Hydroxy thermal energy is _______ BTU/liter ?

[BoyntonStu]

We are all exploring Hydroxy.

What is its nature?

How much heat is there in a liter?

We know that straight hydrogen has 10 BTU/liter.

Is it more or less than that?

Shouldn't we also know the value for Hydroxy?

Why is this fundamental value so elusive?

BoyntonStu

[Smith03Jetta]

This value is not elusive. It's just that we are not chemists. Go on some Chemistry Forum and ask them.

[BoyntonStu]

This value is not elusive. It's just that we are not chemists. Go on some Chemistry Forum and ask them.

Not chemists and playing chemistry does not make for a safe toy.

BoyntonStu

[Stratous]

Best I could find on the internet. Burning 18 grams releases 242000 Joules of heat energy or 229.5 btu. Found here. http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

[cougar gt-e]

Found this on the net under "How things work"

Hydrogen weighs just 0.08988 grams per liter

So using Stratous' numbers, 1 gram releases 13,444 joules or 12.5 BTU

1 Liter of hydrogen weighs 0.08988 grams so 1 liter of hydrogen contains 1.1 BTU of energy.

To get that 1 liter of hydrogen, you would need to generate 1.5 liter of gas from the electrolyzer. Many report 1 liter per minute total gas, so there is 3/4 of a BTU being added per minute (not much).

[BoyntonStu]

Best I could find on the internet. Burning 18 grams releases 242000 Joules of heat energy or 229.5 btu. Found here. http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

Thanks,

I found it:

"Suppose we wanted to run an internal combustion engine on this gas. How much energy would we get out? If we burn Brown's Gas we get pure water vapor. Burning 18 grams releases 242000 Joules of heat energy or 229.5 btu. (Allowing the vapor to condense would yield an additional 44500 joules, 42.4 btu, but in any conventional engine this output would only appear as waste heat and will be ignored.)

Thus if we drove an engine with 168 grams of gas per hour we would be putting 2.26 million joules per hour of heat energy into it. Operating at a plausible combustion temperature the thermal efficiency might be as high as 50% so we would get out 1.13 million joules per hour or 314 joules per second, that is 314 watts.

The bottom line is that we have put in about a kilowatt of electrical energy to get out under a third as much in mechanical energy. Considering that the efficiency of an electric motor would be over 85% there is no justification at all for using a Brown's Gas generator and an internal combustion engine. An electric motor would do better at less cost and with far greater reliability."


BoyntonStu

[BoyntonStu]

Found this on the net under "How things work"

Hydrogen weighs just 0.08988 grams per liter

So using Stratous' numbers, 1 gram releases 13,444 joules or 12.5 BTU

1 Liter of hydrogen weighs 0.08988 grams so 1 liter of hydrogen contains 1.1 BTU of energy.

To get that 1 liter of hydrogen, you would need to generate 1.5 liter of gas from the electrolyzer. Many report 1 liter per minute total gas, so there is 3/4 of a BTU being added per minute (not much).

That is for Hydrogen.

Hydroxy has ____BTU/liter ?

BoyntonStu

[Smith03Jetta]

BoyntonStu, are you a chemist? If not, I recommend you stop experimenting before you get hurt. Have you actually built a Hydroxy generator? Have you lit some bubbles with a lighter? If not, why don't you stop talking, go build one, put it on your car, then come back and preach your new religion.

It's common knowlege that Hydroxy has 6x more BTU than Hydrogen alone. You don't have to be a chemist to know that. You just need to know how to use Google!

60,000 KJ/m3 of energy at 1 atm for (Hydroxy) vs 10,000 KJ/m3 of energy at 1 atm for (Hydrogen).

Now that everybody knows this crucial, valuable information, what shall we do with it? I guess we can stick thermometers up our butts and watch the temperature rise as we get better gas mileage!!! We can then hypothesize that the rise in anal temp is a direct correlation to increased fuel economy. We can then wrap ourselves in electric blankets to bring up our core temperatures in hopes of hitting 100 mpg.

I know that adding an oxidizer to a flame increases its burn rate/intensity. I would hope that everybody on this forum has watched the video footage of the Hindenburg crash. The blimp was full of hydrogen gas. It burned up completely in 37 seconds. That's pretty quick. Remember?

Now let's say somebody had filled up the Hindenburg blimp with Hydroxy... I would venture to say that the Hindenburg would not have flown because of the hydrogen displacement volume of the Oxygen. The second thing that would have happened is that the Navy Base in New Jersey where the Hindenburg "burned" would not be left standing and there would have been no survivors or a video for us to watch. Everything would have been destroyed in the blast. The Hydroxy blast would have rivaled a small Nuclear explosion instead of the relatively slow burn of the Hydrogen alone.

[BoyntonStu]

"It's common knowlege that Hydroxy has 6x more BTU than Hydrogen alone."

Let's see: 2/3 of Hydroxy is Hydrogen.

Oxygen having zero thermal energy is occupies the other 1/3.

Oxygen has zero thermal energy, you cannot burn oxygen.

It is therefore quite obvious (Not!) that if you have a gas composed of 2/3 Hydrogen mixed with 1/3 of a zero energy gas, the result is a gas that has 6x the thermal value of 100% hydrogen.

Use Google, you cam find perpetual motion machines for sale.

BoyntonStu

P.S. You would do better here and in life by just staying with the facts.

And that goes for all of us.

Leave personalities issues in your head.

There was a guy at work who hated me, yet I always backed his technical points if I believed that they were correct.

I don't care if you like me, or respect me, the facts speak for themselves.

[Dewayne]

If oxygen will not burn why are there sign all over hospitals say " No Smoking Oxygen in use."

Remember what happened to the astronauts in the Apollo1 test. That was a 100% oxygen atmosphere or the tank on Apollo13.

[Johnh]

If oxygen will not burn why are there sign all over hospitals say " No Smoking Oxygen in use."

