NationStates Jolt Archive

Fox news in Chicago carried a story about a man who has just patented turning water into HHO gas. He started using it for things like a cutting torch, then decided to convert his car. He said he burns about 4 ounces of water for a 100 mile trip. The story is http://www.foxchicago.com/_ezpost/data/23255.shtml.

Any idea what this will do to water prices? It would be nice if this would result in some immediate benefit to us. I guess we'll just have to wait for the automakers and oil companies to squash it.

Fox news in Chicago carried a story about a man who has just patented turning water into HHO gas. He started using it for things like a cutting torch, then decided to convert his car. He said he burns about 4 ounces of water for a 100 mile trip. The story is http://www.foxchicago.com/_ezpost/data/23255.shtml.

Any idea what this will do to water prices? It would be nice if this would result in some immediate benefit to us. I guess we'll just have to wait for the automakers and oil companies to squash it.
They would be far wiser to adopt it, rather than squash it.

Shame getting hydrogen out of water uses a large amount of electricity, far more than the energy generated to burn the HHO gas.

Shame getting hydrogen out of water uses a large amount of electricity, far more than the energy generated to burn the HHO gas.
That's always going to be the way of it, butr in the future we can electrolyse water with nuclear or even renewable power.

I don't think it will catch on. From a safety standpoint it can't be good. The oxyhydrogen gas blend is very explosive. Like in ANFO the fuel and oxidizer are premixed. Unlike ANFO it only takes a small spark, like from static electricity to set oxyhydrogen gas off.

Also it's not like you can turn water into oxygen and hydrogen without dumping alot of energy into it. Your gasoline costs might go down, but your electric bill will probably rise to compensate.

Oxy-Hydrogen gas is easy to make. Of course this gas is too dangerous to be of any practical use, but who wants to be practical ALL of the time? Please note that this gas is OXY-Hydrogen, and not pure hydrogen. Pure hydrogen can be stored safely, but Oxy-Hydrogen is HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE and CANNOT BE STORED SAFELY under any circumstances!! Don't try to store it!! In the above diagram, water is decomposed into its constituent elements, hydrogen and oxygen through a process known as electrolysis. http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/hydrogen1.html

I don't think it will catch on. From a safety standpoint it can't be good. The oxyhydrogen gas blend is very explosive. Like in ANFO the fuel and oxidizer are premixed. Unlike ANFO it only takes a small spark, like from static electricity to set oxyhydrogen gas off.

Also it's not like you can turn water into oxygen and hydrogen without dumping alot of energy into it. Your gasoline costs might go down, but your electric bill will probably rise to compensate.

http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/hydrogen1.html

Yes, unlike pure hydrogen the hydrogen-oxygen mix is highly explosive. Normal hydrogen would have to contact atmosphere to burn (it needs oxygen), thus if a tank ruptured or was exposed to heat it might burn, but wouldn't explode. The hydrogen-oxygen blend would explode violently.

Now I admit to knowing little about chemistry, but if Oxy hydrogen produces more energy than hydrogen, but produces the same waste products ie. water, does that not mean it takes more energy to produce than hydrogen anyway?

Yes, unlike pure hydrogen the hydrogen-oxygen mix is highly explosive.I have it on good authority that if it's absolutely dry (i.e. no water contamination to act as catalyst), it can't explode. The chemistry seems to be a bit more complicated then the summary 2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O would suggest.

Denny Klein has just patented his process of converting H2O to HHO, producing a gas that combines the atomic power of hydrogen with the chemical stability of water.

HHO = H2O so :confused:

Now I admit to knowing little about chemistry, but if Oxy hydrogen produces more energy than hydrogen, but produces the same waste products ie. water, does that not mean it takes more energy to produce than hydrogen anyway?
It doesn't produce more energy than hydrogen. It's just premixed with the correct ammount of oxygen so it burns more rapidly and explosively. It's like the difference between lighting a pound of sawdust on fire as it sits in a pile on the floor or lighting a pound of sawdust dispersed in the air on fire. Both release just as much heat, but the sawdust in the air releases it all at once in an explosive manner.

I have it on good authority that if it's absolutely dry (i.e. no water contamination to act as catalyst), it can't explode. The chemistry seems to be a bit more complicated then the summary 2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O would suggest.
Can't explode or can't sponatneously explode? I'm pretty sure that even if totally anhydrous a small spark will set it off.

The fun part is the electric bill for running the electrolysis machine.

