sorry, i really did not mean to come off as ****y.
I am no where near an authority on the subject.
There are some things i do know though.

1. Hydrogen does burn in an oxygen rich enviorment and has a low enough flash point to be ignited by a spark.

2. you prob have no idea what this is
:

3. that is a car, like many others that runs off of hydrogen.

4. pure H (hydrogen) can be made an a public school classroom with a lite power source and a container of water. Such a contraption is quite mobile.

5. Oxygen is a combustion catayist (such as with accetaline(sp?)), and that also is produced in the described reaction.

6. Stan Meyer was found guilty by an Ohio judge who had had 3 experts testify that it was simple electrolysis but that's what he was found guilty of not that it didn't work, because it did .

7. People believe that we haven't been to the moon, so, of course some will call this guy a fraud. (I'm not saying that he for sure was not a fraud, i know he manipulated religiously and politically)

all these add up to something.
With common sense, i dont think i can be as skeptical as you, or as big of an *** as you.

neither one of us know for sure that it is all hot air. if your a naysayer then im a yaysayer, because you choose not to believe until proven, and i choose to believe until proven otherwise.

 

Do yourself and the rest of us a favor:
GO TAKE A BASIC CHEMISTRY CLASS then you will at least learn that the words you are throwing about have specific meanings which are quite different from the usages which you give them. After you master the basics, take Thermo 201 and learn about those three pesky laws.

 

I think I love you Finally some common sense. I do not doubt anyone’s intelligence here, but people much smarter than any of us have worked on these concepts. If there is a profit to made, there would/should be products available with more than a backyard type of distribution. Obviously we do need alternative energy sources, but there is no free lunch. Fossil fuels have been the energy of choice for lots of reasons. Maybe someday we’ll have a magic bullet, but I don’t believe we have one currently available.

If any of you guys do spend your money on this, please take the time to post/document your results. I’d be happily shocked to be proven wrong.

 

you joined the forum in 1999, so i can safely assume that you are at least nine years old.

With your great knowledge of thermodynamics, tell me what is wrong with this concept (one that has been done many times over)

H atoms seperate from O atoms during electrolysis > This travels in a gaseous state (to cylinder) > The H atoms become excited by a heat source resulting in expansion and a bond with O atoms in the atmosphere > The H and O atoms bond with the production of heat, light, and precipitation (all three are signs of a chemical reaction.)

that is a complete circle.
how can you deny that? i learned that in high school, and i can barely remember high school.

btw, news flash, BMW, Honda, Toyota, and others have created hydrogen fueled cars.

If you cant get all of this, then i will just have to wait until you get older to try to explain any more.

Edit: all i remember about thermodynamics is that the energy in the universe stays the same. no energy is lost in this proven "idea" "suggestion" "hypothesis"

 

When it comes to SCIENCE, that, unfortunately, makes you to be a fool.

1. No kidding.

2. I can read the side of the car.

3. No kidding. It says that on the side of the car. You might want to detour into the "hydrogen fuel cell" section of WalMart (or wikipedia) instead of what you dragged in since this is a whole different technology. That car uses compressed liquid hydrogen (from a factory) that is converted to electricity that runs the electric motors that propel the car. It doesn't use gasoline to produce electicity to split H2O into its components so they can be sucked into the PCV hose of an engine and produce less energy than from burning the gasoline in the first place. Kind of like our national "ethanol" plan...

4. It's called electrolysis. It takes more energy to split the bonds that can be obtained by combusting the byproducts. There's that pesky "Law", again.

5. Perhaps a spelling class instead of MTV might have been a good idea.

6. The judge used the phrase "gross and egregious fraud" . Federal judges don't make that kind of assessment up. Meyer didn't represent it as simple electrolysis, but something more.

7. Some people are idiots. They should be forced to wear a sign that says "I'm an idiot", Then you wouldn't waste any time listening to them unless you felt you were kindred spirits.

If it takes you thinking me an *** to get you to pull your head out of yours, so be it.

 

lol
i didnt know this was a spelling forum.

 

Go back to Google and find a different forum to drag your woo-woo into. Perhaps the Dodge or Chevy crowds wants to hear it.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Here's your sign.

 

naysay and yaysay

im not even a yaysayer really, i just dont think it is irrational.
you do nothing to disprove it though.

you just mouth off, and generalize.

big whoop.

 

The First Law of Thermodynamics is basically a re-statement of the Law of Conservation of Energy. It stated that the net work derived from a process cannot exceed the net amount of energy put in.

In other words, the amount of energy available from the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen cannot exceed the amount on energy which was required to separate them from one another in the first place.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the work derived from a process will always be less than the energy input, some of the output will always be lost to the environment. In the case of a closed system (no mass flow in or out like an air conditioner), this means that a perpetual motion machine is impossible. In the case of an open system like this one it means that the energy derived from the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen will always be less than the energy put in.

