as the " results in less energy than used to make the hydrogen"
comments
so what dude... who cares if hydrogen holds 50% of the energy used to make it. It's 100% recyclable energy carrier. It just means you either need a battery with twice the capabilities or just reload the batt more often. In cars the energy of brakes can be used to reload the batt and allreay the Dyno does a good job at that.
Also lithium is a finite material maybe? Hydrogen is inefficiently endles re-usable
Lithium is not finite. Lithium salts from exhausted batteries can be regenerated into lithium metal by electrolytic reduction--again, in a process that consumes more energy than you gain from the recycled battery.
This "HHO" business is nonsense. It sounds attractive on paper, but H2 combustion is dangerous and wasteful. It is much more practical to use either fuel cells or high-capacity batteries. Denny Klein is just some overly eager wannabe engineer who knows nothing about chemistry.
Hydrogen is not dangerous and certainly not wasteful. It returns as water after combustion and so the combuster will never get rare. It's actually less strong than gasoline. A regular car can get 85% out of H2O where gas gives 100% power.
Why use fuelcell anyway if your not gonna use hydrogen to drive cillinders up and down? It's only an extra step with extra energy loss
You are missing the point entirely. The internal combustion engine is inherently "wasteful" because the entropic loss of useful thermal energy results in a maximum theoretical efficiency of 30-35% over any plausible range of temperatures, in terms of the work-to-heat ratio of the expanding gas. Fuel cells are not used to drive cylinders; they directly generate torque through a motor. Moreover, "extra steps" do not equate to energy loss if the overall process is thermodynamically more efficient.
Also, it should be noted that generating H2 gas through electrolysis requires electrical energy from the power grid, and if you live anywhere in the continental US, much of that power comes from coal-fired plants. So you are not necessarily being "environmentally friendly" by splitting water for fuel, because gasoline burns much cleaner than coal.
Hydrogen gas as an energy source is highly promising, and is guaranteed to be widely used 50 years from now. But, sorry, "HHO" is bullshit.
this is getting repetitious. You keep saying the HHO is ineffiecient, but he WORKING engine is extremely effiecient. ON TOP of the fact that it leaves next to ZERO ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT. it might not burn with the same effiecency compared to fossil fuels, but it burns way cleaner and that is why this is a great idea
You really have to look at the big picture to understand why "HHO" is basically a mirage. The net thermodynamics of the conversion involve an incredible amount of unnecessary heat loss compared to electric motors or H2 fuel cells, which also run off the power grid. And even though the engine itself produces zero pollution, power plants do. So the environmental impact is still there; it is just indirect. See the forest, not just the trees...I'm not a fan of oil, but there are smarter options.
The energy input to electrolyze water is much greater than the recoverable energy output of H2 combustion. We use oil instead of water because you don't have to MAKE oil, you just dig it up.
But by using a cobalt-phosphorus catalyst, water can be split using minimal energy--say, from solar panels. And the H2/O2 gas can then be used in a fuel cell, allowing people to use energy from the sun, combined with water, to directly generate current.
"HHO" is BS--but water truly is the future of energy.
i can't believe i just read that. We don't make oil, granted, but the costs and ecological effects of REFINING crude oil is way higher than H2) to HHO.
That's not my point. Making H2 and then burning it is a massive waste of energy. For a reasonable range of operating temperatures, the maximum theoretical (Carnot) efficiency is much lower than that of a catalytic fuel cell.
And besides, alternative fuels are most attractive because they allow refined oil products to be used more cheaply for other applications, i.e. industrial feedstock. Don't think we will stop using oil once there is a cleaner energy source; we will just use it differently.
Stupid hilbilly, HHO isn't a proper chemical name, it would be still H2O, and the process is just separating water into oxygen and hydrogen and mixing them at the nozzle, the concentrated oxygen allows the flame to reach tremendous temperatures. I doubt this process was patented as its so simple.
If governments can not tax it or it dont wear out quick enough so you have to buy another it wont be allowed on the market. Patents have been bought in the past to prevent some money saving devices being marketed. H20 hydrogen oxygen + combustion so why are we still waiting.
This is nothing compared to the shit the government has. Do you really think that they are gonna change oil for water? Yeah, right! No profit from water. Sad but true. We are all doomed to use fosil fuel and pay the hefty price. God dam the governments of the world!!
if this is, what it says it is. why ,why is it not coming it to circulation, WORLD WIDE. THIS IS AMAZING. Im not a sientist, but care about mother earth.And dissagree with the amount the goverments greed of fossil fules. What would be the gas be called which this process produces? A universal conversion kit should be made for all cars. sorry to ramble( just felt like it.) Thanks Tom
i want to know how i can convert my truck into an h2o powered engine
cbolsen 1 year ago
as the " results in less energy than used to make the hydrogen"
comments
so what dude... who cares if hydrogen holds 50% of the energy used to make it. It's 100% recyclable energy carrier. It just means you either need a battery with twice the capabilities or just reload the batt more often. In cars the energy of brakes can be used to reload the batt and allreay the Dyno does a good job at that.