It doesn't produce more energy than hydrogen. It's just premixed with the correct ammount of oxygen so it burns more rapidly and explosively. It's like the difference between lighting a pound of sawdust on fire as it sits in a pile on the floor or lighting a pound of sawdust dispersed in the air on fire. Both release just as much heat, but the sawdust in the air releases it all at once in an explosive manner.
So they're just talking about storing mixture of hydrogen and oxygen? What's the advantage of that? Why don't you store them separately and mix them when you're about to burn them?

The advantage being you don't need to try and figure out a way to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen. If you're trying to get hydrogen from water at home they'll be mixed.

So they're just talking about storing mixture of hydrogen and oxygen? What's the advantage of that? Why don't you store them separately and mix them when you're about to burn them?
Storing them separately makes alot more sense. It also requires slightly more complicated plumbing in your electrolysis device. Only very slightly more complicated though. There's really no reason to store them together unless you're trying to blow your car up.

Don't you get hydrogen at one electrode and oxygen at the other? It's a long time since I've done any chemistry so i'm very rusty.

"The duo is already in negotiations with one U.S. automaker and the U.S. government. Members of Congress recently invited Denny Klein to Washington to demonstrate his technology and his company is currently developing a Hummer for the U.S. military that can run on both water and gasoline. So far, his water-powered engines have passed all performance safety inspections."


Looks like some automaker wants to use it, and it apparently can't be that unsafe is its passing safety inspections.

Don't you get hydrogen at one electrode and oxygen at the other? It's a long time since I've done any chemistry so i'm very rusty.
Yeah. You just have to make sure that the bubbles travel up different pipes. It's not much more complicated than making oxyhydrogen gas mix.

Not an energy source. A highly unstable and explosive energy carrier.

You can patent the method all you want. No-one except highly specialised process engineering / manufacturing companies are going to be lining up to buy it.

Can't explode or can't sponanteously explode? I'm pretty sure that even if totally anhydrous a small spark will set it off.Well, according to the book it came up in the reaction won't start at all without the presence of water. And also there are some 15 steps to the reaction, involving among other things unlikely radicals like H13O5++
On the other hand, there must have been a first H2O molecule (But it might have taken extreme circumstances)

Not an energy source. A highly unstable and explosive energy carrier.

You can patent the method all you want. No-one except highly specialised process engineering / manufacturing companies are going to be lining up to buy it.

Is it posible that they mix the hydrogen and oxygen gasses with another gas that prevents combustion except under the conditions one finds in an internal combustion engine?

It's the only thing I can think of. Otherwise, this is incredibly nutty.

edit: Here's a clip from their website:
Our technology centers on the ability to generate a unique type of hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture (a "unique gas", which we call "Aquygen™" gas) on demand from a lightweight, compact machine that uses the water electrolysis process as its underlying technology basis.

This unique gas is infinitely stable until it comes in contact with a select target media. Then it sublimates, causing a molecular surface exchange of certain elements, reacting with such excitation as to cause temperatures of up to 10,000° F, the temperature of our Sun's surface, which is currently the limits of our ability to measure.

The ability to create this stable, unique gas on demand from a water electrochemical generator is of great strategic importance, especially because (1) it offers a workable energy level per pound of fuel that is ten-to-twelve times that of gasoline; (2) when combusted/ignited, it causes no hydrocarbon effluents such as NOX, nitrites, nitrates, etc., and (3) its by-product from combustion is pure, environmentally-friendly water.

Is it posible that they mix the hydrogen and oxygen gasses with another gas that prevents combustion except under the conditions one finds in an internal combustion engine?

It's the only thing I can think of. Otherwise, this is incredibly nutty.

edit: Here's a clip from their website:Our technology centers on the ability to generate a unique type of hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture (a "unique gas", which we call "Aquygen™" gas) on demand from a lightweight, compact machine that uses the water electrolysis process as its underlying technology basis.

This unique gas is infinitely stable until it comes in contact with a select target media. Then it sublimates, causing a molecular surface exchange of certain elements, reacting with such excitation as to cause temperatures of up to 10,000° F, the temperature of our Sun's surface, which is currently the limits of our ability to measure.

The ability to create this stable, unique gas on demand from a water electrochemical generator is of great strategic importance, especially because (1) it offers a workable energy level per pound of fuel that is ten-to-twelve times that of gasoline; (2) when combusted/ignited, it causes no hydrocarbon effluents such as NOX, nitrites, nitrates, etc., and (3) its by-product from combustion is pure, environmentally-friendly water.
I call BS on that article. How is a gas supposed to sublimate?

Is it posible that they mix the hydrogen and oxygen gasses with another gas that prevents combustion except under the conditions one finds in an internal combustion engine?

