I saw a website a while back (can no longer find the link), that said producing very small quantities of Browns gas (HHO) and mixing it in the petrol air mixture, gave a massive increase in efficiency.
It depends on your definition of "small".
There's not a lot of really scientific test data on the Net regarding the effects of H2 on combustion efficiencies but I did find one paper that documented tests with a small single-cylinder diesel engine. They used 240 liters of H2 and O2 (at a stoichiometric ratio generated by electrolysis) to enhance the combustion. A 15% increase in thermal efficiency was observed.
I've documented this on my website at http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam2.shtml and have also written other stuff at http://aardvark.co.nz/hho.shtml debunking this whole "run your car on water" scam that's appearing with increasing frequency on the web.
I'd enjoy feedback.
-
I don't know, it's perhaps that modern schools don't prepare students very well that more people comes with such stupid scums? Do they think we are more prone to be bamboozled?
-
Thank you Aardvark,
That's exactly the kind of info I was looking for. [:)]
So there was a small increase (15%) in efficiency, not exactly the double your
mileage that some of the HHO sales websites promise.
Still with current oil prices it might be worth someone's time to see if they could
get a slightly higher efficiency and clean-up any polluting problems but it's probably
not going to change the world after all. Although if all the millions of cars on the
road had a 15% efficiency (by this or any other method), that would be a large saving nationally.
-
Thank you Aardvark,
That's exactly the kind of info I was looking for. [:)]
So there was a small increase (15%) in efficiency, not exactly the double your
mileage that some of the HHO sales websites promise.
Still with current oil prices it might be worth someone's time to see if they could
get a slightly higher efficiency and clean-up any polluting problems but it's probably
not going to change the world after all. Although if all the millions of cars on the
road had a 15% efficiency (by this or any other method), that would be a large saving nationally.
You forgot to say that you have that increase in efficiency if you have H2 and O2 Gratis. If your car have to produce them with electrolysis, your increase in efficiency is probably zero or negative.
-
I have split this thread at the point where the interesting new 'unified theory' was introduced.
To carry on with that aspect of things please go to
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=15055.0 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=15055.0)
Moderator
-
Maybe its just me. but HHO. H2O???? same thing
and from what i understand if it was the structural formula. H-H-O cant exist?
and if u really wanted a good fuel sorce from water you would use electrolosis to split the water into H2 gas
-
HHO is called “Browns Gas” cause it was discovered by Yuri Brown in the 70’s. And this guy is using a 220V outlet to make this, it consumes far more electricity than the gas creates by burning it.When talking about HHO we should start out talking about what it is and how it is made. How does the HHO system work? HHO gas is the done by having a container with a water solution, inside the container there are either metal plates or wire and an intake or out-gas tubes. The water has a charge put to it…the electricity goes through the plates or wire and causes electrolysis and the result is HHO that flows up the out-gas tube into the air intake manifold.
Here's an article on it: http://www.squidoo.com/HHOfuelenergy
-
This is my first post so please be gentle with me, my back ground is aviation 20+ years.
With regards to HHO, I have recently fitted an HHO unit to a fleet operater's vehicle (six cylinder sedan).
This vehicle was tested at an independent accredited emission testing station and driven by the operator for 1900km at which time it was retested at the same test station, the results are:
NOx reduced 74.12%
CO2 reduced 15.43%
Now this is the one I want to know why PM-LLSP increased 120.6%
Opacity Av(%)reduced 97.89%
Opacity Max(%) reduced 93.26%
Power dropped 1.41%
Torque dropped 4.98%
Fuel economy increased by 34.08%
These are not my figures they are all independent. So something seems to be working.
Can anyone help me as to why the PM has gone up? I think it could be water vapour being picked up.
-
This is my first post so please be gentle with me, my back ground is aviation 20+ years.
With regards to HHO, I have recently fitted an HHO unit to a fleet operater's vehicle (six cylinder sedan).
This vehicle was tested at an independent accredited emission testing station and driven by the operator for 1900km at which time it was retested at the same test station, the results are:
NOx reduced 74.12%
CO2 reduced 15.43%
Now this is the one I want to know why PM-LLSP increased 120.6%
Opacity Av(%)reduced 97.89%
Opacity Max(%) reduced 93.26%
Power dropped 1.41%
Torque dropped 4.98%
Fuel economy increased by 34.08%
These are not my figures they are all independent. So something seems to be working.
Can anyone help me as to why the PM has gone up? I think it could be water vapour being picked up.
What is PM-LLSP?
-
PM-LLSP is the particle mater in the exhaust emissions.
-
PM-LLSP is the particle mater in the exhaust emissions.
Ok, but which dimensions? PM10, PM 2.5? Or it refers to the overall types?
Anyway, those data seems to me the effect of a catalytic converter which has reduced HC by thermical decomposition and so increased the total C (in the form of PM). Probably it's the effect of substituting some oxygen of the air with some hydrogen; the C burned is reduced at the expense of burned H, so CO2 is reduced and H2O should be increased; however the combustion seems not very good because of the increased PM, clearly the carburation doesn't seem optimized. Of course the gasoline (or Diesel Fuel, don't know that kind of engine) consumption is reduced because some of it was substituted from hydrogen.