Because everthing else flammable in the vicinity including the cigarette will burn violently if ignited.
John

[daveczrn]

hospitals use pure oxygen... makes everything flamable.. oxygen feed fires as it is one of the reactants in combustion. light a spark in a pure oyxgen environment and nothing happens, put pure oxygen near a fire and the fires rages. a cigarette in pure oxygen lights up instantly and glows orange

when your in the a high oxygen environment, and things like surgical drapes and endotracheal tubes will combust if a laser or cautery ignites them. Airway fires can be awful, even deadly. when pure oxygen is in use, almost anything can burn in its presence, including things we don't normally think of as flammable, like steel and aluminum. Normally flammable materials like cloth, paper and hair, become almost explosive

There is also the issue of not smoking around people with lung disease, so as to not further cripple their lungs, but that has nothing to do with flammability

[HHOhoper]

"It's common knowlege that Hydroxy has 6x more BTU than Hydrogen alone."

Let's see: 2/3 of Hydroxy is Hydrogen.

Oxygen having zero thermal energy is occupies the other 1/3.

Oxygen has zero thermal energy, you cannot burn oxygen.

It is therefore quite obvious (Not!) that if you have a gas composed of 2/3 Hydrogen mixed with 1/3 of a zero energy gas, the result is a gas that has 6x the thermal value of 100% hydrogen.

Use Google, you cam find perpetual motion machines for sale.

BoyntonStu

P.S. You would do better here and in life by just staying with the facts.

And that goes for all of us.

Leave personalities issues in your head.

There was a guy at work who hated me, yet I always backed his technical points if I believed that they were correct.

I don't care if you like me, or respect me, the facts speak for themselves.

BoyntonStu,

How familiar are you with Stan Meyer and his work, accomplishments, etc?

[BoyntonStu]

BoyntonStu,

How familiar are you with Stan Meyer and his work, accomplishments, etc?

The water fuel cell is a device invented by American Stanley Allen Meyer, which he claimed could convert water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen, using less energy than can be obtained by the subsequent combustion of those elements, a process that results the reconstitution of the water molecules. Thus, if the device operated as claimed, the combustion cycle would start and end in the same state while extracting usable energy, thereby violating both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine. Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.[2]

What is the thermal value of Hydroxy?

BoyntonStu

[Smith03Jetta]

Wikipedia Quote:

Highly-concentrated sources of oxygen promote rapid combustion. Fire and explosion hazards exist when concentrated oxidants and fuels are brought into close proximity; however, an ignition event, such as heat or a spark, is needed to trigger combustion. Oxygen itself is not the fuel, but the oxidant. Combustion hazards also apply to compounds of oxygen with a high oxidative potential, such as peroxides, chlorates, nitrates, perchlorates, and dichromates because they can donate oxygen to a fire.

Pure O2 at higher than normal pressure and a spark led to a fire and the loss of the Apollo 1 crew.

Concentrated O2 will allow combustion to proceed rapidly and energetically. Steel pipes and storage vessels used to store and transmit both gaseous and liquid oxygen will act as a fuel; and therefore the design and manufacture of O2 systems requires special training to ensure that ignition sources are minimized. The fire that killed the Apollo 1 crew on a test launch pad spread so rapidly because the capsule was pressurized with pure O2 but at slightly more than atmospheric pressure, instead of the ⅓ normal pressure that would be used in a mission.

Liquid oxygen spills, if allowed to soak into organic matter, such as wood, petrochemicals, and asphalt can cause these materials to detonate unpredictably on subsequent mechanical impact. On contact with the human body, it can also cause cryogenic burns to the skin and the eyes.

End Wikipedia quote.

It is impossible to add the apply standard addition to calculate combustion properties of different materials. Let's talk in plain english for a minute...

You just don't seem to understand that when a FUEL SOURCE is combined with the NON-FLAMABLE gas OXYGEN and an IGNITION SOURCE it will burn at a higher temperature than the fuel alone. 1+1=3. Just doesn't add up does it, DUDE? It's not math. You can't take the properties of hydrogen, and add them to the properties of Oxygen and expect to get the answer you are looking for.

Remember, this forum is for the "common folk". It's not for you.

Here are some REAL numbers for you

Acetylene in air 2,600 K
Acetylene in oxygen 3,410 K
Methane in air 2,232 K
Methane in oxygen 3,053 K
Hydrogen in air 2,400 K
Hydrogen in Oxygen 3,080 K
Heptane in air 2,290 K
Heptane in oxygen 3,100 K

Frankly STU, you are getting on my nerves along with everybody else on this forum. Please leave. If you do not chose to leave, I will ignore you for the rest of my life. Thanks and have a good time riding your nerdy recumbent bike and the little elevator that you built in the corner of your room. Please spend your time pissing people off on the Legal forums. Lawyers love to argue. I just want to tinker with my car. Leave me the F__K alone.

[Stratous]

Thanks,

I found it:

"Suppose we wanted to run an internal combustion engine on this gas. How much energy would we get out? If we burn Brown's Gas we get pure water vapor. Burning 18 grams releases 242000 Joules of heat energy or 229.5 btu. (Allowing the vapor to condense would yield an additional 44500 joules, 42.4 btu, but in any conventional engine this output would only appear as waste heat and will be ignored.)

Thus if we drove an engine with 168 grams of gas per hour we would be putting 2.26 million joules per hour of heat energy into it. Operating at a plausible combustion temperature the thermal efficiency might be as high as 50% so we would get out 1.13 million joules per hour or 314 joules per second, that is 314 watts.

The bottom line is that we have put in about a kilowatt of electrical energy to get out under a third as much in mechanical energy. Considering that the efficiency of an electric motor would be over 85% there is no justification at all for using a Brown's Gas generator and an internal combustion engine. An electric motor would do better at less cost and with far greater reliability."


BoyntonStu

We are not trying to run our vehicles off hydroxy, as we know that it takes more energy to create hydroxy using electrolysis than we get out of the hydroxy. What we are doing in using the hydroxy to increase the crappy efficiency of the ICE. If we can increase the efficiency from 25% to 35%, then its well worth it. Not to mention the decreased emissions. You confuse us with your tactics sir, sometimes I think your on board with us in this venture, and then you post like above with no other opinion. Do you or do you not believe in what we are doing here.

[BoyntonStu]

Wikipedia Quote:

Highly-concentrated sources of oxygen promote rapid combustion. Fire and explosion hazards exist when concentrated oxidants and fuels are brought into close proximity; however, an ignition event, such as heat or a spark, is needed to trigger combustion. Oxygen itself is not the fuel, but the oxidant. Combustion hazards also apply to compounds of oxygen with a high oxidative potential, such as peroxides, chlorates, nitrates, perchlorates, and dichromates because they can donate oxygen to a fire.