*snip*
I am not a chemical engineer, but I am very sceptical that their claims are honest. I would not be surprised if there is a bit of clouding of the facts, if not outright fraud going on. It just doesn't ring true.

But if everything they say is correct, once those cars hit the roads, suicide bombers will no longer need explosives. Just a garage and a plumbing course.

I am not a chemical engineer, but I am very sceptical that their claims are honest. I would not be surprised if there is a bit of clouding of the facts, if not outright fraud going on. It just doesn't ring true.

But if everything they say is correct, once those cars hit the roads, suicide bombers will no longer need explosives. Just a garage and a plumbing course.

I know. Physics is my thing, not chemistry. But I'm not exactly ignorant of chemistry either. Something sounds off. But if this is real and works, then the only explanation I can come up with is a third gas acting as a stabilizer. Similar to Nitrogen in out atmosphere keeping the air from burning.

ANother possibility occurred to me, but I need to give it some thought.

That's always going to be the way of it, butr in the future we can electrolyse water with nuclear or even renewable power.
Lots and lots of wind turbines. Expensive to build, but other than the cost of the machines themselves the power is mostly free. Use that to produce hydrogen.

Lots and lots of wind turbines. Expensive to build, but other than the cost of the machines themselves the power is mostly free. Use that to produce hydrogen.

Actually, my bets are on tidal power. The initial investment is massive, but so is the power generation.

I call BS on that article. How is a gas supposed to sublimate?
By becoming a solid.

By becoming a solid.
Oh yeah, I forgot it could go two ways. Their use of the word doesn't seem right, anyway.

I seem to remember the Germans had a rocket ths used somesort of super saturated hydrogen solution with silver as a catlyst I wonder if this is related.

Shame getting hydrogen out of water uses a large amount of electricity, far more than the energy generated to burn the HHO gas.

Actually, Xcel Energy is developing and testing a process to extract hydrogen using wind power. If it's renewable energy, it really doesn't matter how energy is used because the process is infinitely renewable.

Don't forget, gasoline also uses much more energy to make than it produces.

Miles per ounce!?

When are you guys going to join the rest of the world and go metric? It makes so much more sense...

Any idea what this will do to water prices? It would be nice if this would result in some immediate benefit to us. I guess we'll just have to wait for the automakers and oil companies to squash it.

Well ... guess we'll stop going to war in deserts and start hitting the lake communities and countries with large bodies of water.

I'm eyeballin' you, England. You're surrounded by the stuff. We better set up a resolution to stop you manufactoring WMD right away.

how much power does it produce and how expensive is the engine (if it uses a different type)

sounds interesting and if it is true i think oil companies would be wise to try to buy it or adopt it and develop it for themself

Oh, man. I actually had some hope there for a while.

The fun part is the electric bill for running the electrolysis machine.


From what I can see from the site http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/hydrogen1.html , it takes a very small amount of electrical current to produce the gas. It runs off of 12VDC and the electrodes don't have a direct metal to metal contact which means current is flowing through the solution which will have a high resistance to current. Thus, the machine would produce what seems to be a sizeable amount of gas for relatively little power input.


Also, the fact that this gas seems to explode rather than burn like gasoline, makes it not suitable for internal combustion engines which require a burning mixture, not a mixture that produces a violent explosion. Then again, I am not an expert when it comes to the subject of this HHO stuff, so maybe someone who truly understands it can explain whether or not it burns like a gasoline/air mixture or will only violently explode. Because, such violent explosion will destroy an engine. Also, this gas seems to burn at a very high temperature, higher than gasoline/air, which also will destroy an internal combustion engine.


Other than that, it sounds like a decent idea, if it wasn't for the safety thing. I think it's a tech that's worth giving some serious thought, at least. The fact that it seems (key word here) to require little energy input to produce such a fuel makes it worth it, in my opinion.

Independent Browncoats your nick is too big :rolleyes:

Independent Browncoats your nick is too big :rolleyes:


Onoes! Whatever shall I do?!?

Miles per ounce!?

When are you guys going to join the rest of the world and go metric? It makes so much more sense...
“My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I like it!” --Grandpa Simpson.

Onoes! Whatever shall I do?!?
Buy me a beer?

Buy me a beer?


i r broke, but if you send me the money, including shipping....and if I buy you beer then you have to buy me a flask of rum.


:rolleyes:

i r broke, but if you send me the money, including shipping....and if I buy you beer then you have to buy me a flask of rum.


:rolleyes:
College student?

