snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Non-UL Chat » Techno-Babble » Magical water fuel: A successful hoax? Or, what's the catch?

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Magical water fuel: A successful hoax? Or, what's the catch?
Mr. Billion
The First USA Noel


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Mr. Billion   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Billion   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Denny Klein claims to have invented a machine that can use water as the fuel for a welding torch that creates a "flame that's only slightly warm to the touch," yet burns metals and charcoal at a temperature "hotter than the surface of the sun." What's more, with this machine he can convert water into a gas that works as an additive to gasoline that makes it 30% more efficient, and could also be used as the sole fuel source for a car.

Sounds a lot like this. It sounds pretty crazy, yet if it's fake it has fooled a few different news sources. I have a video here (sorry, I don't have a link) from an area FOX news affiliate (FOX 26) that demonstrates all this stuff. In it, he claims that he converts H2O to "HHO," which I've never heard of. Near the end, the anchor says "Members of Congress have invited Denny Klein to Washington to demonstrate his technology. Now his company is developing a Hummer for the U.S. military that can run on both water and gasoline."
There's also this article from the Tampa Tribune. There IS a way to run a car on water, but that involves fuel cells and this supposedly is something else entirely.

I don't know if this is legit, but it's supposed to be the patent (pending):
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US2004074781&F=0

So: Has anybody heard of this? (Is there already a thread about this subject?) The earliest articles I've seen about this are from last year. Has it been shown to be fake yet?

--------------------
"For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney.

Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Billion
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Billion   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Billion   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
There's also this article with a few more details.

--------------------
"For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney.

Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Here is the line:
quote:
...uses electricity to convert distilled water into klein...
It uses electrolysis to separate hydrogen (H) from oxygen (O) in water. Nothing new. That works really well, except it takes energy to separate the H from the O, so they are not getting anything for free (unless you think plugging it into the wall and using electricity as "free").

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
El Camino
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for El Camino   E-mail El Camino   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Um, I don't think HHO can exist - assuming that means the bonding is H-H-O. Since that would require Hydrogen to make two bonds, which I don't believe it ever does.
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Finite Fourier Alchemy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Finite Fourier Alchemy   E-mail Finite Fourier Alchemy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by El Camino:
Um, I don't think HHO can exist - assuming that means the bonding is H-H-O. Since that would require Hydrogen to make two bonds, which I don't believe it ever does.

Well, electron-deficient compounds exist, diborane being the standard example, but it's a unique case where the electrons around the boron are moving in such a way that the hydrogens can sort of hitch a ride. Chemical bonds are a bit more fuzzy than they lead you to belive in high school and a lot of college chemistry, so sometimes weird stuff pops up.

But H-H-anything isn't going to cut it; you're completely right there. *Maybe* there exists some super-excited water state, but nothing that's going to exist long enough to undergo a chemical interaction.

OP has little to do with chemistry and a lot to do with marketing in preparation for an IPO for a company that doesn't actually have any value.

Oh, hell, some math:
http://www.rai.com.ro/rai_desc.html

quote:
Generates 1500 liters (53 cubic feet) of New gas per hour
Consumes about 5kw/h
Operates at 20 Amps and 220/240 VAC

kw/h is energy, not power. At those amps and voltage it's pulling 5 kW.

1500 l = 67 moles gas

Assuming total hydrolysis, 2/3 of the molecules are H2 so

45 moles H2
90 g H2 per hour produced

Enthalpy of hydrolysis is 39 W-h/g hydrogen.

= 3510 W required to form H2 from water at this output rate

= 3510 W is the max amount of energy you can get back when you burn the stuff. In an ICE, you'll get more like 35% of that, 1230 W.

But the page claims 5000 W is required input.

So basically, you use 5 kW (6.7 hp) to gain 1.2 kW (1.6 hp) using a really old and obvious piece of technology.

Hooray!

--------------------
Thinking about New England / missing old Japan

Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BoKu
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for BoKu   Author's Homepage   E-mail BoKu   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Don Lancaster's web site at http://www.tinaja.com is great for debunking energy bullshiz like this.

That Klein Gas sounds like yet another reincrapnation of Brown's Gas; see Resource Bin #88: The hydrogen scene: It's a gas.

Other related articles include Energy Fundamentals, How to Bash Pseudoscience, and Engineering Ratholes.

