kilowatt vs. BTU

[madman]

I am trying to figure out if a hho heating system could be built to be more

cost efectiive than gas or electric. System would be run on 110 or 220 mains,transformed and rectified to 12 volt dc.

would use a high eficient high output unit like a unipolar bio beast. Would also use a high eficienf heat exchanger .

Lets say I have a space heater that ia 720 watts and it produces 5000 btu. Now lets say I have a hho heater that is 720 watts (60 amp at 12 volts) and produces 4 LPM of gas.

Here is the question. How many btu can 4 lpm of gas produce? If you believe the scammers it is 30-40-50,000.

Does anyone believe hho can outperform ng or electric? Does anyone have experience with a heat exchanger that really works?

Would love to try this in my 2 car garage, no heat out there. I am in the middle of a 49 plate unipolar system now.

[myoldyourgold]

I am trying to figure out if a hho heating system could be built to be more

cost efectiive than gas or electric. System would be run on 110 or 220 mains,transformed and rectified to 12 volt dc.

would use a high eficient high output unit like a unipolar bio beast. Would also use a high eficienf heat exchanger .

Lets say I have a space heater that ia 720 watts and it produces 5000 btu. Now lets say I have a hho heater that is 720 watts (60 amp at 12 volts) and produces 4 LPM of gas.

Here is the question. How many btu can 4 lpm of gas produce? If you believe the scammers it is 30-40-50,000.

Does anyone believe hho can outperform ng or electric? Does anyone have experience with a heat exchanger that really works?

Would love to try this in my 2 car garage, no heat out there. I am in the middle of a 49 plate unipolar system now.

As far as I can tell it has not been done. It has to do with the heat exchanger as well as the problem of getting more energy out than you put in. The only way I see it might be possible is with some kind of exotic heat exchanger using the unusual characteristics of HHO's flame was invented. It would be an invention that would be worth something if it could be made to work. So far it has been a loosing battle. Stan Myers brother started down this road many years ago and still has not come up with a working prototype for pier review even though there has been some patents filed. All others like the space heater form the guys in Oregon that was recently placed in the public domain would have been in full production and selling like hot cakes if it was something that was really better than a simple electric heater. They are trying to cash in on selling the plans and a heat exchanger. You might be able to buy a complete heater from then too.

[madman]

I agree that for this to work one will need a heat exchanger that performs to a degree that makes it worth while. It is kind a like dollar per mile. Comparing a gas to a disel car. The cost of the fuels is different so you just can not compare MPG. It is the same with heat. It would be dollar per BTU. Just like burning gasoline in a car, heating with propane,ng,fuel oil, or electric is only so efficient. Since hydroxy gas burns VERY hot it seems that it would be a better fuel for heat. As far as not being able to get more energy out than you put in is how you look at it. It is all about EFFIENCY. Like a dry cell on a car, it cost a small bit of horsepower to run the alt. BUT the car has a gain of 10 mpg.because the engine is more efficient and thus it can use less gasoline while operating at the same performance . With a hho heating system it is a little diff. because it will be a stand alone system using 100 percent of the fuel. So if I build a system that produces 30 percent more btu per dollar did I get free energy? No I just have a more cost effective heater. Do I think this is possible? I do but I have no education in mechanical engineering. As far as the heat exchanger I think tweaking a few of the variables such as amount of gas,pressure of gas, quantity of nozzles, orficis dia, etc. it will work. Anybdy out there done any tweaking?

[mikeinri]

I am trying to figure out if a hho heating system could be built to be more

cost efectiive than gas or electric. System would be run on 110 or 220 mains,transformed and rectified to 12 volt dc.

would use a high eficient high output unit like a unipolar bio beast. Would also use a high eficienf heat exchanger .

Lets say I have a space heater that ia 720 watts and it produces 5000 btu. Now lets say I have a hho heater that is 720 watts (60 amp at 12 volts) and produces 4 LPM of gas.

Here is the question. How many btu can 4 lpm of gas produce? If you believe the scammers it is 30-40-50,000.

Does anyone believe hho can outperform ng or electric? Does anyone have experience with a heat exchanger that really works?

Would love to try this in my 2 car garage, no heat out there. I am in the middle of a 49 plate unipolar system now.

You are only talking about 4000-6000 BTU output with that size heater. There is no use in trying to make one that size when you can get the same thing with a $35 electric space heater.

If someone has a unit that has an output of 8-10LPM with the same watt input I'll buy it from them. You need that much production in order to make the heater worth while.

[myoldyourgold]

Maximum one could make with 52 amps (according to Faraday) at 13.8 volts if you had a reactor that was 100% efficient at 1013.25 barometric pressure and 110ºF would be 10.08 LPM. It should be very possible to make 8 LPM in fact I know it is possible.

[mikeinri]

Maximum one could make with 52 amps (according to Faraday) at 13.8 volts if you had a reactor that was 100% efficient at 1013.25 barometric pressure and 110ºF would be 10.08 LPM. It should be very possible to make 8 LPM in fact I know it is possible.

Who here has a reactor even close to that? Because, I can make us rich in a year.
650 watts of power at 120v or what ever converted power you prefer and produce 8+LPM.

So you have apples to apples I suggest you use a house outlet (with an amp meter) and convert the output to DC. (under 6 amps)

[myoldyourgold]

Who here has a reactor even close to that? Because, I can make us rich in a year.
650 watts of power at 120v or what ever converted power you prefer and produce 8+LPM.

So you have apples to apples I suggest you use a house outlet (with an amp meter) and convert the output to DC. (under 6 amps)

Not many that is for sure. But it is possible. I have no idea what you are getting at though. Now its 650 watts to make 8 LPM. If you use the same reactor that I referenced in my post then you would be making 8 LPM at 47 amps which is about 88% efficient according to Faraday in stead of 100%.