No, jobless and in debt, hence the need for rum. But I was once a college student, flunked out, many, many loans, no degree.....lol

No, jobless and in debt, hence the need for rum. But I was once a college student, flunked out, many, many loans, no degree.....lol
*gives you rum*

;)

Well ... guess we'll stop going to war in deserts and start hitting the lake communities and countries with large bodies of water.

I'm eyeballin' you, England. You're surrounded by the stuff. We better set up a resolution to stop you manufactoring WMD right away.Go eyeball yourself. Desalinisation is expensive, produces lots of other materials which means you'd need a decent refinement method. The US on the other hand has the largest body(s) of freshwater in the world. Or Brasil, the Amazon discharges so much fresh water into the Atlantic that the water miles out at sea is still classed as fresh water rather than salt water.

Mythbusters proved in their last episode you can run a gasoline powered car on hydrogen (it will at least start up and keep running). Though they wern't being very smart about how they were testing it.

Oh yeah, I forgot it could go two ways. Their use of the word doesn't seem right, anyway.
It's technically called deposition. Sublimation is just as good though.

Mythbusters proved in their last episode you can run a gasoline powered car on hydrogen (it will at least start up and keep running). Though they wern't being very smart about how they were testing it.


But how damaging would it be to the engine over time? Like I said, if someone can elaborate on the manner in which hydrogen or this HHO stuff burns, it'd help clear things up a bit.

For those that look at water with hope, as a replacement for oil, there are plenty of bad news ahead to reduce these dreams to sandcastles.

Global water shortages are expected to leave up to 2/3 of the world's population living in water-stressed countries, by 2050. Water-stressed countries are those whose water consumption levels rises 10% above renewable water supplies. Underground water supplies are vanishing quickly, becoming seriously polluted and it's costing ever more money to dig deeper, just as with oil. The world largest underground water reservoir, the Guarani aquifer, has enough water to supply the world for little more than 10 years.

The only solution would be to build desalination plants to use sea water, but these are energy-hungry facilities. According to some rough calculations I did a few months ago, if the current global capability of desalination was solely used to supply the United States, Americans would get about 50 litres of water per person per day, a far cry from the current 300-600 litres.

For water to become a fuel source, the world will need to invest zillions in renewable energies, so that they can feed the desalination plants. The only other option is using Hydrogen gas, which which is extremely dangerous.

For water to become a fuel source, the world will need to invest zillions in renewable energies, so that they can feed the desalination plants. The only other option is using Hydrogen gas, which which is extremely dangerous.

Hydrogen is as dangerous as natural gas or any other combustible source of energy. The reason why the Hindenburg was so severe was because the airship was built out of flammable material; no machines that run on oil are built out of flammable cloth, so hydrogen is as safe as any oil product and many times cleaner.

Well, there goes that idea....


Although I suspect that at least small communities can survive close to the ocean in warm/hot climates by building sufficiently sized facilities to evaporate sea-water, during which process the salt and water separate (I vaguely remember reading somewhere, that you can get safe drinking water by doing this to urine....). However, last I checked, even the ocean is still rather polluted and such a system would only be good enough for individual use to maybe small villages. Which means either way, we won't support our current way of life.



*gives you rum*

;)


/sends beer


lawlz

But how damaging would it be to the engine over time? Like I said, if someone can elaborate on the manner in which hydrogen or this HHO stuff burns, it'd help clear things up a bit.
They didn't test the effect on the engine, but an engine can run on hydrogen, thusly it should take (probably) minimum tweaks and upgrades to negate or significantly lessen wear and tear.

Although I suspect that at least small communities can survive close to the ocean in warm/hot climates by building sufficiently sized facilities to evaporate sea-water, during which process the salt and water separate (I vaguely remember reading somewhere, that you can get safe drinking water by doing this to urine....). However, last I checked, even the ocean is still rather polluted and such a system would only be good enough for individual use to maybe small villages. Which means either way, we won't support our current way of life.

Which is why hydrogen and alternative fuels are so promising; we will reduce pollution in the ocean and provide a source of clean economic growth that will temper demand for water and slow population growth. It's not so much the supply of water but how much is wasted; one beneficial aspect of the shift away from oil will be the decline in the population and water demands of the Middle East, which will improve the efficiency of water distribution.

The reversal of global warming will also be a huge benefit; hydrogen will help solve many of the seemingly gargantuan problems of today.

Hydrogen is as dangerous as natural gas or any other combustible source of energy. The reason why the Hindenburg was so severe was because the airship was built out of flammable material; no machines that run on oil are built out of flammable cloth, so hydrogen is as safe as any oil product and many times cleaner.