Posts: 2079 | From: California | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
FireSpook
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for FireSpook   E-mail FireSpook   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
maybe he means that the chemcial bonding for the HHO is:
H-H-O and not H-O-H?

Sounds like bull to me.

--------------------
WARNING
The message above may have statements that only make sense in this user's mind.

Read at your own risk.

Posts: 667 | From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Billion
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Billion   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Billion   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Joe Bentley has found a link to the video I was talking about. It's worth a look.

--------------------
"For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney.

Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Troberg
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Troberg     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Looks very similar to Brown's gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown's_Gas) which is widely considered a hoax, as the wild claims have never been shown in a scientific setting.

Edit: Spanked by BoKu

--------------------
/Troberg

Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Errata
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Errata   E-mail Errata   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Billion:
I don't know if this is legit, but it's supposed to be the patent (pending)

That doesn't mean anything. Patents don't involve rigorous proofs that the ideas actually work. You can find any number of bogus perpetual motion machines with patents.
Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Delta-V
Xboxing Day


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Delta-V     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
From their website:
quote:
When the Gas Generator is used as a gas welder, Aquygen™ Gas can weld, cut, braze, solder, metal clad and fuse ceramics, metals, cermets, glass, plastics and inter-metallic materials together such as metal-to-metal, metal to glass, ferrous to non­ferrous and dissimilar metals to each other, a true fusion process heretofore unavailable.

I'd love to see them try to weld metal to glass. For that matter, I'd like to see them weld ferrous to nonferrous. Not that you'd want to - the galvanic corrosion would kill the joint. But, of course, this miracle gas probably fixes that, too.

quote:
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.

(1)10-12x the mass energy density of gasoline is almost 3x that of hydrogen alone (which, itself, has the highest of any known fuel). And NOx compounds aren't hydrocarbon effluents (they're not even effluents), they're combustion byproducts of using air as an oxidizer. ANY combustion using air can (and generally will) produce NOx. But, they claim this stuff acts as it's own oxidizer (and yet it's supposed to be stable?).

Looks like this thing is powered by pure ballonium.

--------------------
"My neighbor asked why anyone would need a car that can go 190 mph. If the answer isn't obvious, and explaination won't help." - Csabe Csere

Posts: 1225 | From: Wichita, Kansas | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Brillo Bee
Wii Three Kings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Brillo Bee     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
It's true, H-H-O the molecule is extremely unlikely. (I'm a chemist.) Turns out HHO is an acronym. Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen. When you "split" H2O, you get hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). Both combust.

~bee

Edit: because I find things as soon as I post.

--------------------
People do not wish to appear foolish; to avoid the appearance of foolishness, they are willing to remain actually fools. -Alice Walker

Posts: 335 | From: Minnesota | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Brillo Bee
Wii Three Kings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Brillo Bee     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
And I thought of more...

The electrolysis of water is quite possible. And if you got enough H2 formed, you can certainly run a car. The involvement of O2 isn't something I know anything about. (Mythbusters ran an unmodified car on pure H2 the other night.) You're not getting something for nothing, as others said, you do have to put energy in to get the hydrogen. The tradeoff is using electricity and water instead of gasoline. So if you feel that getting water and electricity is cheaper/lower impact than using gasoline, it might be able to work.

As for the stability, if what they are generating is truly H2 and O2 gas (you have to get the right conditions to make this happen-- when I've done this by accident in the lab, I believe I made H2 and hydroxide, mostly), a mixture of H2 and O2
without a spark would be very stable. These do not spontaneously react, but once the reaction is initiated, as with a spark, it would give off energy.

With all that said, I don't know if it actually works as presented in the OP and other links. Seems like there would be a lot of details to iron out.

~Bee

--------------------
People do not wish to appear foolish; to avoid the appearance of foolishness, they are willing to remain actually fools. -Alice Walker

Posts: 335 | From: Minnesota | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
jimmy101
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jimmy101   E-mail jimmy101   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brillo Bee:

It's true, H-H-O the molecule is extremely unlikely. (I'm a chemist.) Turns out HHO is an acronym. Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen. When you "split" H2O, you get hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). Both combust.

~bee

And I thought of more...

The electrolysis of water is quite possible. And if you got enough H2 formed, you can certainly run a car. The involvement of O2 isn't something I know anything about. (Mythbusters ran an unmodified car on pure H2 the other night.) You're not getting something for nothing, as others said, you do have to put energy in to get the hydrogen. The tradeoff is using electricity and water instead of gasoline. So if you feel that getting water and electricity is cheaper/lower impact than using gasoline, it might be able to work.

