The conflicting math comes from people who claim that you can/can't produce enough electricity to produce the hydrogen from an IC engine. That's really the central issue here. From my own limited experiments, hydrogen and oxygen start separating out of the water in appreciable quantities at volt/amp ranges that are well within the specs of car alternators. The HHO gas also burns faster and hotter than gasoline does.
People keep (understandably) bringing up this supposed violation of the second law of thermodynamics, so lets look at your other statement.
Petrol cars don't tow a refinery behind them for practical reasons, not scientific ones. What runs the refinery? How can an oil company run the drilling, transportation, and refining of gasoline without wasting more power than the potential energy the gasoline can produce?
If this were against the 2nd law of thermodynamics, they never would have gotten the whole industry going in the first place.
Once upon a time, steam engines cut down trees, and then milled and sawed them to length while running on parts of the very trees that they cut down. According to your logic, this is against the second law of thermodynamics, because you wound up with more wood (fuel) than it took to cut down the tree and produce burnable sized pieces (more fuel). This went on for decades (and still goes on in some places) with the steam engines generating electricity for other uses at the same time.
I'm not suggesting that I can violate any scientific law, I'm suggesting that we might not be looking this particular law the right way.
Once again, I don't know that I am right. I might be the one interpreting this law the wrong way. When I do get around to testing this process, I'll be happy to let everyone know where it is leading, and if I utterly fail, I'll say so.
Experimenting is always it's own reward, though.
Last edited:
No, sorry if I have not made myself clear. This (static) operation uses some of the energy in the wood to make wood available for other purposes. No violation of the 2nd law is involved.The Him said:
If you have petrol to burn to make mechanical energy then the best thing to do is to used that energy directly to turn a wheel. You might get a bit better efficiency by using some sort of heat pump to extract a bit more useful energy from the heat emitted by the engine.
What you can't do is use energy to split water (electrolysis) and get back more by combining it again (burning). Physics/chemistry/the universe doesn't work like that. The best you could possibly achieve even in theory is break-even, because the energy to split a molecule is exactly the same as the energy you get back when you make it again. This is an elementary fact which you appear not to have not grasped. Reality means you can't even do as well as this, as all machines have losses. That is where the 2nd law comes in.
To successfully do what you are trying you would need to find some substance which can be partly split (using some energy A), which then splits further by extracting energy B from the environment (e.g. sunlight, ambient heat?). If you can then recombine it all back together losslessly you can get (at most) energy C=A+B. If the B part is greater than your conversion losses then you have a winner. My guess is that the best person to find such a substance is a good physical chemist, who then would need a good engineer to make the apparatus.
Last edited:
Ceded.
Let me ask you this then; does it matter that I am not recombining the water to get the energy?
When the water separates into hydrogen and oxygen the gasses are burned. In fact, you can separate them completely with a slightly different design and only burn the hydrogen. In this case the energy utilized in the gas is not a product of recombination.
Also, you are right that I wasn't grasping the concept. I remember being taught that the recombination of molecules releases an enormous amount of energy. You are right that I was ignoring the input required to separate them in the first place.
This is not the case with atoms, correct? Atomic bombs work on the recombination of the hydrogen atom if I remember correctly.
The water splitting fans seem to think that you get more energy out of burning the gases than it takes to split them. As tho the bond in water has some special property that makes it very easy to split, giving more energy in recombination than in splitting. Alas, it just isn't so.
No, I do not. I ceded the point and was just asking a question hoping to learn something further.
BTW , the supplemental system your friend was talking about does not have to operate at a loss, because it's a different concept. A cars alternator produces more electricity than it needs to run and charge the battery. He could switch to a high-output alternator, or swap out an engine component (such as using a racing water pump) with a secondary alternator and produce supplemental gas.
The car would still be running mainly on gasoline, but you would need a really good mechanic to tune the system for it to give him the mileage boost.
These systems are actually proven already and becoming more and more popular.
BTW , the supplemental system your friend was talking about does not have to operate at a loss, because it's a different concept. A cars alternator produces more electricity than it needs to run and charge the battery. He could switch to a high-output alternator, or swap out an engine component (such as using a racing water pump) with a secondary alternator and produce supplemental gas.
The car would still be running mainly on gasoline, but you would need a really good mechanic to tune the system for it to give him the mileage boost.
These systems are actually proven already and becoming more and more popular.
BTW, I was also wrong about something else. I was looking through some numbers in my notes, and diesel and gasoline both have higher energy densities than hydrogen gas.
Very true. Same with coal/charcoal -carbon. I know that some guys have built gassifiers and run engines on wood and charcoal but I don't consider a coal fire in my trunk as a practical alternative. Besides, carbon residue is a very big enemy of engine components.
