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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
i want to know how i can convert my truck into an h2o powered engine
cbolsen 1 year 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
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
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
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
@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
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
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
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
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