As for the stability, if what they are generating is truly H2 and O2 gas (you have to get the right conditions to make this happen-- when I've done this by accident in the lab, I believe I made H2 and hydroxide, mostly), a mixture of H2 and O2
without a spark would be very stable. These do not spontaneously react, but once the reaction is initiated, as with a spark, it would give off energy.

With all that said, I don't know if it actually works as presented in the OP and other links. Seems like there would be a lot of details to iron out.

~Bee

You're a chemist? Really? Are you sure you don't just play one on TV?

"When you "split" H2O, you get hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). Both combust." No, oxygen does not "combust". Oxygen (or another oxidizer) is required for combustion but it (the oxidizer) is not said to combust. To put it another way, oxygen by itself will not combust.

"The electrolysis of water is quite possible." Well yes. In fact, that is one of the industrial processes for creating both hydrogen and oxygen.

"The involvement of O2 isn't something I know anything about." Well, without oxygen gasoline (or H2) will not combust in a car engine. Either you supply the oxygen from air or as pure oxygen from the electrolysis reaction. Either way works. You'll get more energy out of pure oxygen than out of air sourced oxygen. And, pure oxygen plus hydrogen won't form nitrogen oxides (NOX's).

"when I've done this by accident in the lab, I believe I made H2 and hydroxide, mostly" It isn't that difficult. Water, a pair of carbon welding rods, Magnesium Sulfate (Epsom Salts) and a couple of 1.5 volt batteries will do it.

The thermodynamics of the entire process of creating H2 and O2 by electrolysis has been worked out in gory detail over the last hundred years. There is absolutely no question about the energy yield of the process. The bottom line though, is that to create one joule of energy stored as H2 and O2 requires more than 1 joule of electricity. It doesn't matter where you get that 1 joule of electricity (solar cells, gasoline, hydroelectric...) you still loose some energy in the process.

edited to fix evil UBB code tags.

Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Brillo Bee
Wii Three Kings


Icon 09 posted      Profile for Brillo Bee     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jimmy101:
You're a chemist? Really? Are you sure you don't just play one on TV?

Ahem. OK, OK, your points are well-taken, even if the post seemed a bit more combative than I would have expected. Then again, it is the end of the semester and my skin is thinner than usual right now. I'll try to take this above comment as humor and not snark. [Smile]

For one, you're absolutely right especially about those combustion comments. I was trying to be brief and less technical, and ended up being just plain wrong. And I probably shouldn't talk chemistry at all after my bedtime if I can't think straight.

With some of the other comments, though, I was trying to provide some information without overstepping my area of expertise. That is, though I'm ashamed to admit it, my understanding of how car engines work is not as good as it might be, so I didn't want to overstate anything in terms of how well a given fuel might work in a vehicle. It may have been silly of me to think this, but I thought that some of my general comments might have assisted the discussion even though I didn't have all the information at hand to get to a bottom line of "yes" or "no" on the idea of HHO gas as fuel. I appreciate the additional information you gave, even though I chafed at the tone as I read it. (again, my perception may be off)

quote:
The bottom line though, is that to create one joule of energy stored as H2 and O2 requires more than 1 joule of electricity. It doesn't matter where you get that 1 joule of electricity (solar cells, gasoline, hydroelectric...) you still loose some energy in the process.


Thanks for making that comment. I agree completely with what you're saying here, but your comment leads me to believe I wasn't being completely clear with what I was trying to say. I'll give it another shot. When it comes to choosing an energy source, there are a number of factors to consider, and quantitative energy input/output is only one. (Albeit a very important one.) Other important considerations are expense, the impact of your fuel choice on the environment and on the economy. IF a fuel is somewhat less efficient than gasoline, but still has a less negative impact on the environment, then it MIGHT still be a better choice. There is a bigger equation to balance here in terms of all these needs, that is, it DOES matter where you get that energy. That's all I was trying to say, though it didn't come across clearly the first time.