Not adjusted for barometric pressure or temperature Faraday's max is 11.4 MLPM per amp per square inch per cell. There is no mystery in how water is split using brute force or what is called Faraday's method. Using other energy from other sources changes everything.

[madman]

You are only talking about 4000-6000 BTU output with that size heater. There is no use in trying to make one that size when you can get the same thing with a $35 electric space heater.

If someone has a unit that has an output of 8-10LPM with the same watt input I'll buy it from them. You need that much production in order to make the heater worth while.

How are you computing LPM to btu? More importantly I am looking for ideas to exchange the flame(heat) of the hho to becone a simple space heater.

1) Blast several nozzles of flame onto ceramic plates and blow air across them?

2) Heat 55 gallons of liquid( h2o, oil, ? ) and run thru copper pipes in a base board configuration?

3) Heat water to create steam and pipe it thru an old fashioned cast iron radiator.?

I can build a bigger reactor for more LPM. Acually it is easier and cheaper to use straight 110 0r 220 just match plate count to get 2 volts per cell. More volts, more amps, more steel, is more production.

This thread is NOT about gas production or the EFICIENCY of the reactors( kinda). IT IS about the VALUE of traditional heating vs. HHO heating.

It is like dollars per mile not MPG. I want to know BTU per dollar. If I spend $1 on electic for heat and I spend $1 on electric for hho production for heat which one gives me more bang for my buck?

Lets all get together on this one . If we can increase our mileage I would think we could improve on the heating also. I do not know about you guys but a few bucks saved means an upgrade for me like going from stag to flat tire.

[myoldyourgold]

Lets all get together on this one . If we can increase our mileage I would think we could improve on the heating also. I do not know about you guys but a few bucks saved means an upgrade for me like going from stag to flat tire.

I agree. Here is a start:

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g215/yenom_1945/HeaterMyers.gif

http://www.google.com/patents/US4389981

http://free-energy-info.co.uk/index.html

[mikeinri]

[QUOTE=myoldyourgold;48362] Now its 650 watts to make 8 LPM. If you use the same reactor that I referenced in my post then you would be making 8 LPM at 47 amps which is about 88% efficient according to Faraday in stead of 100%.
QUOTE]

It’s not a question of "Now" because you gave me those numbers. I didn't change anything.

I'm getting the watts by using a simple electrical formula. Then I'm giving the watts right back to you and I'm asking you to use that as a baseline.

It seems like people have been getting stuck on the power equation. Can't see the trees for the forest. I don't care about the perfect equation and 100% efficiency when it's not realistic. Every time you flash amp and flow numbers at me I'm converting it to watts (power) and BTUs (energy).

I'm just trying to approach this from a different angle. I hope this helps.

[mikeinri]

How are you computing LPM to btu? More importantly I am looking for ideas to exchange the flame(heat) of the hho to becone a simple space heater.

You are burning a gas. It does not mater if you burn it with a standing pilot or through a torchhead. You can aim the flame at ceramics or a pot of water. When you burn 4 LPM you get "X" BTUs. I'm converting the BTU content using a number that is a little lower then pure hydrogen, which HHO is.


I can build a bigger reactor for more LPM. Acually it is easier and cheaper to use straight 110 0r 220 just match plate count to get 2 volts per cell. More volts, more amps, more steel, is more production..

Hate to tell you this but size doesn't matter. The chemistry is exciting, so lets see if it is worth it.



This thread is NOT about gas production or the EFICIENCY of the reactors( kinda). IT IS about the VALUE of traditional heating vs. HHO heating.

I read this thread. I know what it's about. I'm quantifying your gas production and putting a value on it. When it comes down to the power you consumed to "MAKE" your gas it does come down to gas production and EFICIENCY.




It is like dollars per mile not MPG. I want to know BTU per dollar. If I spend $1 on electic for heat and I spend $1 on electric for hho production for heat which one gives me more bang for my buck?.

I gave you the answer to that. I compared it to that super duper heater that company has. I compared it to an electric heater. Once you figure the watts you have the value of the product.


Lets all get together on this one . If we can increase our mileage I would think we could improve on the heating also. I do not know about you guys but a few bucks saved means an upgrade for me like going from stag to flat tire.

When you increase your mileage you are increasing your "EFICIENCY".
If you want to do some real testing use my starting point.
Use a 120v outlet and measure your amps and gas production.

[myoldyourgold]

I guess I understand Faraday's law a little different than you do. Watts are not in my book a good measure just like MMW is also not the best measure. Here is a document written by Nick Stone. I can not thank him enough. If you understand this then you will see why.




Calculating Faraday Efficiency for HHO Production
With an emphasis on temperature correction

By: Nick Stone

Let's get a couple of things straight right out of the chute. First, an electrochemical reactor is NOT "a cell"!

Your reactor might consist of "a cell", but, more than likely, it consists of multiple cells. A "cell" consists of two electronically conducting phases (at the plates) connected by an ionically conducting phase (through the aqueous electrolyte between them). In a single "cell", as an electrical current passes, it must change from electronic current at the surface of the positive face of one plate to ionic current through the electrolyte and back to electronic current at the negative face of the other plate. These changes of conduction mode, in each and every single "cell", are always accompanied by oxidation/reduction reactions. A single "cell" can consist of either two bipolar plates (improperly refered to as "neutral plates") or two monopolar plates (plates connected, externally, to positive and/or negative terminals) or a combination of a monopolar plate and a bipolar plate. It makes no difference which is which. Furthermore, this holds true for nested tubes or any other types of electrode configurations you can dream up.