I do wish solar was more efficient, it could certainly be used to produce the gas, and then the gas could be used as fuel. As it stands though, even with all of the real estate on my shop roof, it would cost thousands (if not tens of thousands) to set up a system just to produce enough. Then you have the very dangerous and expensive prospect of compressing it for use.
Not something that's in my wheelhouse.
Back to the old drawing board.
I do wish solar was more efficient, it could certainly be used to produce the gas, and then the gas could be used as fuel. As it stands though, even with all of the real estate on my shop roof, it would cost thousands (if not tens of thousands) to set up a system just to produce enough. Then you have the very dangerous and expensive prospect of compressing it for use.
Not something that's in my wheelhouse.
Back to the old drawing board.
Yep, hydrogen is a purely crap road fuel, difficult to store, low volumentic energy density, and does weird and metalurically unfortunate) things to metals.
I worked on a fuel cell car project back around 2000 for a major automotive group, and it was an open secret that the only reason it was being done was because it was cheaper to spend a billon on alternative fuels reasearch then it was to find a Californian senator that would stay bought (The spin off electric drive train technology has BTW ended up doing sterling work in hybrid vehicles).
Incidentally, the cheapest way to make hydrogen is to take a hydrocarbon, add high temperature steam and run the mixture over a catalyst, the water breaks down as the hydrocarbon takes up the oxygen forming CO gas. You then separate the monoxide from the hydrogen, and burn the monoxide to make up some of the energy deficit from the highly endothermic reaction. This is called the watergas reaction, and the reaction products are CO2 and H2 (I think someone may have eventually explained this to US politicians which is why the 'hydrogen economy' vanished up its own tail).
What is being missed is that alternator drag is strongly dependent on alternator load (it is in fact almost proportional to it), you make thae alternator work harder it exerts more drag on the engine, and the engine will always need more energy in fuel then the alternator can produce.
Ignore nuclear stuff the mechanism there is not chemical it is down at the nucleus of the atom (Chemistry is to a first order concerned with sharing electrons, it does not generally involve the nucleus or the release of binding energy).
Internal combustion engines actually are NOT THAT BAD efficiency wise, a modern high compression diesel of reasonable size will manage about 30% give or take of the energy in the fuel as energy delivered to the shaft, compare to the power grid which actually even with the benefits of scale has a thermal to delivered power efficiency of less then 40% ....
A big part of the whole 'browns gas' / HHO / whatever it is getting called this week thing is that people are very bad about the difference between energy and power and the difference between heat and temperature, and these concepts are kind of fundamental.
Regards, Dan.
I worked on a fuel cell car project back around 2000 for a major automotive group, and it was an open secret that the only reason it was being done was because it was cheaper to spend a billon on alternative fuels reasearch then it was to find a Californian senator that would stay bought (The spin off electric drive train technology has BTW ended up doing sterling work in hybrid vehicles).
Incidentally, the cheapest way to make hydrogen is to take a hydrocarbon, add high temperature steam and run the mixture over a catalyst, the water breaks down as the hydrocarbon takes up the oxygen forming CO gas. You then separate the monoxide from the hydrogen, and burn the monoxide to make up some of the energy deficit from the highly endothermic reaction. This is called the watergas reaction, and the reaction products are CO2 and H2 (I think someone may have eventually explained this to US politicians which is why the 'hydrogen economy' vanished up its own tail).
What is being missed is that alternator drag is strongly dependent on alternator load (it is in fact almost proportional to it), you make thae alternator work harder it exerts more drag on the engine, and the engine will always need more energy in fuel then the alternator can produce.
Ignore nuclear stuff the mechanism there is not chemical it is down at the nucleus of the atom (Chemistry is to a first order concerned with sharing electrons, it does not generally involve the nucleus or the release of binding energy).
Internal combustion engines actually are NOT THAT BAD efficiency wise, a modern high compression diesel of reasonable size will manage about 30% give or take of the energy in the fuel as energy delivered to the shaft, compare to the power grid which actually even with the benefits of scale has a thermal to delivered power efficiency of less then 40% ....
A big part of the whole 'browns gas' / HHO / whatever it is getting called this week thing is that people are very bad about the difference between energy and power and the difference between heat and temperature, and these concepts are kind of fundamental.
Regards, Dan.
You are recombining the hydrogen and oxygen to get water. This is what happens when you burn hydrogen in air.The Him said:
I fear you may be confusing chemistry with nuclear physics. Some molecules release energy when they form from simpler species - burning hydrogen to make water is an example. Other molecules release energy when they split - e.g. explosives. In no case do you get an enormous amount of energy, just the energy which would be needed to reverse the reaction.