~Bee

--------------------
People do not wish to appear foolish; to avoid the appearance of foolishness, they are willing to remain actually fools. -Alice Walker

Posts: 335 | From: Minnesota | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Delta-V
Xboxing Day


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Delta-V     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hydrogen/oxygen welders and torches have been around since the late 1800's. They were popular until replaced by acetylene in the early 1900's. They're still used in some things (jewelry, for example), where contamination is an issue, or where storage of acetylene and oxygen tanks would be impractical or prohibited.

Other than the BS about the 'new HHO molecule', there's nothing odd about it, and even that's just a rehash of the Brown's gas hype.

As for powering their car...Water isn't a fuel, it's an ash. It's what's left over AFTER you burn hydrogen or hydrocarbons. There's no practical means of producing the hydrogen from water as you drive, since it takes more energy to make than you get out of it (~47% more!).

--------------------
"My neighbor asked why anyone would need a car that can go 190 mph. If the answer isn't obvious, and explaination won't help." - Csabe Csere

Posts: 1225 | From: Wichita, Kansas | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Alan Harvey
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Alan Harvey   Author's Homepage   E-mail Alan Harvey   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's the thing..

If water has to be broken down to provide the fuel for the engine, what provides the fuel to break down the water? Otherwise I'm afraid that this becomes a perpetual motion machine.

Actually more than a perpetual motion machine, because actual work is being done by a nonfuel.. Water is one of the most, if not the most, stable compounds on the planet.

I am both a chemist and an auto mechanic plus a student of physics. You just CAN"T add 2 + 2 and get 22.

While the process of breaking the H2O down into H2 and O2 will yield a very efficient combustible fuel/oxider mix, that only represents an energy transfer mechanism. The electrical energy that it takes to electrolyze the water, is always going to be more than than the energy gained by burning the H2/O2 mixture.

The only way this becomes a sensible process in terms of the laws of conservation of matter and energy, is if you have a windmill providing the electricity to electrolyze the water.. Generate the H2/O2 mix while you're plugged in at home and then drive the car until the mix runs out..

Still you will be using energy that has been added to move the car..

At all sounds nice on the news, doesn't it?

--------------------
Blest by the Best

Posts: 1 | From: Michigan City, Indiana | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cloak and Wizard Hat
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 82 posted      Profile for Cloak and Wizard Hat     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jimmy101:


~Bee [/qb]

You're a chemist? Really? Are you sure you don't just play one on TV?

Shame on you your lack of chivalry towards Bee.

I’m not a chemist, but something seems wrong with the arguments. Perhaps some one can explain it to me: I understand that electrolysis is used somehow in batteries (hydrogen fuel cells or something like that). The way it was explained to me is that electricity is use to separate the hydrogen from the water, and then when the hydrogen is reconstituted it produces electricity. That’s what I keep hearing: that you can only get out what you put in. But the process we talking about is not converting back, it’s consuming parts of the water. This is not an argument of converting electric energy to the end product of energy.
So, how much energy does it take to use electrolysis to convert a certain amount of hydrogen from water? And how much mechanical energy will that same mount of hydrogen create when it explodes with an optimal mixture of oxygen inside an internal combustion engine?

--------------------
He had the literary genius of a … whatever.

Posts: 2 | From: Garden Grove, CA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Finite Fourier Alchemy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Finite Fourier Alchemy   E-mail Finite Fourier Alchemy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cloak and Wizard Hat:
Perhaps some one can explain it to me: I understand that electrolysis is used somehow in batteries (hydrogen fuel cells or something like that).

Not really. Electrolysis is used when you need a small amount of hydrogen for some particular purpose. Generating hydrogen from water is inefficient, but if you only need a standard liter a day or so it`s cheaper than dealing with a gas cylinder supplier. The cost of steel cylinders and delivery make electrolysis more economical for small-scale applications. We use Shimadzu electrolysis units for some of our instruments.

quote:
That’s what I keep hearing: that you can only get out what you put in.
You can only get out less than what you put in.

quote:
But the process we talking about is not converting back, it’s consuming parts of the water.
It`s converting back. The method doesn`t change the maximum amount of energy you can obtain from going from H2 and O2 to H2O; it only affects the efficiency of the process - that is, how close you can get to achieving that maximum amount of energy.

Using combustion means you can only get out a fraction of what you put in. About 35% is the engineer`s ballpark figure.

quote:
So, how much energy does it take to use electrolysis to convert a certain amount of hydrogen from water? And how much mechanical energy will that same mount of hydrogen create when it explodes with an optimal mixture of oxygen inside an internal combustion engine?
I covered that in my post in May.