Next,

Faraday Efficiency is a term that crops up in the HHO community over and over. There have been claims made that some of the best and the brightest in the HHO community have calculated it every way from Sunday and they swear that, as it turns out, 100% Faraday Efficiency is equal to somewhere in the neighborhood of 7.5 MMW (Milliliters per Minute per Watt). That is PURE UNADULTERATED HOGWASH! It is simply NOT true and the reason why should be blatantly obvious to you once you have read and understand this article, but if it still isn't clear to you, in part two of this article, I will use the data from an actual YouTube video, that you can watch, to explain exactly why it's not even anywhere close to being true, but, first, you need to understand how Faraday Efficiency (Refered to as Current Efficiency in Electrochemistry reference manuals and materials) is calculated.

For the purposes of this article, I am going to round off some numbers, but I would like to encourage you to do the math yourself to double check any and all of my numbers.

.627 Liters per hour per amp is representative of 100% Faraday Efficiency at 32 oF and 1 atm pressure. The ratio of .627 liters per hour per amp per cell is the same thing as .627 divided by 60 minutes to get .01045 liters per minute per amp per cell and then, because there are 1000 milliliters in a liter, multiplied by 1000 to get 10.45 milliliters per minute per amp per cell.

So, let's take a look at another way to get there and try to construct a proof along the way.

We'll use Faraday's Laws and perform the calculation for the half reactions to find the theoretical volumes of Hydrogen and Oxygen produced per minute per amp per cell during the electrolysis of water, but there are a few preliminary considerations to get out of the way first.

The volume of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Air, HHO or any gas for that matter, per mole is a given value. At standard pressure ( 1 atmosphere) and temperature (273.15 oK or 298 oK depending on who you ask), the volume of Hydrogen per mole is 22.414 Liters or 22,414 Milliliters at 273.15 oK which, by the way, is the Ideal Gas Constant (0.0820574587) multiplied by that particular "Standard Temperature"(represented in degrees Kelvin). Also, this is the point in the calculations where, by compensating for the volume per mole, temperature corrections are made.

For example, some people will use what is commonly referred to as "room temperature" (25 oCentigrade (synonymous with Celsius) = 77 oFahrenheit = 298oKelvin) as the Standard Temperature to make these calculations which makes the volume of gas per mole = Ideal Gas Constant (0.0820574587) multiplied by room temperature in Kelvins (298oK) = 24.4531226926 Liters or 24,453 Milliliters per mole. In order to make this more clear, I will carry out the example for both Standard Temperatures throughout these calculations, but we could insert any temperature at all, as long as it is represented in degrees Kelvin, and it would work exactly the same.

Anyway, here are a couple more things to understand first. Electrical Charge in Coulombs (C) = t (time) multiplied by I (current)...(60 seconds x 1 Amp) = 60 Coulombs Also, 1 mole of Hydrogen yields 2 moles of electrons. The electrical charge of one mole of electrons (Faraday's Constant) is given as 96,485 Coulombs (1 Faraday). Since there are two moles of electrons in one mole of Hydrogen, the electrical charge delivered by one mole of Hydrogen = 2 x 96,485 Coulombs or 192,970 Coulombs.

Hydrogen volume per minute per amp per cell = Electrical charge in Coulombs (60 Coulombs) / (divided by) Electrical charge delivered by one mole of Hydrogen (192,970 Coulombs) multiplied by the Ideal Gas Constant (0.0820574587) multiplied by the temperature (represented in degrees Kelvin) which, fo example, is equal to 22,414 milliliters (at 273.15oK or 0oC or 32oF) or 24,453 milliliters (at 298oK or 25oC or 77oF).

Now, when you perform those half reaction calculations for Hydrogen at a temperature of 273.15oK (0 oC or 32 oF), it turns out like this:

60 Coulombs / 192,970 Coulombs = .000311 Coulombs

And,
.000311 Coulombs x 22,414 milliliters = 6.97 milliliters (Hydrogen per minute per amp per cell)

Or, at room temperature (298oK):
.000311 Coulombs x 24,453 milliliters = 7.60 milliliters (Hydrogen per minute per amp per cell)


Hydroxy contains 100% more or twice as much Hydrogen than Oxygen, so 50% or half of 6.97 milliliters (3.485 Milliliters) should equal the volume of Oxygen produced per minute per amp per cell and when we add the two together, that brings us up to 10.45 milliliters per minute per amp per cell.

Okay, now, let's go ahead and carry out our proof and verify that again by performing the calculations for the other half reaction for Oxygen and adding it to our results for Hydrogen.

Instead of 2 moles of electrons like we had for Hydrogen, we have 4 moles of electrons for Oxygen, so 4 x 96,485 C = 385,940 C/mole.

Now, again, when you perform those half reaction calculations for Oxygen at a temperature of 273.15 oK (0 oC or 32 oF), it turns out like this:

60 Coulombs / 385,940 Coulombs = 0.000155 Coulombs

And,
0.000155 Coulombs x 22,414 milliliters = 3.48 milliliters (Oxygen per minute per amp per cell)

Or, at room temperature (298 oK):
.000155 Coulombs x 24,453 milliliters = 3.80 milliliters (Oxygen per minute per amp per cell)


Now,
6.97 milliliters Hydrogen + 3.48 milliliters Oxygen = 10.45 milliliters of Hydroxy per minute per amp per cell.
Or, at room temperature (298 oK):
7.60 milliliters Hydrogen + 3.80 milliliters Oxygen = 11.4 milliliters of Hydroxy per minute per amp per cell.



Presto! There's your proof!

To correct for pressure, you just divide that final number by the atmospheric pressure represented in units of atm (atmospheres). Most local weather stations report atmospheric pressure in millibars or hectopascals (both the same thing). You can convert barometric pressure to atmospheres by multiplying the value given in millibars or hectopascals by .0009869233

That's the nub of it, but keep in mind that although I rounded off many of the figures for the purpose of slightly improving readablility of this article, for the sake of precision and accuracy, my calculator does not round off anything during the calculations. It's only the final output that gets rounded of!