Pure O2 at higher than normal pressure and a spark led to a fire and the loss of the Apollo 1 crew.

Concentrated O2 will allow combustion to proceed rapidly and energetically. Steel pipes and storage vessels used to store and transmit both gaseous and liquid oxygen will act as a fuel; and therefore the design and manufacture of O2 systems requires special training to ensure that ignition sources are minimized. The fire that killed the Apollo 1 crew on a test launch pad spread so rapidly because the capsule was pressurized with pure O2 but at slightly more than atmospheric pressure, instead of the ⅓ normal pressure that would be used in a mission.

Liquid oxygen spills, if allowed to soak into organic matter, such as wood, petrochemicals, and asphalt can cause these materials to detonate unpredictably on subsequent mechanical impact. On contact with the human body, it can also cause cryogenic burns to the skin and the eyes.

End Wikipedia quote.

It is impossible to add the apply standard addition to calculate combustion properties of different materials. Let's talk in plain english for a minute...

You just don't seem to understand that when a FUEL SOURCE is combined with the NON-FLAMABLE gas OXYGEN and an IGNITION SOURCE it will burn at a higher temperature than the fuel alone. 1+1=3. Just doesn't add up does it, DUDE? It's not math. You can't take the properties of hydrogen, and add them to the properties of Oxygen and expect to get the answer you are looking for.

Remember, this forum is for the "common folk". It's not for you.

Here are some REAL numbers for you

Acetylene in air 2,600 K
Acetylene in oxygen 3,410 K
Methane in air 2,232 K
Methane in oxygen 3,053 K
Hydrogen in air 2,400 K
Hydrogen in Oxygen 3,080 K
Heptane in air 2,290 K
Heptane in oxygen 3,100 K

Frankly STU, you are getting on my nerves along with everybody else on this forum. Please leave. If you do not chose to leave, I will ignore you for the rest of my life. Thanks and have a good time riding your nerdy recumbent bike and the little elevator that you built in the corner of your room. Please spend your time pissing people off on the Legal forums. Lawyers love to argue. I just want to tinker with my car. Leave me the F__K alone.

There is a saying: "Beauty is temporary but stupidity is forever".


Temperature has NOTHING to do with heat! Nothing at all.

There is more heat in a person than in a lit match.

Once you understand the difference between heat and temperature you can begin to learn the issues.

If Hydrogen burns at 1,000,000,000*F it would have no affect on the heat VALUE of hydrogen.

A liter of Hydrogen that could burn at 1,000,000,000*F would not propel a car 1 inch!

It is very hard to be patient with someone who hasn't the basic understanding of reality and who not build an elevator or even a nerdy trike (not a bike). One needs the ability to count beyond 2.

Please ignore me.

BoyntonStu

[HomeGrown]

The bottom line is that we have put in about a kilowatt of electrical energy to get out under a third as much in mechanical energy. Considering that the efficiency of an electric motor would be over 85% there is no justification at all for using a Brown's Gas generator and an internal combustion engine. An electric motor would do better at less cost and with far greater reliability."


BoyntonStu

No, the REAL bottom line is MPG. As it turns out, most modern vehicles have an alternator, which pumps out all the electricity we need. So what if the alternator has to work harder (i.e. consuming more power from the engine). If the net result is more MPG, then we have increased REAL WORLD efficiency where it counts most: at the gas pump.

"An electric motor would do better at less cost...."

Less cost than WHAT? And don't tell me "operating cost". Do you honestly think you can convert a vehicle to electric power cheaper than you can build and install an HHO system?

Have at it, good luck with that.

[bobcampbell]

Thanks,

I found it:

"Suppose we wanted to run an internal combustion engine on this gas. How much energy would we get out? If we burn Brown's Gas we get pure water vapor. Burning 18 grams releases 242000 Joules of heat energy or 229.5 btu. (Allowing the vapor to condense would yield an additional 44500 joules, 42.4 btu, but in any conventional engine this output would only appear as waste heat and will be ignored.)

Thus if we drove an engine with 168 grams of gas per hour we would be putting 2.26 million joules per hour of heat energy into it. Operating at a plausible combustion temperature the thermal efficiency might be as high as 50% so we would get out 1.13 million joules per hour or 314 joules per second, that is 314 watts.



The bottom line is that we have put in about a kilowatt of electrical energy to get out under a third as much in mechanical energy. Considering that the efficiency of an electric motor would be over 85% there is no justification at all for using a Brown's Gas generator and an internal combustion engine. An electric motor would do better at less cost and with far greater reliability."


BoyntonStu


I'm sorry, but I can't seem to follow your math. Would you please show us the math behind this conclusion.

[BoyntonStu]

No, the REAL bottom line is MPG. As it turns out, most modern vehicles have an alternator, which pumps out all the electricity we need. So what if the alternator has to work harder (i.e. consuming more power from the engine). If the net result is more MPG, then we have increased REAL WORLD efficiency where it counts most: at the gas pump.

"An electric motor would do better at less cost...."

Less cost than WHAT? And don't tell me "operating cost". Do you honestly think you can convert a vehicle to electric power cheaper than you can build and install an HHO system?

Have at it, good luck with that.

To whom are you speaking?

I was quoting Wikipedia.

How much did your system cost and what was your before/after mpg?

BoyntonStu
Boycotting Stupidity

[Stratous]

To whom are you speaking?

I was quoting Wikipedia.

How much did your system cost and what was your before/after mpg?

BoyntonStu
Boycotting Stupidity

Perhpaps you should have said that you were quoting wikipedia. If you had, then you wouldnt have had to make the above post. If you persist at calling people "stupid" I will ban you from these boards.

[HomeGrown]

Ok, then I guess I was speakikng to Wikipedia. ;)

My system is still under development / construction, so no final cost or MPG numbers. Cost is very subjective in cell building, due to having to outright purchase some raw materials, while other materials are available freely. I don't suppose I'll actually have it completed and installed for a couple more weeks yet.

