@desertphile You spoke ? I didn't give you permission. Everyone , please excuse this IDIOT, for speaking he is less than a Nothing hermit that left hisself out in the sun too long. He has dementia
Futhermore, on the subject of using oxy-hydrogen for heating , you are a Oxy-moron
@a1mint You are in error. If you don't correct it then its your mistake. 1) very Little electricity is used in the process of electrolysis.
2)even the heat in that process is utilised
3)The intent is to HEAT economically
4)There is NO loss, that you can measure. 5)A straight electric heater is not ( equal )unless it uses 300watts, Can you find one? your hair dryer uses more .
1.) The temperature of the tip of the flame is 2800 degrees to 5000F
2) TRY to find any electrical devise to compare it to that uses 300watts. Puts out that kind of consentrated heat. 3) Heat is why oxy-hydrogen gas is the SMART way to heat your home. It does the job
But they don't mention the electricity that is used to produce it. I would say that you would be better off using the electricity directly, rather than convert it to HHO first.
You could produce a good amount of heat just putting the electricity through a nichrome heating element. What is important is to know how many BTU's are produced and how much wattage is used. Without these two important variables, this is not much of a story.
I don't see how changing one form of energy into another form of energy and using this energy to create yet another sort of energy is a viable thing. One would think cutting out the middleman HHO is more efficient.
If it were 100% efficient it would be, but science tells us you would lose SOME energy in the conversion.
...but lets say it was 100% efficient and delivered the same amount of heat like you claim; what would be the point of the conversion? What do you gain by doing this? Explain please.
That "loss" is actually heat. It can't be any other form of energy, because the laws of conservation of energy states that you can't create or consume energy - only convert it.
It's not being converted to motion or light. Heat is the only output, which includes heat from the "losses" which in this case isn't a loss. (on demand hho car systems incur heat losses too, which then ARE losses).
So, in the case of a heater, given that by definition, both a dirt cheap electric walmart heater and a finicky complicated HHO gadgetmathingy are 100% efficient in heating, there is absolutely no point whatsoever horsing around with HHO, other than for entertainment purposes.
It might be possible to show a pretty fire place like flame, I don't know.
But for efficiency sake, HHO is a 100% waste of effort - of course.
"the heat generated is dissipated in the conversion process"
in what form? Heat! There is no such thing as part of the energy getting lost into thin air. That's the part of the law of nature that you're overlooking I think. The law of conservation of energy. Energy can not disappear, period.
@desertphile You spoke ? I didn't give you permission. Everyone , please excuse this IDIOT, for speaking he is less than a Nothing hermit that left hisself out in the sun too long. He has dementia
Futhermore, on the subject of using oxy-hydrogen for heating , you are a Oxy-moron
You are not worthy
merlinspower 2 years ago
1) It's not powered by water, but it's powered by electricity.
2) Water is being split into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis.
3) The h and o are then put back together again by burning it.
4) The law of nature of the conservation of energy, states that you can not create or consume energy.
5) Energy is being converted, and eventually all is released as heat.
6) The losses in the conversion process is also heat.
7) A straight electric heater with same wattage will heat exactly equal.
a1mint 2 years ago
@a1mint You are in error. If you don't correct it then its your mistake. 1) very Little electricity is used in the process of electrolysis.
2)even the heat in that process is utilised
3)The intent is to HEAT economically
4)There is NO loss, that you can measure. 5)A straight electric heater is not ( equal )unless it uses 300watts, Can you find one? your hair dryer uses more .
6) You know nothing about oxy-hydrogen.
merlinspower 2 years ago
1.) The temperature of the tip of the flame is 2800 degrees to 5000F
2) TRY to find any electrical devise to compare it to that uses 300watts. Puts out that kind of consentrated heat. 3) Heat is why oxy-hydrogen gas is the SMART way to heat your home. It does the job
merlinspower 2 years ago
But they don't mention the electricity that is used to produce it. I would say that you would be better off using the electricity directly, rather than convert it to HHO first.
jjenson2006 2 years ago
hi there , think they said it takes 300 watts of power ,,
MrWeedluv 2 years ago
Not in this video.
You could produce a good amount of heat just putting the electricity through a nichrome heating element. What is important is to know how many BTU's are produced and how much wattage is used. Without these two important variables, this is not much of a story.
I don't see how changing one form of energy into another form of energy and using this energy to create yet another sort of energy is a viable thing. One would think cutting out the middleman HHO is more efficient.
jjenson2006 2 years ago 2
It would produce the exact same amount of heat.
a1mint 2 years ago
If it were 100% efficient it would be, but science tells us you would lose SOME energy in the conversion.
...but lets say it was 100% efficient and delivered the same amount of heat like you claim; what would be the point of the conversion? What do you gain by doing this? Explain please.
jjenson2006 2 years ago
That "loss" is actually heat. It can't be any other form of energy, because the laws of conservation of energy states that you can't create or consume energy - only convert it.
It's not being converted to motion or light. Heat is the only output, which includes heat from the "losses" which in this case isn't a loss. (on demand hho car systems incur heat losses too, which then ARE losses).
a1mint 2 years ago
So, in the case of a heater, given that by definition, both a dirt cheap electric walmart heater and a finicky complicated HHO gadgetmathingy are 100% efficient in heating, there is absolutely no point whatsoever horsing around with HHO, other than for entertainment purposes.
It might be possible to show a pretty fire place like flame, I don't know.
But for efficiency sake, HHO is a 100% waste of effort - of course.
a1mint 2 years ago
Well yes, this is true,...but the heat generated is dissipated in the conversion process; it is not all emitted as usable heat
...but at least we agree that it is pointless to first convert to HHO; which also requires maintainence such as refilling with water and cleaning.
It really has no practical use as a heater.
jjenson2006 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"the heat generated is dissipated in the conversion process"
in what form? Heat! There is no such thing as part of the energy getting lost into thin air. That's the part of the law of nature that you're overlooking I think. The law of conservation of energy. Energy can not disappear, period.
a1mint 2 years ago