This by far is the best done article you will find. Full credit and thanks to Nick for this!!

[myoldyourgold]

Mikeinri, I ask again if you know HHO has less BTU than Hydrogen then you must know how many BTU are in 1 LPM of HHO. Please post the number with backup evidence/math/links etc.

[mikeinri]

I guess I understand Faraday's law a little different than you do. Watts are not in my book a good measure just like MMW is also not the best measure. Here is a document written by Nick Stone. I can not thank him enough. If you understand this then you will see why.



This by far is the best done article you will find. Full credit and thanks to Nick for this!!


Everything on this planet has a BTU rating/ per it's weight.

cubic foot natural gas= 1000 BTUs
cubic foot of propane= 2500 BTUs
cubic foot of hydrogen= 319 BTUs
1 gallon of gas= 114,000 BTUs

Now can we please return to my question. Who hear has the best generator. I don't not mean who has the biggest. I mean who has the most HHO generated output per/watt of electricity.

[mikeinri]

Mikeinri, I ask again if you know HHO has less BTU than Hydrogen then you must know how many BTU are in 1 LPM of HHO. Please post the number with backup evidence/math/links etc.

20 BTUs in 1 liter, I'm rounding up on the BTUs, WAY up. It's less then that.

Now you know why I am looking at the most output for $1 of electricity.

You can not calculate your electrical usage unless you convert what you consume to watts.

Now do you understand now why that space heater they are selling is a scam.

This idea can work, IF the generator puts out enough HHO/watt.

[mikeinri]

I guess I understand Faraday's law a little different than you do. Watts are not in my book a good measure just like MMW is also not the best measure. Here is a document written by Nick Stone. I can not thank him enough. If you understand this then you will see why.



This by far is the best done article you will find. Full credit and thanks to Nick for this!!

I commend you on your cut and paste abilities and I'm not arguing the science.

I do think you need to learn how to calculate your home electric bill.

Without that knowledge you can't understand why I am asking about watt usage.

[mikeinri]

I am trying to figure out if a hho heating system could be built to be more

cost efectiive than gas or electric. System would be run on 110 or 220 mains,transformed and rectified to 12 volt dc.

would use a high eficient high output unit like a unipolar bio beast. Would also use a high eficienf heat exchanger .

Lets say I have a space heater that ia 720 watts and it produces 5000 btu. Now lets say I have a hho heater that is 720 watts (60 amp at 12 volts) and produces 4 LPM of gas.

Here is the question. How many btu can 4 lpm of gas produce? If you believe the scammers it is 30-40-50,000.

Does anyone believe hho can outperform ng or electric? Does anyone have experience with a heat exchanger that really works?

Would love to try this in my 2 car garage, no heat out there. I am in the middle of a 49 plate unipolar system now.

That 50,000 number is the BTUs in 1 pound of HHO

If you have a 720 watt electric heater producing 5000 Btus don't tell anyone.

You should be getting about 2300 BTUs for that 720watts.

[myoldyourgold]

Well I guess you think HHO is made by watts and not amps. It is you that do not understand how HHO is made and not me not knowing how my electric bill is calculated. Even though watts and amps are related, there are limits that if exceeded you only make heat instead of gas. As the voltage goes up and you lower the amps the wattage could be the same but gas production follows the amps. Build a reactor and test it yourself and talk from experience. Faraday's law is not rocket science. You obviously do not understand it. Here is a couple examples:

1) 6 volts 1 amp 2 plates. The plates are 6 x 6. 6 watts

2) 2 volts 3 amps 2 plates. The plates are 6 x 6. 6 watts

Now which according to Faraday will make more Gas and not steam/moisture? I can assure you they are not the same even though the watts are!! Remember we are talking only about brute force and one source of energy.

I will have to disagree with you that there is 50,000 BTU per pound of HHO. How did you come up with that figure? It is like Madman said from some scammer I guess. LOL I would like to see the math or method for calculating/measuring that.

Now about cutting and pasting, your right it is a cut and past and way above my math ability. I at least know where to get the right information and from someone that I personally know. I also have a working understanding on how it all works.

It will be very interesting to see who has the most efficient reactor. I doubt that anyone would post it if they had one. I would not blame them either.

There is no use beating this dead horse anymore. Let us agree to disagree until you do some testing. This is not helping anyone.

[myoldyourgold]

I can not see how it will be possible to run a heater on nothing but HHO using only brute force and be able to get any gain over a good electric heater. This is very similar to running a car on nothing but HHO. I personally think the only possible way to see any gain will be to get an oil burner to burn much more efficiently by using used engine oil mixed with diesel/heating oil along with HHO to get a complete burn with no pollution. This is the way I am going because my home has two furnaces one electric and one oil. I can run either one and even both together. Fuel oil/diesel has become quite expensive, more expensive than electricity in North Dakota to heat with. Farmers sell there used oil reasonably and even with the cost of collecting, storing and running it through a filter so it can be burnt with some minor modifications of the system there will be savings. I think that with the right amount of HHO which will not take to many amps will give me a much better burn and save as much as 60% of the present bill.

Here are some interesting facts about HHO/hydroxy/browns gas.