[Stratous]

I have no problems with having intellectual conversations with anyone as I am sure most people dont. With that said, not everyone is equal in knowlege. Some excel in math others in under water basket weaving. Most of us on these boards are just ordinary people who goto work each day for someone else. We each have a skill or group of skills. We are here on these boards to talk about Brown's gas, HHO, Hydroxy or whatever you want to call it. We are here to find ways to produce HHO. We are here to use our combined intelligence to find more efficient ways to produce HHO. We are here to increase our MPG, or lower our energy bill. With that being said, if you want to debate the creation of the universe or debate the abstracts then that is fine, just dont forget what these boards were designed to do. Do not get ugly just because people do see things the way you do. Dont think your smarter than anyone else. Some people may be smart in certains areas, but certainly lack in the human relations areas. I dont care how smart you are or think you are, if your not making a contribution to the combined effort, then your smarts dont amount to much.

[BoyntonStu]

Perhpaps you should have said that you were quoting wikipedia. If you had, then you wouldnt have had to make the above post. If you persist at calling people "stupid" I will ban you from these boards.

OK I forgot to state Wikipedia as the source.

However it was obvious that,

"[1] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine. Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.[2]"

was copied from a text with footnotes.

I never would have included the [1] and the [2].

BoyntonStu

[Smith03Jetta]

I am compelled to answer. After that, I'm blotting you out of my existence. I am intelligent. I'm an IT professional. I turned down a Stanford Scholarship once. I have multiple college degrees but what I've learned in real life has taught me more than what I will learn in some theoretical setting. Who cares how hot a flame is. The fact is you will get burned if you put your hand in it. Some things you don't need to understand, just take them on faith. If I add something to my car and it gets 30% + better gas mileage it is EFFICIENT. FUGGEDABOUTIT. I think you would argue with the sun about how inefficient solar flares are.

As far as my building experience goes, I have built 3 boats, I've rebuilt at least 10 internal combustion engines. I've restored and built 2 street rods and drag raced them. I've designed and built 10 motorcycle frames. I've built a custom motorcycle that got to the cover of a national magazine. I have built an elevator, not one that lifts people but one that lifts 10 ton boats out of the water. I've designed RFID systems for the distribution industry. I've designed and built a 4000 Sq ft home for my parents. You got me on one thing, I've never built a tricycle.

I've never been voted off a forum like you have in the past. You've got to really piss some people off to be ignored on a Lawyer forum.:D
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/website-help-enhancements/2864-put-boyntonstu-ignore-list.html

I don't know exactly how my Cellular phone works but I use it every day. I don't know the exact composition of the fuel that I pump into my car every day but that doesn't stop me from doing it. I have never put a volt meter on a spark plug wire just to prove that electricity was going through it. I do know more about this Hydroxy than Ozzie Freedom claims to know but there is a limit to how much you have to know to make this work.

Look, guy, just go get yourself a watertight, airtight container that will withstand temperatures of 200F. Get some stainless steel plates, some wires, fittings, hoses and hook it up to your freaking car. Take the extra money you save on gas and take a college course in advanced chemistry so you will finally understand how this works.

When you ask us complicated stuff we can't spout it out our mouths from memory. We get online, grab an encyclopedia or some other technical pamphlet to get the information. You can do the same. We are here to discuss construction techniques and good or bad results.

Knowing useless facts like "it takes a 20 microjoule spark to ignite Oxyhydrogen" does not make me get any better or worse gas mileage.

2 months ago, I didn't exist on this forum. I've come here to learn from others, post results, it's that simple. You BOYNTONSTU are the first person on this site who has really got on my nerves. You are worse than SPAM in my mailbox. With that said, "......".

[BoyntonStu]

I am compelled to answer. After that, I'm blotting you out of my existence. I am intelligent. I'm an IT professional. I turned down a Stanford Scholarship once. I have multiple college degrees but what I've learned in real life has taught me more than what I will learn in some theoretical setting. Who cares how hot a flame is. The fact is you will get burned if you put your hand in it. Some things you don't need to understand, just take them on faith. If I add something to my car and it gets 30% + better gas mileage it is EFFICIENT. FUGGEDABOUTIT. I think you would argue with the sun about how inefficient solar flares are.

As far as my building experience goes, I have built 3 boats, I've rebuilt at least 10 internal combustion engines. I've restored and built 2 street rods and drag raced them. I've designed and built 10 motorcycle frames. I've built a custom motorcycle that got to the cover of a national magazine. I have built an elevator, not one that lifts people but one that lifts 10 ton boats out of the water. I've designed RFID systems for the distribution industry. I've designed and built a 4000 Sq ft home for my parents. You got me on one thing, I've never built a tricycle.

I've never been voted off a forum like you have in the past. You've got to really piss some people off to be ignored on a Lawyer forum.:D
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/website-help-enhancements/2864-put-boyntonstu-ignore-list.html

I don't know exactly how my Cellular phone works but I use it every day. I don't know the exact composition of the fuel that I pump into my car every day but that doesn't stop me from doing it. I have never put a volt meter on a spark plug wire just to prove that electricity was going through it. I do know more about this Hydroxy than Ozzie Freedom claims to know but there is a limit to how much you have to know to make this work.

Look, guy, just go get yourself a watertight, airtight container that will withstand temperatures of 200F. Get some stainless steel plates, some wires, fittings, hoses and hook it up to your freaking car. Take the extra money you save on gas and take a college course in advanced chemistry so you will finally understand how this works.

When you ask us complicated stuff we can't spout it out our mouths from memory. We get online, grab an encyclopedia or some other technical pamphlet to get the information. You can do the same. We are here to discuss construction techniques and good or bad results.

Knowing useless facts like "it takes a 20 microjoule spark to ignite Oxyhydrogen" does not make me get any better or worse gas mileage.



2 months ago, I didn't exist on this forum. I've come here to learn from others, post results, it's that simple. You BOYNTONSTU are the first person on this site who has really got on my nerves. You are worse than SPAM in my mailbox. With that said, "......".



One thing you didn't do was to keep your promise.

BoyntonStu

[Stratous]

One thing you didn't do was to keep your promise.

