PDA

View Full Version : All in favor say I.



Motor Daddy
2008-Apr-11, 09:22 PM
Is it my imagination or are we about to be free of "gas" stations?

http://home.comcast.net/~rmeyers202//WaterFuel.wmv

ToSeek
2008-Apr-11, 09:39 PM
Moved from Q&A to OTB. Note that the link is to a video.

KaiYeves
2008-Apr-11, 09:55 PM
That's "aye", not "I".

01101001
2008-Apr-11, 10:03 PM
http://home.comcast.net/~rmeyers202//WaterFuel.wmv

Old as fossil fuel. Almost.

Topic: Water as a viable FUELy source finally (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/41495-water-viable-fuely-source-finally.html) (May 2006)

Similar stuff, topic: Aquygen - Combustible gas from water (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/60061-aquygen-combustible-gas-water.html)

Jeff Root
2008-Apr-11, 11:11 PM
Zero-One,

Could you post an executive summary? If it's just woo-fraud, it isn't worth
even my time to follow the links.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

01101001
2008-Apr-12, 12:10 AM
Could you post an executive summary?

I watched only about 10 seconds just to confirm it was what I remembered:

Guy is all ga-ga, showing off his miraculous oxy-hydrogen torch (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen)). Reporter stuns the audience by revealing that it's fueled by... water!!!!

And electricity applied beforehand, of course, which is the true fuel behind the curtain. It's electrolysis of water, yielding oxygen and hydrogen, which when burned, yield water and heat. Naturally, due to inefficiency, you get out less energy in heat than you put in as electricity.

Despite her name, Thermodynamics is indeed a cold mistress.

Thus endeth the dream.

Video is served up quicker on YouTube, for instance: WaterFuel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm5JhpWt4GQ).

Nick Theodorakis
2008-Apr-12, 05:17 AM
That's "aye", not "I".

Oh. I thought he said "one." ;)

Nick

novaderrik
2008-Apr-12, 09:51 AM
Is it my imagination or are we about to be free of "gas" stations?

http://home.comcast.net/~rmeyers202//WaterFuel.wmv
it must be your imagination. everyone that's stuck in this place called "reality" knows better.

astromark
2008-Apr-12, 12:01 PM
Search for the truth yourself.
Petroleum resource is finite.
As India and China develop a need for fuel the available commodity will increase in price. We may have already reached that day where use exceeds new resource finds.
More and more will alternate fuels be researched and produced. The hum of electric motors will someday replace the roar of the combustion engine. However, petroleum will always be available to those who can afford it.

tre475
2008-Apr-15, 02:16 AM
can't just imagine by ourselves

RalofTyr
2008-Apr-15, 04:32 AM
Horses.

'Nuff said.

Noclevername
2008-Apr-15, 03:48 PM
Horses.

'Nuff said.

To be fed by Grass Stations.

Nadme
2008-Apr-15, 05:32 PM
That's "aye", not "I".

:lol:

"ME!" :p

Kaptain K
2008-Apr-15, 06:13 PM
That's "aye", not "I".
It's not "eye" either! :whistle:

mugaliens
2008-Apr-16, 02:29 PM
Is it my imagination or are we about to be free of "gas" stations?

http://home.comcast.net/~rmeyers202//WaterFuel.wmv

No.

HHO (also called oxyhydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO)) has been around for years, mainly for use in torches to process refractory materials. It can burn with a wide range of mixture ratios, but burns at its hottest when in stochaic form (same ratio as water). It burns around 2,800 deg F, about 700 deg hotter than a hydrogen flame in the air.

The most telling quote from Wiki is this:


"The energy required to generate the oxyhydrogen always exceeds the energy released by combusting it."

Thus, it takes more energy to create it than it gives back during combustion.

Having said that, it's entirely possible to use it as a fuel source. Still, you have to compress it and store it in tanks in the vehicle as you would any other burnable gas.