Pre-heating is one of the all time best uses for HHO Gas - particularly on materials that require a lot of energy to heat, like stainless steel.
One story I like to tell is about a company that bought a HHO Gas machine from China (a 3,000 liter per hour one) for $400,000. They weld large (several feet in diameter) stainless steel tubes and pipes together. Before these pipes can be welded they must be pre-heated. Using the HHO Gas machine, this company was able to underbid their competition and thus became one of the largest welding companies in this field.
• This HHO gas allows you to pre-heat in a tiny spot or a whole area.
• and it is clean, only water is the by-product.
• Since HHO Gas has a 'cold' flame, which applies the potential energy directly to the material being heated, the temperature that the material will heat to is dependent on the size of your flame and the material's ability to dissipate this type of energy.
• We've discovered that different materials go to different temperatures; the materials that are poor conductors of heat, heat up very quickly when a HHO Gas flame is applied.
• We have been able to melt every material we've applied to this flame.
• The higher the melting temperature of the material, the faster this flame heats it up.
• The kicker is that Brown's Gas will vaporize materials like tungsten and diamonds, but it will only very slowly heat water.
• So you have to take care what you want to pre-heat, because the gas heats every material to a different temperature, mostly depending on that material's ability to shed heat.

[mikeinri]

Well I guess you think HHO is made by watts and not amps. It is you that do not understand how HHO is made and not me not knowing how my electric bill is calculated. Even though watts and amps are related, there are limits that if exceeded you only make heat instead of gas. As the voltage goes up and you lower the amps the wattage could be the same but gas production follows the amps. Build a reactor and test it yourself and talk from experience. Faraday's law is not rocket science. You obviously do not understand it. Here is a couple examples:

1) 6 volts 1 amp 2 plates. The plates are 6 x 6. 6 watts

2) 2 volts 3 amps 2 plates. The plates are 6 x 6. 6 watts

Now which according to Faraday will make more Gas and not steam/moisture? I can assure you they are not the same even though the watts are!! Remember we are talking only about brute force and one source of energy.

I will have to disagree with you that there is 50,000 BTU per pound of HHO. How did you come up with that figure? It is like Madman said from some scammer I guess. LOL I would like to see the math or method for calculating/measuring that.

Now about cutting and pasting, your right it is a cut and past and way above my math ability. I at least know where to get the right information and from someone that I personally know. I also have a working understanding on how it all works.

It will be very interesting to see who has the most efficient reactor. I doubt that anyone would post it if they had one. I would not blame them either.

There is no use beating this dead horse anymore. Let us agree to disagree until you do some testing. This is not helping anyone.

I'm not arguing your science of making HHO. I know what a frigging amp is.

All I'm asking is what your electric usage was when you made the HHO. What in your highschool chemistry head is preventing you from comprehending the question? As an instructor I most certantly can back up any information I offer. And I would be the first to admit any mistakes I make.

Don't waste everyones time with hypothetical Faraday mathmatical numbers. I want to know what people have now in the real world.

And why do you dissagree with 50,000 btus per pound? You are right. The BTU numbers are lower then that. Those numbers should be rolling off the tip of your tongue if you were a true student of the science.

National Academies of Science/ National Academies of Press
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10922&page=240

If you search you will see 1 "POUND" of hydrogen has 61,000 BTUs. Do you know why HHO has less BTUs per pound?

And if you notice if I put a link here it ends in "edu" not scammer.com :p

In Faradays perfect world at sea level in August he makes 600 liters of HHO at 52 amps using 13.8 volts in 1 hour. He consumed 717 watts when doing so. If I set it on fire I create about 1200 BTUs of heat. (using 20 btus/l)

If I buy a $30 electric heater and set it at 700 watts (low setting) I create about 2200 BTUs.

Do I need to post the definition of a BTU also?

Who are you the official site flamer who attacks anyone new? My information is correct.

Have a nice day.

[mikeinri]

I can not see how it will be possible to run a heater on nothing but HHO using only brute force and be able to get any gain over a good electric heater. This is very similar to running a car on nothing but HHO. I personally think the only possible way to see any gain will be to get an oil burner to burn much more efficiently by using used engine oil mixed with diesel/heating oil along with HHO to get a complete burn with no pollution. This is the way I am going because my home has two furnaces one electric and one oil. I can run either one and even both together. Fuel oil/diesel has become quite expensive, more expensive than electricity in North Dakota to heat with. Farmers sell there used oil reasonably and even with the cost of collecting, storing and running it through a filter so it can be burnt with some minor modifications of the system there will be savings. I think that with the right amount of HHO which will not take to many amps will give me a much better burn and save as much as 60% of the present bill.

Here are some interesting facts about HHO/hydroxy/browns gas.

How would you get the mixture into the oil flame? The burn rate of HHO is so high it would not project far enough to mix with the oil.

If you introduce oxygen to oil before it is lit you will put your furnace into the next state.

Straight hydrogen with oil would be safer. you could set the hydrogen nozzle about 1 inch in front and off to the side slightly from the oil nozzle. That would superheat the oil just as it ignites but it is so fast I don't know if it would help. It would be like passing your finger through the torch flame real fast. No burns.

[myoldyourgold]

How would you get the mixture into the oil flame? The burn rate of HHO is so high it would not project far enough to mix with the oil.

If you introduce oxygen to oil before it is lit you will put your furnace into the next state.

Straight hydrogen with oil would be safer. you could set the hydrogen nozzle about 1 inch in front and off to the side slightly from the oil nozzle. That would superheat the oil just as it ignites but it is so fast I don't know if it would help. It would be like passing your finger through the torch flame real fast. No burns.

No one is mixing HHO in the oil!! You would be surprised at how long an HHO flame can be. We incorporate an HHO burner with the oil burner. The oil flame and the HHO flame are burning together. The oil flame going through the HHO flame. The unburnt hydrocarbons are burnt up with the HHO and the heat captured by the exchanger instead of going up the chimney. Think of it as a type of after burner. There is already some variations of this being used.


I'm not arguing your science of making HHO. I know what a frigging amp is.

All I'm asking is what your electric usage was when you made the HHO.