BoyntonStu

Holy cow, your worse than my teenage daughter. Always gotta have the last word. I joined these boards in May and Mr Smith has done alot more to further the cause here than you have. His contributions are way more useful than yours have been. I dont want to ban you as you obviously are intelligent and could possible offer valuable information, but if all you intend to do is pose rediculous questions and then not be part of the solution, then I will. So play nice as Mr Smith will not be the one who gets put out. I respect your intelect, but your personal relation skills are lackluster. This is not a physics forum nor a chemistry forum. Those things have a place here, but most of us are into the "hows" not the "whys"

[snapper1d]

Well,If I get one gallon of gas in my truck I can make it to town.If I have my hho unit turned on I can then make it to town and half way back home and then have to hitch hike the other half way back home.Now this makes more sense to me.I have to only hitch hiked 5 miles instead of 10.Now if I put in 4 gallons of gas I can get one free trip to town and back with my hho unit and I dont have to hitch hike at all.Mr Stratous and Mr Smith I think your are right.This is what this forum is all about.

[HomeGrown]

http://dcforums.co.uk/forum/style_emoticons/default/banhim.gif

[Smith03Jetta]

Kudos to mister Snapper1D. He said it better in one paragraph than I said in 10.

[shomas]

Thanks,

Considering that the efficiency of an electric motor would be over 85% there is no justification at all for using a Brown's Gas generator and an internal combustion engine. An electric motor would do better at less cost and with far greater reliability."

BoyntonStu

That would be true if you only looked at browns gas as the sole source of energy, But when browns gas is added to diesel or gasoline it helps burn the primary fuel more completely during the engines power stroke. I have seen, browns gas added to diesel improve the overall fuel efficiencies by as much as 65%, but most often I see 20% to 30% increase in MPG.

[koya1893]

Well,If I get one gallon of gas in my truck I can make it to town.If I have my hho unit turned on I can then make it to town and half way back home and then have to hitch hike the other half way back home.Now this makes more sense to me.I have to only hitch hiked 5 miles instead of 10.Now if I put in 4 gallons of gas I can get one free trip to town and back with my hho unit and I dont have to hitch hike at all.Mr Stratous and Mr Smith I think your are right.This is what this forum is all about.

WOW. Everyone who posted a means to describe the benefits of HHO being induced in an ICE has taken the mathematical approach, hence their conclusion is does not work because they also say you are consuming more energy than what it is being produce.

Sorry for a winded agreement to your analogy. I like simple.

[Roland Jacques]

Frist off Is all HHO the same? Id say no. The question "Can HHO be made having more energy than used to create it?" Maybe

Quantity and quality could be 2 different ways this could be reached. Im just a backyard experimenter so take it for what it is worth. Here is my 2 cents as far as quality goes

In order to really answer this question, Part of the discussion has to be "What is HHO"? Or what is what we commonly refer to as HHO? It really Browns gas and if you look at a true Gas analysis you find HHO is just a part of the picture.

Bob Boyce and many others smarter than me, say that there is quite a difference between "HHO" gases being produced.




Here is a few points about the different types of the hydrogen we can make. This is just one part of HHO that may need to be considered.
In order of least to most powerful/ reactivity.

1) Para hydrogen - normal spin of electrons
2) Ortho hydrogen - different spin state
3) Mono atomic hydrogen -
4) Deutruim gas - ( Heavy water gas ) ionized gas ( Herman P Anderson Gas)
5) Tritruim gas - most powerful phases of hydrogen

Then when you see all the other gases involed in Browns gas it really can muddy the water.
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss195/vrand01/HHOAtomicMassAnalysis.jpg

Here is another good link about Browns gas
http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/watergas.html



I understand the effects of HHO on the combustion of Hydrocarbons and agree this interaction of most any HHO Gases in a ICE can create gains... But I personally believe the Gas we refer as HHO varies greatly.

CAN it have a greater energy value than whats used to create it? I think yes, but I cant prove it.

[ElectroNut]

If I may be so bold as to interject on an earlier argument:

One liter of hydrogen gas does not contain any energy at all. The data value you have for hydrogen is the energy released when one liter of hydrogen reacts completely with oxygen. Two hydrogen atoms react with one oxygen atom to release 285.83kJ per mole of water formed. Since hydrogen is diatomic, that means burning one liter of hydrogen in oxygen at STP will release (285.83/22.4) = 12.7kJ.

One liter of oxyhydrogen contains 1/3L of oxygen and 2/3L of hydrogen. Therefore, reacting that 2/3L of hydrogen with the oxygen evolves (285.83/22.4)*2/3 = 8.47kJ

Here's a good example:

Which has more energy, one kilogram of TNT or one kilogram of gasoline reacted with air?

When exploded, one kilogram of TNT releases roughly 4.7 million joules.
When completely burned, one kilogram of gasoline releases 44.4 million joules.

This seems rater contradictory, since a kilo of TNT is probably a lot more dangerous than a kilo of petrol.

Like the oxyhydrogen, the TNT seems more powerful because it is explosive. In reality, these explosive things usually don't contain very much energy since they carry their own oxygen. The same is true for the oxyhydrogen.

Follow?

[myoldyourgold]

Electronut, Hear is a question. How much horse power does one liter of good dry HHO have? I would like to see the math on that.

[Roland Jacques]

Electronut, Hear is a question. How much horse power does one liter of good dry HHO have? I would like to see the math on that.

The power of HHO is not the same as H2 + O2. H2 + O2 can not melt the same things that Browns (HHO) gas can. But some of the energy comes from the "water vapor" So "dry" HHO...

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5440.pdf
http://keelynet.com/energy/oxyhyd3.htm

[myoldyourgold]

Yes I agree, but still not an answer to my question to Electronut.

[Roland Jacques]

I just don't know how anyone can answer that.

I know a true HHO Guru who has a device (the name of it slips my my) that measures the thermal value of Gases. He says different HHO electrolysers gases can vary by many times. So how can any one answer that question? I guess we can get a ball park on the the most conventional Cells but that may be it:confused:

[ElectroNut]

Horsepower is a unit of energy per time and cannot be associated with an amount of gas. However, a flow rate of gas can be associated with horsepower.

One horsepower is equivalent to 0.746 kilojoules per second. Since one liter of oxyhydrogen contains 8.47kJ, that means that one liter per second is equivalent to 8.47/0.746 = 11.35hp. Keep in mind that the internal combustion engine is not 100% efficient. With petrol, the modern ICE stands at about 19% chemical-to-mechanical efficiency. 19% of 11.35 is roughly 2.2 horsepower for a 1-liter per second gas feed, assuming the engine is running on pure oxyhydrogen.