Also lithium is a finite material maybe? Hydrogen is inefficiently endles re-usable
roflastc 2 years ago
Lithium is not finite. Lithium salts from exhausted batteries can be regenerated into lithium metal by electrolytic reduction--again, in a process that consumes more energy than you gain from the recycled battery.
This "HHO" business is nonsense. It sounds attractive on paper, but H2 combustion is dangerous and wasteful. It is much more practical to use either fuel cells or high-capacity batteries. Denny Klein is just some overly eager wannabe engineer who knows nothing about chemistry.
pmaddamsetti 2 years ago
@pmaddamsetti
Hydrogen is not dangerous and certainly not wasteful. It returns as water after combustion and so the combuster will never get rare. It's actually less strong than gasoline. A regular car can get 85% out of H2O where gas gives 100% power.
Why use fuelcell anyway if your not gonna use hydrogen to drive cillinders up and down? It's only an extra step with extra energy loss
roflastc 2 years ago
You are missing the point entirely. The internal combustion engine is inherently "wasteful" because the entropic loss of useful thermal energy results in a maximum theoretical efficiency of 30-35% over any plausible range of temperatures, in terms of the work-to-heat ratio of the expanding gas. Fuel cells are not used to drive cylinders; they directly generate torque through a motor. Moreover, "extra steps" do not equate to energy loss if the overall process is thermodynamically more efficient.
pmaddamsetti 2 years ago
Also, it should be noted that generating H2 gas through electrolysis requires electrical energy from the power grid, and if you live anywhere in the continental US, much of that power comes from coal-fired plants. So you are not necessarily being "environmentally friendly" by splitting water for fuel, because gasoline burns much cleaner than coal.
Hydrogen gas as an energy source is highly promising, and is guaranteed to be widely used 50 years from now. But, sorry, "HHO" is bullshit.
pmaddamsetti 2 years ago
this is getting repetitious. You keep saying the HHO is ineffiecient, but he WORKING engine is extremely effiecient. ON TOP of the fact that it leaves next to ZERO ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT. it might not burn with the same effiecency compared to fossil fuels, but it burns way cleaner and that is why this is a great idea
cbolsen 2 years ago
You really have to look at the big picture to understand why "HHO" is basically a mirage. The net thermodynamics of the conversion involve an incredible amount of unnecessary heat loss compared to electric motors or H2 fuel cells, which also run off the power grid. And even though the engine itself produces zero pollution, power plants do. So the environmental impact is still there; it is just indirect. See the forest, not just the trees...I'm not a fan of oil, but there are smarter options.
pmaddamsetti 2 years ago
The energy input to electrolyze water is much greater than the recoverable energy output of H2 combustion. We use oil instead of water because you don't have to MAKE oil, you just dig it up.
But by using a cobalt-phosphorus catalyst, water can be split using minimal energy--say, from solar panels. And the H2/O2 gas can then be used in a fuel cell, allowing people to use energy from the sun, combined with water, to directly generate current.
"HHO" is BS--but water truly is the future of energy.
pmaddamsetti 3 years ago
i can't believe i just read that. We don't make oil, granted, but the costs and ecological effects of REFINING crude oil is way higher than H2) to HHO.
cbolsen 2 years ago
That's not my point. Making H2 and then burning it is a massive waste of energy. For a reasonable range of operating temperatures, the maximum theoretical (Carnot) efficiency is much lower than that of a catalytic fuel cell.
And besides, alternative fuels are most attractive because they allow refined oil products to be used more cheaply for other applications, i.e. industrial feedstock. Don't think we will stop using oil once there is a cleaner energy source; we will just use it differently.
pmaddamsetti 2 years ago
Stupid hilbilly, HHO isn't a proper chemical name, it would be still H2O, and the process is just separating water into oxygen and hydrogen and mixing them at the nozzle, the concentrated oxygen allows the flame to reach tremendous temperatures. I doubt this process was patented as its so simple.
formallyknownasdave 3 years ago
If governments can not tax it or it dont wear out quick enough so you have to buy another it wont be allowed on the market. Patents have been bought in the past to prevent some money saving devices being marketed. H20 hydrogen oxygen + combustion so why are we still waiting.
frog2eyes 4 years ago
What happens when its below 32/degrees outside? Fuel line might freeze...
albyva 4 years ago 2
This is nothing compared to the shit the government has. Do you really think that they are gonna change oil for water? Yeah, right! No profit from water. Sad but true. We are all doomed to use fosil fuel and pay the hefty price. God dam the governments of the world!!
nin131 5 years ago
if this is, what it says it is. why ,why is it not coming it to circulation, WORLD WIDE. THIS IS AMAZING. Im not a sientist, but care about mother earth.And dissagree with the amount the goverments greed of fossil fules. What would be the gas be called which this process produces? A universal conversion kit should be made for all cars. sorry to ramble( just felt like it.) Thanks Tom
tomholstein 5 years ago
that is amazing !
mentalidub 5 years ago