-
Thanks for the reply lightarrow. The PM was measured as (mg/--).
I'll give you a more detailed picture of the before and after figures.
g/km
NOX 0.456 reduced to 0.118
C02 447.9 reduced to 378.8
PM-LLSP 0.403 increased to 0.889
Opacity Av(%) 2.707 decreased to 0.057
Opacity Max(%) 9.758 reduced to 0.658
Power 00.437kW reduced to 98.0389
Torque 298.453 Nm@Rear Wheels reduced to 283.599 Nm
The Vehicle is a 6cyl V6 3.6L fuel injected petrol engine(91 octane).
The emission test was a DT80 done by a local government test station.
Given that the opacity is so much clearer the PM figure seems off.
That's why I believe it could be water vapour the test is picking up, in any respect the figures seem to be pretty good to me.
-
Correction on the last post, the power figure should read 99.437kW reduced to 98.039.
-
I saw a website a while back (can no longer find the link), that said producing very small quantities of Browns gas (HHO) and mixing it in the petrol air mixture, gave a massive increase in efficiency.
It depends on your definition of "small".
There's not a lot of really scientific test data on the Net regarding the effects of H2 on combustion efficiencies but I did find one paper that documented tests with a small single-cylinder diesel engine. They used 240 liters of H2 and O2 (at a stoichiometric ratio generated by electrolysis) to enhance the combustion. A 15% increase in thermal efficiency was observed.
I've documented this on my website at http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam2.shtml and have also written other stuff at http://aardvark.co.nz/hho.shtml debunking this whole "run your car on water" scam that's appearing with increasing frequency on the web.
I'd enjoy feedback.
I must agree in part that this topic has grown in a direction that is absurd if taken too seriously without further investigation. But that's the catch. Further investigation can yield remarkable results if you take this topic far enough. So, let's put together a scenario that's more realistic...
Stan got burned in the past so he learned not to divulge all of his more cherished secrets anymore to anyone; not even the inner circle among his many admirers. So anyone expecting to take him literally is downright foolish.
Like any good inventor, his later patents begin to take on the characteristic of patent-speak: saying one thing and meaning something else.
Example: non-combustible gases in later patents equates to nitrogen in his earlier patents. I have Aaron Murakami's analysis to thank for this.
http://waterfuelsecrets.com/
So let's see what special properties does nitrogen possess?
If, for some reason, positively charged nitrogen ions were to be fed into an internal combustion engine and allowed to unite to form dinitrogen molecules, N2 - their natural state in our atmosphere, then a huge energy release could indeed herald a whole new wave of energy for automotive design. These nitrogen ions must be completely stripped of any valence electrons by their having been subjected to a very high positive voltage ionization - possibly on the order of 70,000 volts or more.
If we were to do something similar with hydrogen coming out of a water electrolyzer - or voltralysis method of splitting water with little current but high voltage, namely: ionize hydrogen using a very high voltage of positive charge, but do this in hydrogen's own chamber or inlet port separate from that of air's ionization chamber or inlet port, and then mix the two within a third chamber, and then burn this blend of ammonium and hydrogen ions outside of any ionization field but inside of the internal combustion engine, the effect of nitrogen ions (liberated by the combustion of ammonium ions in the presence of hydrogen and more air) slapping against other nitrogen ions into a triple-bonding relationship will be a conversion of the high voltage used to split the N2 in the first place into a mechanical force requisite to drive the pistons in the engine. Without the participation of nitrogen, hydrogen alone does not add up to any degree of adequacy of accelerating a car or truck up a hill or speeding up while entering traffic on a freeway.
As an aside, nitrous oxide (if I have my story straight, second hand) is already used as a carrier of nitrogen added to race cars to boost their performance. This is the purpose of the ammonium ion: to act as a carrier of nitrogen. For once the single bonds of hydrogen and nitrogen are broken within an ammonium ion during their ignition from neighboring hydrogen ions and their subsequent oxidation, the force of the reformation of the triple bonds of nitrogen will be so great as to equal in close measure the characteristics of gasoline without using a drop of that petroleum fuel.
So, Stan was a fraud; but a clever fraud at that. For he surmised that we never consider air as a fuel for good reason: nitrogen does not burn. And the release of energy upon the oxidation of hydrogen or ammonia is not the focus of this analysis. It is after their combustion that the real magic occurs when Nature has the opportunity to "put things back together the way they exist in their ambient state on Earth." Yet, if we lived on the moon, he wouldn't have gotten away with leaving out air as his energy source. It would have been too obvious.
It's too bad he's not here to defend himself. So, I'll let the electron configuration of dinitrogen speak for him instead.
http://tinyurl.com/nitrogen3bond
Thank you for your critical analysis.
PS-Whether or not Herman Anderson was aware of this viewpoint or not, he is another example of someone who succeeded where many others have failed.