To address Mr. Jacques' concerns regarding the energy content of the gas itself:

"Believe" is a strong word. If you're going to believe anything, believe me when I say that anyone with a firm grasp of physics can easily tell that neither the Eckman paper nor the KeelyNet article show any sort of credibility. If you follow the references, you will quickly find that the Eckman paper is simply a collage of shaky claims which have been tied together with physics the author obviously has little understanding for. If you wish, I am prepared to write a piecemeal rebuttal of the paper a capite ad calcem should you choose to entertain an opinion closer to fact.

Cheers,
ElectroNut

[myoldyourgold]

Horsepower is a unit of energy per time and cannot be associated with an amount of gas. However, a flow rate of gas can be associated with horsepower.

One horsepower is equivalent to 0.746 kilojoules per second. Since one liter of oxyhydrogen contains 8.47kJ, that means that one liter per second is equivalent to 8.47/0.746 = 11.35hp. Keep in mind that the internal combustion engine is not 100% efficient. With petrol, the modern ICE stands at about 19% chemical-to-mechanical efficiency. 19% of 11.35 is roughly 2.2 horsepower for a 1-liter per second gas feed, assuming the engine is running on pure oxyhydrogen.


Electronut Sir, Is this taking into consideration monoatomic or diatomic oxyhydrogen? If not what would be the difference if any? Thank you for your contribution.:)

[BioFarmer93]

Horsepower is a unit of energy per time and cannot be associated with an amount of gas. However, a flow rate of gas can be associated with horsepower.

One horsepower is equivalent to 0.746 kilojoules per second. Since one liter of oxyhydrogen contains 8.47kJ, that means that one liter per second is equivalent to 8.47/0.746 = 11.35hp. Keep in mind that the internal combustion engine is not 100% efficient. With petrol, the modern ICE stands at about 19% chemical-to-mechanical efficiency. 19% of 11.35 is roughly 2.2 horsepower for a 1-liter per second gas feed, assuming the engine is running on pure oxyhydrogen.


To address Mr. Jacques' concerns regarding the energy content of the gas itself:

"Believe" is a strong word. If you're going to believe anything, believe me when I say that anyone with a firm grasp of physics can easily tell that neither the Eckman paper nor the KeelyNet article show any sort of credibility. If you follow the references, you will quickly find that the Eckman paper is simply a collage of shaky claims which have been tied together with physics the author obviously has little understanding for. If you wish, I am prepared to write a piecemeal rebuttal of the paper a capite ad calcem should you choose to entertain an opinion closer to fact.

Cheers,
ElectroNut

Wow, you sound like you're REALLY smart! I'd love to see some photo's of your builds. Thanks!

[ElectroNut]

Here's a rather well-documented start as of May 31, 2010:

(I'd repost it as a new thread this forum but the image limit seems to be too low)

http://backyardmetalcasting.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4514

Thanks for the interest!


@myoldyourgold

The short answer is that the energy value is for the diatomic mix of gases. I would suggest reading about "standard enthalpy of formation" and "bond energy." These values are measured amounts of energy needed to break bonds between every possible combination of atoms. Take a look at this page: http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/bondel.html

For instance, a single C-H bond is worth 418kJ/mol. Examine methane, the simplest hydrocarbon: CH4. There are 4 C-H bonds, so to completely break methane apart, you would need 418*4 = 1672kJ per mole of methane. However, methane reacts with O2 to form 1 CO2 and 2 H2O molecules. This means that 2 C=O bonds are being formed (note the double bond) and 4 H-O bonds are being formed to make the water. Add all of these together and you get 393.5 + 2(285.8) = 965.1.

Since we used 418kJ to break methane but got 965.1kJ back after it reacted with oxygen, the net energy change is 547.1kJ. This means that burning one mole of methane releases 547.1kJ of energy. Follow? In simpler terms:

Total energy = (energy released when reaction products are formed) - (energy needed to break molecules into atoms)

These energy values can vary slightly depending on the particular bond length in the molecule. For simple molecules like methane, water, and carbon dioxide, these values are quite accurate. They only get distorted when bonds are stressed, for example in "caged" compounds like hexamethylenetetramine, adamantane, and many other heterocyclic hydrocarbons. A good example of the use of this strength is in the explosive octanitrocubane. It gains a bunch of energy by having stressed bonds. The downside is that it subsequently takes a lot of energy to make, so yields are extremely low.

Anyway, all of this also answers part 2 of the question. As you can see, once the energy holding the bonds together is broken, the atoms will react with each other. Therefore, monoatomic hydrogen and oxygen can never exist together without spontaneously reacting.

This may also give you insight about why you need a flame to light things on fire: The heat of the flame provides the initial energy required to smash the bonds in the molecules so they react with each other. The energy required to do this is referred to as the "activation energy." Once the atoms react, they release the energy required to break more bonds of adjacent unreacted molecules and the flame front proceeds on its own.

Hope that helps,
-ElectroNut

[Roland Jacques]

To address Mr. Jacques' concerns regarding the energy content of the gas itself:

"Believe" is a strong word. If you're going to believe anything, believe me when I say that anyone with a firm grasp of physics can easily tell that neither the Eckman paper nor the KeelyNet article show any sort of credibility. If you follow the references, you will quickly find that the Eckman paper is simply a collage of shaky claims which have been tied together with physics the author obviously has little understanding for. If you wish, I am prepared to write a piecemeal rebuttal of the paper a capite ad calcem should you choose to entertain an opinion closer to fact.

Cheers,
ElectroNut

Thanks for your generous offer. But a rebuttal to those papers is not necessary for me. For me first and second hand repeatable testing carries more weight than papers. Not to mention most scientific papers are over my head. While you could debate the papers, IMO there is "evidence" (shaky claims) that shows that there is more going on in browns gas than simply H2 +O2 Or energy in matching up with a giving energy out formula. Personally im more impressed by testing and results than theorys on paper. You might say i do things backwards, in that i see results and then look for theorys that support the results.


As far as Having a firm grasp on Physics. History shows that "a firm grasp on Physics" is a relative thing.

Re-noun physicist Lord Kelvin in 1889 said
"Radio has know Future"
"Heavier than air flying machines are a impossibility."
and
"X-Rays will prove to be a hoax."