As for hydrogen powered vehicles, all they do is perform the electolysis at a centralized site, bottle the hydrogen and load it into the vehicle tanks. The energy required to do this will still be less than the energy derived. By performing the electrolysis on-board, you are creating a net loss situation.

 

well, thanks for the explination. I got on here and posted a comment that was on topic and got bashed.

anyway, i see what you are saying with what you call the 2nd law, and the "free energy" whoopla

about the first law. Energy produced is less than or equal to energy used.
this does not seem to go aginst the theory of on-board hydrogen generation.

Think about a turbo. It is ran off of the energy of the exhaust and produces esceptional gains in power from the energy that would otherwise be wasted.

the same with your altanator. your car does not use all the amps produced, so a hydrogen gen would use that power that would otherwise be wasted.
nothing makes the whole idea irrational to me.

what do you think?

 

A turbo is a perfect example of the Second Law. It recaptures some of the lost energy and puts a portion of it to use but it still consumes more than it returns to the system.

As for the alternator, it only puts out what it needs to not its full capacity. If you put additional demand on the alternator, it will produce more current BUT the Second Law still applies; it will always require more power input to turn the alternator than it produces and therefore it will consume more fuel energy than the alternator can replace with electrical energy. Each energy conversion represents a non-recoverable loss. There is no such thing as a thermodynamic free linch.

 

I think you slept through(or skipped) physics.

Re: The turbo. The extra gain in power is due to the increased fuel that must be fed into the system to balance the increased airflow. The "recovered" energy is still an increased load on the system (which, of course, requires more fuel in and of itself). It is not "free" energy.

Re: The alternator. There are ZERO excess amps produced in an alternator system although there is usually excess capacity to generate additional power. The alternator only produces the amount of current that can be drawn by the systems. It takes more energy input (fuel) to produce more current.

Your examples are fallacious.

 

Hey GAT
Did you know the world is flat? It is on this site.

There sould be a section just for HHO and other experimental ideas. If someone did not try their little ideas all of you would not have your CAI's, tuners, high flow exhaust etc. Check this guy out. He may have found a cure for cancer and it is also an HHO. I agree it is not efficient but the first auto was just as bad and still only uses about 1/3 the potential energy from a gallon of gas. Every thing must start some where.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4006951.shtml

 

dang strangeranger, that is a good point.

I hated quantum mechanics, hell i hated general chem all together.

What you are saying means that it is impossible to get better engine efficancy with a hydrogen gen because the energy used in electrolysis is equal to or more than the energy produced by the hydrogen gas its self.
this is regardless of studying the chemical process.
I get that, its a good point.
I believe that i cant argue with the law of thermodynamics.



First of all, the toyota prias and the handa hybrid never require to be recharged.
They get 60mpg. They are not the same at all as a car with a HHO gen, but the principal is kinda the same according to the thermo law.
according to your retoric, then the energy used by the ICE to charge the batt would turn the car's tires just as much if the ICE worked alone.

I think it is the type of energy (is that a technacally correct term?)
for example: the ICE has the horsepower and the electric motor has the torque. I believe that the engine only runs when it is most efficant.
like i said, there is a lot of diffrence, but the bottom line is: The electricity created by the ICE and gen will get more done at times than if that SAME energy was used straight form the ICE.

diffrent use of energy.
less than one amp will kill a person. But the hydrogen gas created using 10 amps wont kill a person when ignighted on them (if possible).

the hybrid has to use gasoline. and the energy used is also reseased in the wear and tear of the vehicle parts.

A hydrogen and gas hybrid would require gas and a water/electrolite mixture. The byproduct of the hydrogen "combustion" is not the same as what was used for electalysis.

ONE more thing.
I think that the energy emited in the ignition of H gas is a bit diffrent then the combustion of a hydrocarbon (gasoline)
this is the equation for the combustion of H and O
2H2 + O2 > 2H2O + heat

one thing that you will notice is that there only the combining of atoms, making of molocule, not the breaking down of one. Where does the energy come from?

the chemical for hydrocarbon is something like:
CH + O > CO + HO
(CH molocule is some hydrocarbon like butane, propane, or karocine IDK)
the point is, there is the seperation of atoms before the joining of others, theoretocilly where energy is released.


So, I think that the proof is in the pudding. Unless you are a chemist and can show the complete transfer of energy.

Free energy is impossible, ill give you that.
But there has to be somethings in the equation of burning H as a fuel after electalysis that we can not see or understand that fulfill the law of thermodynamics.

I know that finding countless people on the internet who have done the HHO Gen experement in forums and other places is not the same as doing it as myself. But I did mention something to the shop forman at work (head mechanic) and he told me about a man who did it on his VW, a good friend. I got his number and talked to him, he was happy to tell me about it and wants me to come to Lubbck (texas) (45mins away) to check it out.

so, i will see. I still havent touched it with my own hands though.

 

Sorry Gat but this was my first thought after reading your post. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA
You have NO concept on how any of this works. Hybrids work by not wasting/using fuel at idle and decceleration and recovering energy during braking. Normal cars just turn kinetic energy into heat.