Do you want to know how many watts the power supply is consuming to make/assist the making of x amount of HHO? The answer could be misleading because a lot of us have a battery bank in series with the power supply and use different power supplies some much more efficient than others. That would be similar to how much HP does it require to make x number of watts to make 1 LPM of HHO. If this is what you are asking why not check it yourself with your reactor and we can then compare. Most of us have clamp on amp meters to measure ac amps. Should be interesting.

By the way if you think I am the resident flamer, you are giving me much more credit than I deserve. LOL

[madman]

Mikeinri,

You may be an instructor, master , phd, or a genious, which is no excuse to be rude, condencending,mean, hatefull,argumentative, etc. The purpose of this forum is to provide usefull imfo. and help each other.

By the way, I did not finish high school but I think I have possibly forgoten more about being nice to people than you may ever learn. I am all in for constructive critisism, cause learning from mistakes is invaluable.

Your mistake was not playing nice. Like my mom used to say " you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar". And mt granpa used to say " Be carefull when arguing with a fool cause people watching will not be able to tell who is who".

Madman

P.S. Loking forward to seeing you join in on other threads . I think you can add lots of good stuff and help in the advancement of our pursuits. Just please remember the golden rule.

[mikeinri]

Mikeinri,

By the way, I did not finish high school but I think I have possibly forgoten more about being nice to people than you may ever learn..

Oh, that's not condencending. :rolleyes:

Thankyou for your input.

I came asking cretain questions and a person started immediately telling me how much I knew or didn't know about HHO. Go read the posts.

And yes oldgold, putting a meter on the input to measure the amps is what I asked.

(To oldgold, to go back to constructive questions), I was wondering how close you have come to the Faraday 100% eff numbers?

[mikeinri]

Physics 101 from the smartest guy in the world (wikipedia :D ):

BTU - The British thermal unit (symbol Btu or sometimes BTU) is a traditional unit of energy equal to about 1055 joules.

Watt - The watt ( /ˈwɒt/ wot; symbol: W) is a derived unit of power in the International System of Units (SI), named after the Scottish engineer James Watt (1736–1819).

Apples producing oranges = Watts producing Btus

You need any two of those numbers to figure out the third. However "WATTS" is what tells you your energy consumed not "AMPS".

[mikeinri]

No one is mixing HHO in the oil!! You would be surprised at how long an HHO flame can be. We incorporate an HHO burner with the oil burner. The oil flame and the HHO flame are burning together. The oil flame going through the HHO flame. The unburnt hydrocarbons are burnt up with the HHO and the heat captured by the exchanger instead of going up the chimney. Think of it as a type of after burner. There is already some variations of this being used.

I understand the idea. However you need a second heat exchanger to capture the flue heat. The newer units have this, but they are already running at a high EFF so an HHO would not help much for the money spent.

On an older system you could get a much cleaner burn. Thats a cool idea, but you have nothing to capture the extra heat you create.

You can do that then cut down the oil input by decreasing the nozzel rating, but you are still at the mercy of an old heatexchanger.

You can't lower the flue temp because that would rot the pipe.




Do you want to know how many watts the power supply is consuming to make/assist the making of x amount of HHO? The answer could be misleading because a lot of us have a battery bank in series with the power supply and use different power supplies some much more efficient than others. That would be similar to how much HP does it require to make x number of watts to make 1 LPM of HHO. If this is what you are asking why not check it yourself with your reactor and we can then compare. Most of us have clamp on amp meters to measure ac amps. Should be interesting.


If the meter is placed after the bat bank that will give you the information of the used energy. If it comes out of the bank it still needs to be replenished as a later point.

[mikeinri]

Watts is not energy.

I can make any amount of BTUs with any amount of Watts if you do not specify the time.

If you read the other posts it is mentioned per hour.

I never said watts was energy. It is used to quantify the amount of energy.


If you can use any amount of BTUs then please show me how to make 5000 BTUs with 100 watts. I would like to see that :D

[madman]

Mikeinri,

I fired off on you in public so now I would like to apologize in public. I am sorry that I let my emotions override my common sense. It was disrespectful and not very nice. I am asking that you accept this apology. I violated my own rule of " engage brain before starting tounge".

This is truley sincere and thats the ones that count. Just saying the words do not count and I try to make my words count cause my typing skills need some improvement.

Madman

[mikeinri]

Mikeinri,

I fired off on you in public so now I would like to apologize in public. I am sorry that I let my emotions override my common sense. It was disrespectful and not very nice. I am asking that you accept this apology. I violated my own rule of " engage brain before starting tounge".

This is truley sincere and thats the ones that count. Just saying the words do not count and I try to make my words count cause my typing skills need some improvement.

Madman


Accepted. I tend to fire off with the keyboard before my brain kicks in. Then once I hit enter the battle of words takes over and completely takes over what we are here for in the first place, to learn and trade knowledge.

It was your topic that got me interested in the first place. Making a comparison to electric heat and trying to put a value on the HHO produced. That I knew I could lend some information to, but I don't have the impressive background with HHO like the people around here.

Converting amps, watts, and volts to a value and figuring BTU outpu,t and in the end, put a dollar sign on it$ That I can do.

myoldyourgold,

I'm also sorry for my derogatory comments towards you.

I felt like I was being attacked for asking questions. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding in the way I was asking them and you were only trying to lend me some of your knowledge.

If we could, let’s move forward to productive educational posts.

Mike

[mikeinri]

1BTU=1055J
5000BTU=5000*1055J=5275000J
100W=100J/s

So, to generate 5275000J or 5000BTU one machine rated 100W needs to work exactly 52750 seconds. Clear now?

This is the end of free of charge physics classes.




Watts per hour... ok. I learn something new everyday. :D :D :D

Nice answer. Well done sir!

Joules makes me dizy with those big numbers. :p

The only reason I convert everything back to watts per hour is so I can compare it to electric heat.