I believe that most would have said that he had a firm grasp on Physics. :)

[Farrahday]

Holy cow, your worse than my teenage daughter. Always gotta have the last word. I joined these boards in May and Mr Smith has done alot more to further the cause here than you have. His contributions are way more useful than yours have been. I dont want to ban you as you obviously are intelligent and could possible offer valuable information, but if all you intend to do is pose rediculous questions and then not be part of the solution, then I will. So play nice as Mr Smith will not be the one who gets put out. I respect your intelect, but your personal relation skills are lackluster. This is not a physics forum nor a chemistry forum. Those things have a place here, but most of us are into the "hows" not the "whys"

No one will ever learn anything around here if people aren't prepared to listen to those that are clearly more intelligent and more knowlegeable. I can't believe you would even consider banning BStu, for saying this:


There is a saying: "Beauty is temporary but stupidity is forever".


particularly as it appears to have been a very polite and restrained response to this quite offensive and very childish statement posted by Mr Smith:


Frankly STU, you are getting on my nerves along with everybody else on this forum. Please leave. If you do not chose to leave, I will ignore you for the rest of my life. Thanks and have a good time riding your nerdy recumbent bike and the little elevator that you built in the corner of your room. Please spend your time ****ing people off on the Legal forums. Lawyers love to argue. I just want to tinker with my car. Leave me the F__K alone.



Its absurd.

BStu is clearly educated and could be an asset, just like ElectroNut, and unlike Mr Smith who must surely be living in some alternate reality:


Originally Posted by Smith03Jetta

After that, I'm blotting you out of my existence. I am intelligent. I'm an IT professional. I turned down a Stanford Scholarship once. I have multiple college degrees but what I've learned in real life has taught me more than what I will learn in some theoretical setting. Who cares how hot a flame is. The fact is you will get burned if you put your hand in it. Some things you don't need to understand, just take them on faith.

Yeah, right and my mom's the queen of England!

The devil is often in the detail when it comes to science, so to say, "Who cares how hot a flame is. The fact is you will get burned if you put your hand in it. Some things you don't need to understand, just take them on faith", is one of the most ridiculous and unscientific statements I have ever read. Educated people just make these kind of stupid remarks, let alone talk so trashy. I think you will find that intelligence is relative, Smithy.

Clearly the uneducated and ignorant folk are threatened by the knowledgeable and intelligent, by commonsense and reason, and as the science and maths is so far beyond them, they simply go on the defensive and dismiss it all. Instead of attempting to gain information, understanding and actually learn something, they simply rebuff the intelligent poster with all manner of pathetic arguments and illogical diatribe in vain attempts to disguise the fact that they're half-wits. Unfortunately it doesn't work.

One thing that does happen however, is that legitimately intelligent and knowledgeable folk are hounded off the forum. This is a real shame, as all this does is reduce the overall IQ level of the forum, while at the same time increasing the general level of ignorance. Sad really.:(

Incidentally I fully concur with ElectroNut's statement with regards to the Eckman Paper. The paper is littered with very blatant errors, so it's hard to take seriously when much of the simple science is so obviously incorrect. That said, for all it's flaws, the results from the mass spectrometer are quite interesting and informative,

[BioFarmer93]

Farrah,
Since I am one of the low IQ semi intelligent halfwits that are hesitant to listen to obviously more intelligent (and modest) scientific demi-gods such as B-S and yourself, I can only comment that you two socially inept over educated arrogant Brit twits probably need to be in a forum dedicated to snobby class oriented thinking knit-pickers like yourselves... Surely you must feel that no one here is up to your stratospheric caliber? Otherwise why would you resurrect a thread that was (thankfully) dropped back in February if not only to demonstrate your simpatico with a fellow wonk? You are the type of person that really has no business on a forum like this. Granted, that your education COULD be a valuable resource to us if your personality was not such a detractor. Unfortunately, very few people will be likely to ask you a question because of the snobby, superior, arrogant way it would be answered as well as the opportunity it would give you yet again to revel in your self avowed superior intellect. You see, you're an intellectual snob.. But I'm a sonofa*****, and I call them like I see them. I didn't like you over at Nick's Realm, and I don't care for you here either. Most people here don't care for you. So do us a favor, remain silent and act like an encyclopedia.. When called upon, divulge the secrets that only scientifically superior beings such as yourself have understanding of, then dumb it down so that we mere mortals may hopefully understand the basics of it, (as the fine points would most assuredly be lost on us) then disappear until someone rubs your lamp again. -or you could just go away... ta

[Farrahday]

Farrah,
Since I am one of the low IQ semi intelligent halfwits that are hesitant to listen to obviously more intelligent (and modest) scientific demi-gods such as B-S and yourself...

You said it, not me! However after your last post I'm inclined to be in full agreement with you.

I found this thread by looking for posts by ElectroNut, who appears to be one of the few truly educated people around here, only to find that BStu too was being alienated for his educated input. I see nothing that indicates BStu was being rude, offensive or indeed arrogant, he was simply being factual. The problem he had was that he was trying to converse with uneducated people that didn't really have a clue what he was talking about, and took offence to his greater knowledge.

Obviously some of you people have a problem with facts and truth, or anything pertaining to reality that might interfere with the fantasy worlds you appear to live in. Real science is just a little over your heads, so make it up as you go along, eh. But you are right about one thing, the likes of you really don't care about anyone that is above your pitifully low intellectual plane, I guess we highlight all of your inadequacies.

I tried to be helpful to Larry on Nicks Realm, but he found me to be an irritation, just as it appears you and others did. Don't you people ever tire of going around in circles and getting nowhere, because the only people that could move you forward have been made unwelcome and gone? I guess ignorance really is bliss for most of you. But on a supposedly scientific forum, how pathetic is that!


So do us a favor, remain silent and act like an encyclopedia.. When called upon, divulge the secrets that only scientifically superior beings such as yourself have understanding of, then dumb it down so that we mere mortals may hopefully understand the basics of it

Try to be realistic Farmerboy, there is a limit to how far things can be 'dumbed down'. And when the audience has only a couple of grey cells firing at any given time, I fear the effort is futile. Perhaps cards with pretty pictures on them, saying E is for Electrolyser would be the place to start!

You might call it as you see it.. I call it as it is!

[koya1893]

Maybe I've been spending way too much time in my little garage going in circle trying to develope an efficient system, and don't remember seeing any photos of system built by Farra using all the smarts I read from his reply and shared it with us.