I will say two things:

1. It's a fairly efficient process.

2. Electricity per erg is a LOT cheaper than gasoline right now (like 1/3).

Thus, per mile traveled, it would probably cost about half as much as gasoline.

You're still going to have to go to a filling station to get it, though!

captain swoop
2008-Apr-23, 11:16 AM
Look for 'Browns Gas'

Gruesome
2008-Apr-23, 05:41 PM
Nay.




Horses.



Or is it Neigh?

hhEb09'1
2008-Apr-23, 05:58 PM
It's not "eye" either! aiiieeeee

Dragon Star
2008-Apr-23, 06:07 PM
Look for 'Browns Gas'

That doesn't even sound good.

mike alexander
2008-Apr-23, 08:28 PM
My goodness, just a quick look into this particular, um, topic renews my faith in Barnum.

SPOILER ALERT!




Burning hydrogen with oxygen produces a very hot flame (I understand NASA is interested in this as a possible rocket fuel). If you electrolyze water you get a stoichiometric ratio of oxygen and hydrogen, and if you recombine them and add a spark or some heat they will burn to produce water, releasing the energy put into the gases by the electrolysis.

TrAI
2008-Apr-24, 01:23 AM
My goodness, just a quick look into this particular, um, topic renews my faith in Barnum.

SPOILER ALERT!




Burning hydrogen with oxygen produces a very hot flame (I understand NASA is interested in this as a possible rocket fuel). If you electrolyze water you get a stoichiometric ratio of oxygen and hydrogen, and if you recombine them and add a spark or some heat they will burn to produce water, releasing the energy put into the gases by the electrolysis.

Actually, hydrogen has a long history as a rocket fuel, For example the Ariane 5 and the space shuttle uses liquid hydrogen for some of their engines.

It is possible that you are thinking of atomic hydrogen. Generaly hydrogen atoms tend to combine into H2, but under certain conditions the hydrogen might continue to be in a mono-atomic form. Burning atomic hydrogen releases more energy than H2. I seem to remember that only cyanogen and dicyanacetylen burns with a higher heat release.

Van Rijn
2008-Apr-24, 01:38 AM
Claims of burning H2 aren't the problem. The problem is the claim that one can somehow get more energy burning it than it takes to split it from water. As in the '70s, we're seeing another rash of "free energy" claims. They're bunk.

NEOWatcher
2008-Apr-24, 12:03 PM
Actually, hydrogen has a long history as a rocket fuel...
It sounds like you're not that familiar with Mikes usual tone of post. ;)

HenrikOlsen
2008-Apr-24, 08:57 PM
Actually, hydrogen has a long history as a rocket fuel, For example the Ariane 5 and the space shuttle uses liquid hydrogen for some of their engines.

It is possible that you are thinking of atomic hydrogen. Generaly hydrogen atoms tend to combine into H2, but under certain conditions the hydrogen might continue to be in a mono-atomic form. Burning atomic hydrogen releases more energy than H2. I seem to remember that only cyanogen and dicyanacetylen burns with a higher heat release.
I think you missed a minor joke with the NASA quote.

As for atomic hydrogen, it's not burning it, but letting it recombine to H2, ref. the Langmuir torch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_hydrogen_welding) 3400-4000 C, granted the H2 will burn as well, but that's not the main source of the heat.

TrAI
2008-Apr-24, 11:00 PM
I think you missed a minor joke with the NASA quote.

Obviously... Though jokes like that can be rather hard to recognise on a bbs, that is one of the reasons for emoticons...


As for atomic hydrogen, it's not burning it, but letting it recombine to H2, ref. the Langmuir torch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_hydrogen_welding) 3400-4000 C, granted the H2 will burn as well, but that's not the main source of the heat.

I stand corrected.

Though, come to think of it, it isn't really wrong to say that such a torch is burning, most people would, you know. Just like most people would say a hydrogen flame in an clorine atmosphere is burning.

Though, I am a bit uncertain if this sort of recombination would qualify as a reduction-oxidation like process, i really do not remember much about that chemistry stuff:confused:, especially this late at night ;)