[myoldyourgold]

The one thing we are not taking into consideration is the quality of the HHO. That is one of the reasons why there is no standard BTU rating for it. It has a huge range because of the types of reactors. If you can up the quality to its maximum then it is a totally different ball game and can be quite dangerous too. I can attest to that. I can not say I have achieved this consistently but have had intermittent success.

Mikeinri, all I am willing to say about my reactor when compared to Faraday is close. That could be over or under. LOL

[madman]

Not counting very small or very large amounts, electricity is measured in kilowatts, which is one thousand watts . Electric companys charge at a rate of kilowatt hour. U.E. charges 10 cents per K.W. hour. A watt is energy used and is computed by mutiplying voltage x amps.

Now lets say I have a HHO reactor that runs at 220 volts and draws 9.09 amps. Now I run it for 1 hour. This costs me 20 cents. If I run 5 of these units in parallel it costs $1 per hour. If I make a heater and the duty cycle or acual burn time is 25% then the unit runs 6 hours per day for a cost of $6 per day. That is $180 per month. A month with moderate temps costs me over $300 at work.

Lets make a guestimate that each reactor produces 10 LPM x5 is 50 LPM. I am a little stuburn and am still convinced that with suficient amounts of HHO a heater can be made to work . I mean work as well but hopefully better (cheaper) than conventual types.

With 50 LPM and the unusual properties of HHO including the ability to heat things to EXTREMLY high temps I would think we could all come together here to overcome this thing. We do not need to reinvent the wheel or even invent something new. We just need to take existing technology and material, mix in a little chemistry, engineering, mechanics, fizics, and a little backyard tinkering.

What do ya think?

[mikeinri]

Not counting very small or very large amounts, electricity is measured in kilowatts, which is one thousand watts . Electric companys charge at a rate of kilowatt hour. U.E. charges 10 cents per K.W. hour. A watt is energy used and is computed by mutiplying voltage x amps.

Now lets say I have a HHO reactor that runs at 220 volts and draws 9.09 amps. Now I run it for 1 hour. This costs me 20 cents. If I run 5 of these units in parallel it costs $1 per hour. If I make a heater and the duty cycle or acual burn time is 25% then the unit runs 6 hours per day for a cost of $6 per day. That is $180 per month. A month with moderate temps costs me over $300 at work.

Lets make a guestimate that each reactor produces 10 LPM x5 is 50 LPM. I am a little stuburn and am still convinced that with suficient amounts of HHO a heater can be made to work . I mean work as well but hopefully better (cheaper) than conventual types.

With 50 LPM and the unusual properties of HHO including the ability to heat things to EXTREMLY high temps I would think we could all come together here to overcome this thing. We do not need to reinvent the wheel or even invent something new. We just need to take existing technology and material, mix in a little chemistry, engineering, mechanics, fizics, and a little backyard tinkering.

What do ya think?

There is no doubt that a heater can be made. But the BTU output will stink. It will cost more than if we had electric heat.

We need some technology to blow away Faradays formula. UV laser ultrasound or something else that will increase the HHO production more then what stand alone electrolysis will do.

Even if we get the electricity from solar power to produce the HHO you would be better off just dumping the solar back into the grid and using electric heat.

Have a good night. I'll be brainstorming outside the box.

Mike

[BioFarmer93]

The only reason I convert everything back to watts per hour is so I can compare it to electric heat.

It might have been a good idea to make this statement much earlier in the diatribe...


myoldyourgold,

I'm also sorry for my derogatory comments towards you.

I felt like I was being attacked for asking questions. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding in the way I was asking them and you were only trying to lend me some of your knowledge.

If we could, let’s move forward to productive educational posts.

Mike

Damn, now I have mixed feelings about you. I almost wish you had not apologized.
As myold' stated earlier, he is not the resident flamer... I AM. Mike, I'm going to be blatantly honest with you and communicate to you thoughts of mine that I would typically save for the back channel. Since you seem like a very bright young man, I'm sure you'll be able to understand why I'm saying this openly- based upon your openly personal attack of a highly esteemed mentor, and not just his ideas.
That you *may* have something of actual value to offer here (though nothing yet) is the ONLY thing that has kept me from taking the steps to have your rude ass banned. I had chosen to stay out of this thread because I had nothing to contribute and my time is at a premium these days, however I still check in two or three times a day to keep tabs on what's going on. For this thread, I can honestly tell you that I don't remember a time when I have exercised so much self control, figuratively biting my tongue at every turn.
The fact that Mark (madman) is relatively new here, and that Carter (myoldyourgold) is a gentleman of the first order are quite possibly the only things that kept your beans out of the fire. As far as I’m concerned, your ass is on probation and you need to remember that. Don’t argue a point or a concept in that manner again- you can be dismissive of the idea, point or concept, but do not be dismissive of the person who made or offered it. I don’t ever want to see this happen again, and if it does, you’ll be able to count the minutes between your last post and the point at which your logon no longer functions. I won’t respond to any comment public or private that you may have in response to this particular post of mine. If want to talk HHO that’s fine, but this post is a standalone and not for debate. Gus

[keiththevp]

Damn Gus when did they give you the ban hammer? :p

Anyway .... back to the topic.

A SAFE HHO heater has always been an interest of mine as I freeze my ass off in the winter working on HHO in the garage. It only took one month of running an electric heater in the garage to realize the $150 a month extra was better served towards projects rather then comfort.

I think the one main thing people dismiss with using HHO as a heater is that it reacts differently to every material you place in it's flame. So the real key to me is finding the right material to heat and or use as a heat exchanger in order to see better results then an electric heater that is very efficient in itself.

One idea I came up with that is NOT SAFE but would produce tremendous efficient heat would be to have your hho flame inside of a sealed metal sphere, remember the O is in there so no need for outside air for it to burn and when it burns it drops in volume so much the sphere would take a long time to fill up with water. So think of the sphere and burner inside as a filament that would need to be changed. So you take this sphere and place it in a standard oil based radiant heater and I think you will find that it will out produce an electric heater.

