Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

HHO Gas

Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 2:37:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Theres a pretty sizable community of people who advocate generating "Brown's gas", or HHO, basically just electrolyzed water split into a 2:1 Hydrogen-Oxygen mixture, as a way of improving a car's engine efficiency. The idea behind it is that burning this gas to recombine it into water vapor is far more powerful than an equivalent amount of gasoline to burn, so by injecting it into a slightly modified gas cylinder, you get more energy density out of your fuel.

The gas itself is generated on demand in the car by using the car's battery to power either a DC or plasma electrolyzer or a reversible hydrogen fuel cell to split as much water as needed and channel that into the carbureator. Supposed benefits are reduced polution (because HHO burns back into water vapor, and your only using half as much gas), increased gas milage, a cleaner engine which reduces servicing needs, all at a relatively low overhead.

It seems possible that there are more powerful fuels than ordinary gasoline, and combusion engines are pretty low efficiency, so it's not unreasonable to think there might be ways to improve on that, but splitting water just so you can recombine it again a moment later seems like it would cost as much as it gives back, and then lose more due to the inefficiency of the engine itself. On the other hand, theres a large number of people who claim success with it, and not too many people bothering to respond that they're wrong. What do you think of these guys? Is this a real gas saving tip or just a bunch of fools?
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 5:36:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 2:37:05 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
... but splitting water just so you can recombine it again a moment later seems like it would cost as much as it gives back, and then lose more due to the inefficiency of the engine itself.

There.

The only way any of these proposed theories would succeed is if there is already a source of energy, be that fossil fuels, the sun, wind. dams, etc. These people could be correct in saying that whatever new method they invented is more efficient at converting potential energy into mechanical energy, but the point is ultimately moot when you consider where the energy came from in the first place.

The important thing now is finding more ways to produce minimal-impact energy at a reasonable cost and speed, not finding ways of converting them.
0x5f3759df
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 6:08:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 2:37:05 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
Theres a pretty sizable community of people who advocate generating "Brown's gas", or HHO, basically just electrolyzed water split into a 2:1 Hydrogen-Oxygen mixture, as a way of improving a car's engine efficiency. The idea behind it is that burning this gas to recombine it into water vapor is far more powerful than an equivalent amount of gasoline to burn, so by injecting it into a slightly modified gas cylinder, you get more energy density out of your fuel.

The gas itself is generated on demand in the car by using the car's battery to power either a DC or plasma electrolyzer or a reversible hydrogen fuel cell to split as much water as needed and channel that into the carbureator. Supposed benefits are reduced polution (because HHO burns back into water vapor, and your only using half as much gas), increased gas milage, a cleaner engine which reduces servicing needs, all at a relatively low overhead.

It seems possible that there are more powerful fuels than ordinary gasoline, and combusion engines are pretty low efficiency, so it's not unreasonable to think there might be ways to improve on that, but splitting water just so you can recombine it again a moment later seems like it would cost as much as it gives back, and then lose more due to the inefficiency of the engine itself. On the other hand, theres a large number of people who claim success with it, and not too many people bothering to respond that they're wrong. What do you think of these guys? Is this a real gas saving tip or just a bunch of fools?

It is impossible for H:H:O to exists together unless its H2O of some form. The idea that you have two free protons and one free oxygen atom is ridiculous. I think its more likely H2 and O2 in a ratio of 2:1 as that is chemically stable and would also provide energy on combustion to give water. This also fits in with the water splitting and combustion processes for hydrogen to produce energy.

The reason people don't respond to this is that it is a misinterpretation, as Brown gas is a mixture of Hydrogen to Oxygen in molar ratio 2:1 and not H:H:O.
http://www.nature.com...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 7:06:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 2:37:05 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
Theres a pretty sizable community of people who advocate generating "Brown's gas", or HHO, basically just electrolyzed water split into a 2:1 Hydrogen-Oxygen mixture, as a way of improving a car's engine efficiency. The idea behind it is that burning this gas to recombine it into water vapor is far more powerful than an equivalent amount of gasoline to burn, so by injecting it into a slightly modified gas cylinder, you get more energy density out of your fuel.

The gas itself is generated on demand in the car by using the car's battery to power either a DC or plasma electrolyzer or a reversible hydrogen fuel cell to split as much water as needed and channel that into the carbureator. Supposed benefits are reduced polution (because HHO burns back into water vapor, and your only using half as much gas), increased gas milage, a cleaner engine which reduces servicing needs, all at a relatively low overhead.