For huge energy release you have to convert matter to energy, but I suspect the mods would not want the details discussed on here as we don't want DIYaudio to be held responsible for a city disappearing.
True enough.
The solution with alternator drag, at least in a supplemental system is to put in a high-output alternator which can output something like 100amps at idle. You can control the electric load with circuitry so as to keep it even.
You are right about metallurgic problems. I know someone who used stainless steel valves and lifters to lessen the problems, but again it's a matter of what you have at hand. If doing this sort of thing costs too much money, it winds up not being worth it.
It does work though, and I have seen dyno tests to prove it, but as with everything it's situational. It's not practical for everyone and every situation.
The solution with alternator drag, at least in a supplemental system is to put in a high-output alternator which can output something like 100amps at idle. You can control the electric load with circuitry so as to keep it even.
You are right about metallurgic problems. I know someone who used stainless steel valves and lifters to lessen the problems, but again it's a matter of what you have at hand. If doing this sort of thing costs too much money, it winds up not being worth it.
It does work though, and I have seen dyno tests to prove it, but as with everything it's situational. It's not practical for everyone and every situation.
Sorry, I didn't mean you, I meant in all the "free energy" stuff I read around the web. There seems to be a belief that splitting water requires less energy than you get back by burning the gases. Although it's rarely put that succinctly.
No matter how big your alternator, it still takes power from the engine for it to produce current. You might find more efficient models, but they still need power from the engine to run, they still cause drag. And none are 100% efficient, so there is still a net loss. Need 500 watts from the alternator? How many watts will it take from the motor to produce that?
No problem. Those who get offended too easily learn nothing.
You are right and wrong about the alternator. If you control the load, an alternator need not drag so much on the engine as to rob horsepower. Also, like I said, you can make other adjustments either within or without the engine to compensate for the extra drag, if you produce a lot.
It all comes down to how much gas you are trying to produce. As you and others have correctly pointed out, you cannot make enough to run the vehicle on. You can, however, make supplemental gas fairly easily as it does not take very much in the way of wattage.
The idea with the supplemental system is that, rather than take in ambient air (exclusively) to burn with the fuel, you pipe in the HHO gas and so make the ambient air more explosive. This way, you can lean out the carburetor to save on fuel. Or, you could use the gas for a small horsepower boost instead.
Other uses are turning the system on and off on occasion as the HHO gas apparently has the effect of cleaning carbon deposits on the pistons and valves.
"The Crown's position is that he had this man-made assembly in his house suspended from the ceiling by thin ropes. "There was a car battery and cans of petrol nearby."
I wish they had a picture of that.
I fear you are still missing the point. Any energy you get back by burning 'HHO' (actually 2H2+O2) will be less than the extra energy you consumed in order to make it. That is, unless your alternator is so inefficient when lightly loaded that the increase in efficiency when it supplies electricity offsets the energy used; unlikely.
You give the impression that you don't really believe in energy conservation and the 2nd law but hope that someone will be clever enough to find a way round them. If so, you need to understand that this makes you a crank not a lay scientist. I hope I am wrong.
You give the impression that you don't really believe in energy conservation and the 2nd law but hope that someone will be clever enough to find a way round them. If so, you need to understand that this makes you a crank not a lay scientist. I hope I am wrong.
I do actually believe in energy conservation. It's just been a really long time since I have been at school, or been in any position to apply the knowledge so a lot of the specifics have slipped my mind. Even after having done a few years of electronics, I find that I now have to refer back to my books for some pretty simple theories and equations.
I know that upping the alternator power in race cars to keep up with more powerful ignition systems, more sophisticated timing computers, etc does not produce a net loss of power. The alternator power is utilized to take full advantage of both electrical and physical changes - like flowed heads, more aggressive cams, etc.
Alternator drag can sometimes be compensated for with more efficient components - water pumps, a/c compressor removal, low friction pulleys, and on and on.
You can improve horsepower this way, and then trade that horsepower back in for fuel economy. I'm not suggesting that you would be getting something for nothing.
I know that upping the alternator power in race cars to keep up with more powerful ignition systems, more sophisticated timing computers, etc does not produce a net loss of power. The alternator power is utilized to take full advantage of both electrical and physical changes - like flowed heads, more aggressive cams, etc.
Alternator drag can sometimes be compensated for with more efficient components - water pumps, a/c compressor removal, low friction pulleys, and on and on.
You can improve horsepower this way, and then trade that horsepower back in for fuel economy. I'm not suggesting that you would be getting something for nothing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.