--------------------
Thinking about New England / missing old Japan

Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cloak and Wizard Hat
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 101 posted      Profile for Cloak and Wizard Hat     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Finite Foreigner Alchemy:
I’ma confused!
You said “The method doesn`t change the maximum amount of energy you can obtain from going from H2 and O2 to H2O” does that mean that when H2 and O2 are combusted, they change back to H2O?

quote:
So, how much energy does it take to use electrolysis to convert a certain amount of hydrogen from water? And how much mechanical energy will that same mount of hydrogen create when it explodes with an optimal mixture of oxygen inside an internal combustion engine?
I covered that in my post in May. [/QB]
OK, I looked at your post again, it still looks like you are referring back to a formula for feeding that H2 back into a generator and your measurements for output are in watts.

quote:
So basically, you use 5 kW (6.7 hp) to gain 1.2 kW (1.6 hp) using a really old and obvious piece of technology.
Damn, I wish I stayed in school: this stuff is very interesting!

For application, I have the following thought:
You mentioned in your reply that generating hydrogen from water is inefficient, and I believe you. One possible benefit from generating it from water in a device on a vehicle is that your are not carrying as much hydrogen at one time so if something nasty happens, you don’t take out the people and property around you with your car bomb. Of course that means nothing if it’s as inefficient as you say.

I hope you can continue your patience with me as an unlearned.
(Interjection from my daughter: she says it’s obvious that a car can’t run on water because the water would get into the wires and the car would explode)
Anyway, if you were measuring the result as what hydrogen could produce in an electromagnetic generator in watts, isn’t the electro magnetic generator also inefficient?
My mind keeps begging the question because of the variables I don’t understand and the whole “it looked good on paper” syndrome.

If you answered this in your post in May, please point it out. Otherwise further explanation would be very appreciated.
Suppose the following scenario:
You have a 2 ton car. You have also 10,000 KW of electricity to spend.
One way your can spend it is the push the car with an electric motor. In that case, you would also loose some of your KWs in the storage into batteries, and any voltage conversions.
The other way you can spend your 10,000 KW of electricity is to apply it to a hydrogen generator and feed that hydrogen into an internal combustion engine.
Which method moves the car the farthest and why?

I’m finding 2 HP electric motors consuming from 1800 to 2200 watts.
I have no resources for motors that run on hydrogen.

--------------------
He had the literary genius of a … whatever.

Posts: 2 | From: Garden Grove, CA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Finite Fourier Alchemy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Finite Fourier Alchemy   E-mail Finite Fourier Alchemy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cloak and Wizard Hat:
OK, I looked at your post again, it still looks like you are referring back to a formula for feeding that H2 back into a generator and your measurements for output are in watts.

I'm just using the standard enthalpy of formation of water. It's the energy inherent in going from H2 + 1/2 O2 to H2O. It doesn't matter how you get from one end to the other, or which direction you go. To get hydrogen from water, thermodynamics dictate you input slightly more energy than this. To get water from hydrogen, thermodynamics dictate you receive slightly less energy than this.

quote:
For application, I have the following thought:
You mentioned in your reply that generating hydrogen from water is inefficient, and I believe you. One possible benefit from generating it from water in a device on a vehicle is that your are not carrying as much hydrogen at one time so if something nasty happens, you don’t take out the people and property around you with your car bomb. Of course that means nothing if it’s as inefficient as you say.

There's no useful energy stored in the water. In your hypothetical case, it's an energy transfer medium, like water in a steam engine.

So where's the energy source?

quote:
Anyway, if you were measuring the result as what hydrogen could produce in an electromagnetic generator in watts, isn’t the electro magnetic generator also inefficient?
My mind keeps begging the question because of the variables I don’t understand and the whole “it looked good on paper” syndrome.[/qb]

I didn't say anything about a generator. I'm just using the standard enthalpy of formation of water.

The most efficient way of generating electrical power from hydrogen is, theoretically, a hydrogen fuel cell.

quote:
You have a 2 ton car. You have also 10,000 KW of electricity to spend.
That's enough power to supply about 10,000 American households, or about the maximum output of a typical prototype nuclear reactor.

If you had a power source (assuming a more reasonable 30 to 100 kW or so) why would you need to store anything?

--------------------
Thinking about New England / missing old Japan

Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2