THE BIG HOWEVER though is finding the right size and strength to the sphere so that it does not blow up and hit you with hot oil and shrapnel when your flame burns out and the ignitor kicks in.:(

[mikeinri]

Damn Gus when did they give you the ban hammer?

Anyway .... back to the topic.

A SAFE HHO heater has always been an interest of mine as I freeze my ass off in the winter working on HHO in the garage. It only took one month of running an electric heater in the garage to realize the $150 a month extra was better served towards projects rather then comfort.

I think the one main thing people dismiss with using HHO as a heater is that it reacts differently to every material you place in it's flame. So the real key to me is finding the right material to heat and or use as a heat exchanger in order to see better results then an electric heater that is very efficient in itself.

One idea I came up with that is NOT SAFE but would produce tremendous efficient heat would be to have your hho flame inside of a sealed metal sphere, remember the O is in there so no need for outside air for it to burn and when it burns it drops in volume so much the sphere would take a long time to fill up with water. So think of the sphere and burner inside as a filament that would need to be changed. So you take this sphere and place it in a standard oil based radiant heater and I think you will find that it will out produce an electric heater.

THE BIG HOWEVER though is finding the right size and strength to the sphere so that it does not blow up and hit you with hot oil and shrapnel when your flame burns out and the ignitor kicks in.:(

Cool thought Keith. It would be like a HHO light bulb. How would you get more heat out then you input? That would be my question. If I put a HHO flame on a needle point I burn through the surface in seconds. If I pick a number 500 BTUs, that is used. OK, so if I disperse it over a surface of 1 square foot and use it as an exchanger I still only have 500 BTUs for heat.

A heat pump uses electric for its power and heats or cools. It delivers up to 5 times the BTUs as an electric heater because it causes a change in state of the heating medium.

Are you planning on a change of state in the object? If you cause a pressure increase you create heat. Would there be a pressure increase inside or would it stay neutral? You could go from a vacuum to 3000 psi. Tanks could hold that. You have to account for the energy used to create the HHO.

Interesting. Where are you getting the extra heat?
================================================== ========

I'm so glad Gus posted to this thread. He had so much to add. :rolleyes:

And once again I as a "person" get judged,

From Gus,
"That you *may* have something of actual value to offer here (though nothing yet) is the ONLY thing that has kept me from taking the steps to have your rude ass banned."

But he refuses to look back to see what caused my "re-action" as the tension started here.

Post #12-"I guess I understand Faraday's law a little different than you do. Watts are not in my book a good measure just like MMW is also not the best measure."

Then giving me an article to read. This is insulting and insinuating that I don't understand the basics of HHO. I was asking for the amount of watts being used for the project. And I stated that,

Post #14-"Now can we please return to my question. Who hear has the best generator. I don't not mean who has the biggest. I mean who has the most HHO generated output per/watt of electricity."

Post 14 and 15 I posted the information that was asked.

And yes in post 16 I gave mygold a jab back for his comment toward "Me" not my idea. So I don't give a s##t if you like it or not.

Post 16#-"I commend you on your cut and paste abilities and I'm not arguing the science."

Post #18- "Well I guess you think HHO is made by watts and not amps. It is you that do not understand how HHO is made and not me not knowing how my electric bill is calculated."

Show me where I said that.

Post #18- " I at least know where to get the right information and from someone that I personally know. "

Once again insinuating my information is wrong. Nothing I have given is wrong.

And the whole thing was a misunderstanding of the initial question. Mygold has excelent information and is very helpful with his posts. My approach was from a cost basis. Mygold was from science.

As for Gus, I could care less what you have to say if you have nothing to add to the topic. Please stick to the topic.

Thank you
Mike

[keiththevp]

Cool thought Keith. It would be like a HHO light bulb. How would you get more heat out then you input? That would be my question. If I put a HHO flame on a needle point I burn through the surface in seconds. If I pick a number 500 BTUs, that is used. OK, so if I disperse it over a surface of 1 square foot and use it as an exchanger I still only have 500 BTUs for heat.

A heat pump uses electric for its power and heats or cools. It delivers up to 5 times the BTUs as an electric heater because it causes a change in state of the heating medium.

Are you planning on a change of state in the object? If you cause a pressure increase you create heat. Would there be a pressure increase inside or would it stay neutral? You could go from a vacuum to 3000 psi. Tanks could hold that. You have to account for the energy used to create the HHO.

Interesting. Where are you getting the extra heat?

Thank you
Mike

To be honest I am not sure .... it was just an idea and at the moment, being in the suburbs, not one I can test if the sphere blows up.:D I have already had my fair share of accidents over the years with HHO and I have a great deal of respect for it's explosive power when confined!! But my thinking was that hho reacts differently to every material you apply the flame to. Some times the flame is only a couple hundred degrees and sometimes it is a couple thousand degrees. It will also burn underwater with the proper shielding. So even if you didn't enclose it I still believe there is a material out there that you can apply the flame to and get more heat out of it then a conventional electric heater. The idea of a sphere was for the purpose of transferring the heat to the oil so that you do not burn through it with the flame, but rather just heat the whole sphere. This would also depend on what the sphere was made of and how much gas you use. If you have ever played around with an HHO torch you can heat a large piece of metal to glowing red without burning through it.

If that is because of a reaction between the flame and the media, or the media changing state well again I am not sure. This is definitely not my field of expertise. I am better at the electronics and mechanical side of things.

There is a guy on YouTube that did a lot of these and other heater tests a few years ago but I have not heard anything from him since. If you check out his videos it may help spark some ideas!!

Good Luck with your heater!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBedYfpu3Vc