Well, thanks for the clarification. I now know that BMW crash-tested cars at 55 km/h and the tanks withstood. Of course lower cost vehicles may throw a spanner in the works... Still, I also just read that Hydrogen is in fact safer than oil, in some ways, since an explosion doesn't thrown burning residue around and the heat dissipates much quicker.

By the way, to those concerned with environment safety, I wouldn't hail it as non-toxic just yet. Producing Hydrogen can be done in two ways. GREEN or BLACK. One extracts it from light and water while the other burns fossil fuels (so we'll still have a problem with CO2). Apparently, the Bush administration plans to extract 90% of Hydrogen using the BLACK way. Let's hope his successors are a bit wiser.

Also, the impact of releasing Hydrogen on the atmosphere or soils doesn't seem to be well understood, despite appearing to be harmless. Until we start releasing Hydrogen in substantial quantities, it's very hard to predict how the atmosphere will react at its different levels. Some scientists fear they may cause damage to the Ozone layer.

I really hope that this turns out to be a cleaner solution than oil and not just a replacement for it. The world is desperate for clean solutions.

Well, thanks for the clarification. I now know that BMW crash-tested cars at 55 km/h and the tanks withstood. Of course lower cost vehicles may throw a spanner in the works... Still, I also just read that Hydrogen is in fact safer than oil, in some ways, since an explosion doesn't thrown burning residue around and the heat dissipates much quicker.

Plus, there are none of the problems of an oil spill and the production
By the way, to those concerned with environment safety, I wouldn't hail it as non-toxic just yet. Producing Hydrogen can be done in two ways. GREEN or BLACK. One extracts it from light and water while the other burns fossil fuels (so we'll still have a problem with CO2). Apparently, the Bush administration plans to extract 90% of Hydrogen using the BLACK way. Let's hope his successors are a bit wiser.

I think fossil-fuel based hydrogen generation will be the first wave of production and will help us improve the process as well as determine how best to use it; although it is still polluting, a lot of that will be mitigated by the reduction in fossil fuels consumed by vehicles (60% of oil is used in vehicles...the other 40% covers all industry, shipping, power, agriculture, plastics, and everything else that uses oil) and improved technology will also help.

Biodiesel will be a major complement to fossil fuel hydrogen, since algae can be used to absorb CO2, and then can be harvested and turned in to nonpolluting diesel. Neverthless, the fossil fuel hydrogen process will be displaced due to the pollution and the price volatility caused by the feedstock.

Wind energy shows major promise for hydrogen, even with current technology; it will take more time to build since most wind demand is for replacing other electricity but alternative energy green extraction will ultimately be the dominant technology.

Also, the impact of releasing Hydrogen on the atmosphere or soils doesn't seem to be well understood, despite appearing to be harmless. Until we start releasing Hydrogen in substantial quantities, it's very hard to predict how the atmosphere will react at its different levels. Some scientists fear they may cause damage to the Ozone layer.

It would have to be tested on a large scale; however, the ozone hole has become smaller over the past decade despite record production of hydrogen and hydrogen compounds. However, that amount is small compared to the amount needed to power our entire energy needs, but since that switchover will take decades there will be ample time to observe real world affects.

I really hope that this turns out to be a cleaner solution than oil and not just a replacement for it. The world is desperate for clean solutions.

There are many solutions that are taking off at the same time, and most of those are emerging right now. Many of them will survive, but only one will come out dominant in its respective field; hydrogen has a lot of promise and it's been shown to work, but the main challenge facing the economy is the amount of change required to make it reality. If oil remains expensive, the transition will be much easier; every year of high prices is really a windfall for alternative energy and by extension the planet. Really, the only impediment to an economic revolution in energy is the price of oil which is still cheap in real terms.

As someone who follows alternative energy pretty closely, I really feel we're on the cusp of a new revolution in meeting our energy needs and defeating the scourges of pollution, war, and poverty caused by dependence on fossil fuels. Maybe it's too optimistic, but optimism is what drives change in the end.

“My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I like it!” --Grandpa Simpson.

Strangely enough, that would make Grandpa Simpson's car slightly less fuel efficient than the QEII. Even 747s get better milage than that.

Mythbusters proved in their last episode you can run a gasoline powered car on hydrogen (it will at least start up and keep running). Though they wern't being very smart about how they were testing it.

i have noticed a few expirements they should of done completely different. i think they just try to do stupid stuff to get more attention

Strangely enough, that would make Grandpa Simpson's car slightly less fuel efficient than the QEII. Even 747s get better milage than that.

there should be a competition for people to build the most inefficient car ever.

i think that would be one hell of a competition

of course they would have to put rules such as

"the vehicle most be able to function as a vehicle and carry x amount of cargo"