Everytime I am asked how this process works I can't help but put it in terms so the average "Joe" can understand it and even see the advantage of having a system hooked up to their old tired, paid for Ford and benefit from it. My point is, some of us are well educated, they pop in here and start throwing theories and figures and symbles I have not seen since my teen years and expect simple minded people like this "Olde Salty" chief understand it.

I managed to learn everything about "N" power from anther "Salty Olde" chief, how he shared it with me so I can learn it had to be simple. We get blinded by the comflexity of how things should be and not see how things are.

This electrolyst process to split water into the two gases that forms it, is enough to drive anyone crazy, so if you expect the general public to embraced this process and actually would like to have a system design for their "old tired" ford truck, you need to keep is SIMPLE.

[BioFarmer93]

You said it, not me! However after your last post I'm inclined to be in full agreement with you.

I found this thread by looking for posts by ElectroNut, who appears to be one of the few truly educated people around here, only to find that BStu too was being alienated for his educated input. I see nothing that indicates BStu was being rude, offensive or indeed arrogant, he was simply being factual. The problem he had was that he was trying to converse with uneducated people that didn't really have a clue what he was talking about, and took offence to his greater knowledge.

Obviously some of you people have a problem with facts and truth, or anything pertaining to reality that might interfere with the fantasy worlds you appear to live in. Real science is just a little over your heads, so make it up as you go along, eh. But you are right about one thing, the likes of you really don't care about anyone that is above your pitifully low intellectual plane, I guess we highlight all of your inadequacies.

I tried to be helpful to Larry on Nicks Realm, but he found me to be an irritation, just as it appears you and others did. Don't you people ever tire of going around in circles and getting nowhere, because the only people that could move you forward have been made unwelcome and gone? I guess ignorance really is bliss for most of you. But on a supposedly scientific forum, how pathetic is that!



Try to be realistic Farmerboy, there is a limit to how far things can be 'dumbed down'. And when the audience has only a couple of grey cells firing at any given time, I fear the effort is futile. Perhaps cards with pretty pictures on them, saying E is for Electrolyser would be the place to start!

You might call it as you see it.. I call it as it is!

Farrah,
His arrogance and social ineptitude was truly only marginal, (compared to yours) but his ego is large enough that he didn't pick up on the fact that my comment to him was pure sarcasm.. But you, sweetcheecks, are the one that takes the cake in the rudeness department. Your continued reference to how unintelligent we are, and how educated and intelligent you are has done little to endear you to us, and has begun to sour many of us on your continued presence here. So please, save yourself the futility of effort you refer to in the above, and just go away. I feel certain that if anyone actually wishes to read your insults, they will PM you. By the way dear, for a lass who's supposed to be "all that" as a scientist, I have not noticed you offering any tremendous break-through's, insights or contributions to this forum's efforts. So apparently you with all your tremendous intelligence and scientific learning, are simply "going around in circles" also.. Now really, go away please.

[RichW]

I am an inventor that deals with HHO and the calculations of HHO and other forms of fuel for conversion purposes.
The simple answer to your question of how many BTU's are in 1 liter of HHO gas is 9.548.
The number of Liters of gaseous HHO to equal 1 pound of Propane (obviously, in liquid form) is roughly 2252 liters, which gives you roughly 21,500 BTU's.
While i am a huge promoter of the use of HHO, even i have to admit that unless ways of massive production of HHO gas is found for a very reasonable cost, it is unlikely that HHO will actually turn out to be a viable fuel source for almost anything.
Let me give you an example of a conversion:
a mid-range residential propane heater that is made to heat roughly 1000 Sq. Ft, uses 1.38 pounds of propane per hour. Here is the conversion so you understand that mathematically, this starts to become unreal:
Propane = 36.43 cubic feet per gallon
1 pound of propane = .235849 gallons, thus;
36.43 times .235849 give us 8.5919 cubic feet of propane per pound
The unit uses 1.38 pounds per hour, so we multiple 8.5919 by 1.38 and get a total of 11.86 cubic feet of propane per hour being consumed by this heater.
Because gaseous HHO does not produce the same BTU's as propane, we have to multiply the 11.86 cubic feet times 4.76 to adjust the BTU's, which gives us 56.45 cubit feet of HHO needed to equal the BTU value of the propane.
There are 28.3205 liters in 1 cubic foot, and we generally measure HHO gas in liters, so:
56.45 cubic feet of HHO equals (56.45 times 28.3205) 1598.69 liters of HHO gas needed per hour to fuel this heating unit per hour.
Last I checked, units that produce 1500 liters of HHO/hr were costing about $3800 each:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/233891198/Energy_saving_Gas_Generator_HHO_Generator.html
I cant speak for anyone else, but spending $3800 on a system that is still going to have a cost to use (electric), to power a single 30,000 btu heater is kind of spendy...
the above heater is just an example. It would take 3 hours for that heater to use 1 gallon of propane, and as of the date of this writing, I am paying 1.899/gallon of propane (in Minnesota), so i could run this heater continuously for 6003 hours for the cost of the HHO generator. Just as a foot note, 6003 hours equals 250 days at 24 hours a day of this unit running.....

[myoldyourgold]

The bottom line for heating is cost. I get used engine oil just for the cost of picking it up form a friendly farmer. I can't thank him enough and then mix it with heating oil. Then by adding a little HHO to burn up more of the hydrocarbons making the exhaust clean cuts my heating bill down by 2/3. I can not complain. There is more to the process and changes to the burner but none of it is that complicated or expensive. There has been many conversions to straight used engine oil that work very well.

[madman]

rich,

Thanks for the calc. Was wondering about some of that and having some numbers and equations is very helpful.You took something that is somewhat difficult and explained it wonderfully. It was easy to follow and understand so people can acually use the info.

I have a couple of questions.

1) how do you price propane? Can you do it by gallon? or lb.? or littre?

2) are you saying that propane has 4.76 times the BTU as HHO?

3) If you are saying that 1598 litres per hour of HHO is the equivelent of the propane heater then that is 26.63 littres per minute, correct?

If #3 is correct and I can compute the cost of the propane ( see #1) For one hour then I can compute the cost (kilowatt/hour) of the hho for 1 hour.

4) How is a BTU measured or calculated?

I have a mad therory about all this but I will save it for another time.

Madman