It seems possible that there are more powerful fuels than ordinary gasoline, and combusion engines are pretty low efficiency, so it's not unreasonable to think there might be ways to improve on that, but splitting water just so you can recombine it again a moment later seems like it would cost as much as it gives back, and then lose more due to the inefficiency of the engine itself. On the other hand, theres a large number of people who claim success with it, and not too many people bothering to respond that they're wrong. What do you think of these guys? Is this a real gas saving tip or just a bunch of fools?

It's pseudoscience, energy needed to generate the oxyhydrogen always exceeds the energy gained by combusting it, theoretically at 100% efficiency which we will never accomplish, you gain nothing.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 3:30:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 5:36:56 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 12/14/2013 2:37:05 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
... but splitting water just so you can recombine it again a moment later seems like it would cost as much as it gives back, and then lose more due to the inefficiency of the engine itself.

There.

The only way any of these proposed theories would succeed is if there is already a source of energy, be that fossil fuels, the sun, wind. dams, etc. These people could be correct in saying that whatever new method they invented is more efficient at converting potential energy into mechanical energy, but the point is ultimately moot when you consider where the energy came from in the first place.

The important thing now is finding more ways to produce minimal-impact energy at a reasonable cost and speed, not finding ways of converting them.

Generally speaking, though, the cost of electricity is lower than the cost of generating an equivalent amount of energy by using gasoline.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Subutai
Posts: 3,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 9:52:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
An atom with a chemical structure H-H-O can't exist because of the valency of hydrogen and oxygen; that is why water is H-O-H. Hydrogen has one electron in the fist shell and oxygen has six electrons in its second shell; the first shell has an electron capacity of two and the second shell has an electron capacity of eight; in other words, hydrogen needs to either gain an electron or lose an electron to be stable, while oxygen needs to either lose six electrons or gain eight electrons. It is therefore easy for two hydrogen atoms to give away their two electrons to oxygen, and all three atoms are stable. A chemical configuration of H-O-H allows for this because both hydrogen atoms are in contact with the oxygen atom, while a chemical configuration of H-H-O only leaves on of the hydrogen atoms in contact with the oxygen atom, which means that only one of the atoms is stable (oxygen still needs a second electron). That is why water is oriented like H-O-H.

Further, because of the electron differences, electric charges develop between the atoms. Because electrons have a negative charge, the hydrogen, which loses an electron, becomes electrically positive, while the oxygen, which gains two electrons, becomes electrically negative. The electric charges in H-O-H allow for all three atoms to be electrically attractive, while a chemical configuration of H-H-O means that there would be two electrically charged particles close together, which naturally repel, and would rip apart the atom.

Therefore, H-O-H is the only chemically stable structure for water.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 10:39:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 9:52:28 PM, Subutai wrote:
An atom with a chemical structure H-H-O can't exist because of the valency of hydrogen and oxygen; that is why water is H-O-H. Hydrogen has one electron in the fist shell and oxygen has six electrons in its second shell; the first shell has an electron capacity of two and the second shell has an electron capacity of eight; in other words, hydrogen needs to either gain an electron or lose an electron to be stable, while oxygen needs to either lose six electrons or gain eight electrons. It is therefore easy for two hydrogen atoms to give away their two electrons to oxygen, and all three atoms are stable. A chemical configuration of H-O-H allows for this because both hydrogen atoms are in contact with the oxygen atom, while a chemical configuration of H-H-O only leaves on of the hydrogen atoms in contact with the oxygen atom, which means that only one of the atoms is stable (oxygen still needs a second electron). That is why water is oriented like H-O-H.

Further, because of the electron differences, electric charges develop between the atoms. Because electrons have a negative charge, the hydrogen, which loses an electron, becomes electrically positive, while the oxygen, which gains two electrons, becomes electrically negative. The electric charges in H-O-H allow for all three atoms to be electrically attractive, while a chemical configuration of H-H-O means that there would be two electrically charged particles close together, which naturally repel, and would rip apart the atom.

Therefore, H-O-H is the only chemically stable structure for water.

OP is referring to a 2-to-1 mixture of H2 and O2, not a molecule of it. It's essentially proposing a hydrogen fuel cell car, except the gas is mixed and combusted instead of using a hydrogen fuel cell.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 11:08:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Correct. This supposed technology electrolyzes water into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, which combine into stable H2 and O2 gasses at a 2:1 ratio, hence the HHO, 2 H2s to 1 O2. I know its kind of a dumb name but thats just the vernacular this group uses.