I would like to know more about gassing through solutions. It sounds interesting to me, not really talking about extractions or how to create the gas your using, but the different gasses and solutions to produce different stuff. Like for example, if you gassed oxygen through liquid hydrogen would it produce pure water? Could someone help explain a little on the subject.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Gassing Through Solutions
- Thread starter Cheeto
- Start date
hysterix
Rising Star
Cheeto said:
Hey cheeto! I am playing around with supplementing vehicles with hydrogen for better gas mileage and other experiments. One of the things I have ran into is this exact concept, it is called a 'fuel cell' and this process is how one would go about making electricity without using a chemical battery.
Check out: Fuel cell - Wikipedia
for some quick info.
Good luck with your experiments!
Ha, thats very interesting. I was playing around with hydrogen RPM boosters for a while. I see a good possibilty, What if you had a small on demand HHO Gas generator, which compressed the hydrogen to use in the fuel cell and also supplied pure oxygen gas. Then you can buy water rather than hydrogen, and not having to store hydrogen is a big plus. Now you have a hydrogen car that fills up on water!
hysterix
Rising Star
Cheeto said:
Dude, I am with you and am trying to do this exact thing. Research, Stan Meyer Apparently he did this exact thing and got his Volkswagen running off water. Mysteriously was killed after he turned down a billion dollar offer from the Saudi's offering to buy up his invention.
I don't really believe the wiki about how his results are unfounded as I personally have had the pleasure of going through some of his patents with electrical engineers and auto mechanics and am in the process of trying to convert some of his work into a reality. If not a 100% water powered car, but at least supplement your old gasoline engine until we come up with a better idea.
Check this out, old footage of stan running his 'water car':
Why would you need to pay for water? As long as you live in a place with water rights, you have your fuel right there!
What we need is someone who gives a fuck that has enough money to get some water to hydrogen cars at an afordable price, or get people to invest. I see hydrogen cell cars comming out with special hydrogen fuel stations, when its so easy to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen. Funny thing, i saw myth-busters so called busted the myth that a HHO gas generator could run a car, it was a sad sight. I have a very low education and i figured it out. Its like this, you can make standard straight anode and cathode and add sodium bicarbonate, or you can have a big Stainless Steel Anode and have a small spacer with a stainless steel coil(3 Wraps) as the cathode. Truly the key to make this work is have as many anodes and cathodes as possible, also spaced as close as possible, this kills the need for sodium bi. That way only hydrogen and oxygen are being produced. Also it draws way less amps without electrolytes. You can easily pruduce enough hydrogen to run a car, the battery is maintained by the alternator, 12v @ 20amps would be too much hydrogen production, and your radio uses about that much. They suck big time for that one! But easily here you see it. Its not hard to convert a hydrogen fuel cell car into a car that runs off of water. Combining free energy sources is also a big plus. Imagine how easy it would be to make a car that has a HHO Gas Generator, Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Solar Film with multiple rechargable batteries. Or how about a good size HHO Gas/Hydrogen Fuel Cell generator for your house. The only harm is using up fresh water, but what we need to work on is a way to cheaply enough convert salt water to usable water for this technology. Ha, kinda helps in two ways, its a good chest move. Maybe if we, world wide, use water for most of our energy we can stop the ocean from drowning most of us. Fuel could be very cheap!
The car-running water is a total hoax guys, just by looking the "theory" behind it, a person with basic physics knowledge can spot the fallacies in its mechanism.
Stan Meyer is also stupid, when a group of scientists asked him to show his invention he did not even appear. The conspiracy crap about his death are also quite laughable.
I know plenty of really educated and intelligent people with very fair ambitions (id est not aiming to maximise profits for any multi-national corporation or similar) that are working on the development of cheap energy sources. They do not think the least that anyone has managed to make a "true" water-fuelled car.
I wonder when these rumours will ever stop....
Stan Meyer is also stupid, when a group of scientists asked him to show his invention he did not even appear. The conspiracy crap about his death are also quite laughable.
I know plenty of really educated and intelligent people with very fair ambitions (id est not aiming to maximise profits for any multi-national corporation or similar) that are working on the development of cheap energy sources. They do not think the least that anyone has managed to make a "true" water-fuelled car.
I wonder when these rumours will ever stop....
Infundibulum said:
I'm sorry, but i have to completely disagree. What your thinking may be liquid hydrogen, and yes that would blow the car up. But it dosen't take much hydrogen gas to run a vehical, and it can run it. Modifications of how much gas is taken into the engine would certainly be needed, not saying its a simple conversion, but it can be converted. There not rumors, thats why they don't stop. I have personaly made HHO generators and seen how much gas they can produce with little power being used. Let me explain. Say if your goind to use flat plates, the best set up would be to have say (14) S/S plates seperated by a paper thin distance. The plates go, postive charge : Negative charge : postive charge : Negative charge :. When you have a setup like this spaced so close you get amazing production even without electrolyte, which in return spares you more amperage. Now to compair that with the standard S/S wires curling around eachother but not touching, the S/S wire method would give you about the same production if you added enough electrolyte to draw 20amps @ 12v. While the other setup would give you about the same amount of production drawing only 2amps @ 12v. So look at how much production you see from the crapy built generators, and imagine having 10 times the production drawing the same amount of amps, which is about the same as your stero in your car.
"The car-running water is a total hoax guys, just by looking the "theory" behind it, a person with basic physics knowledge can spot the fallacies in its mechanism"
How exacly does your basic physics knowledge tell you that it dosen't work? What about it goes against physics?
One important thing i would like to ask is how do you compress hydrogen gas into a liquid? Or do Fuel Cells require liquid hydrogen, can it just be gasses?
The reason i ask is to see a simple solution like i stated above, Have an HHO Generator that converts water from your tank into hydrogen and oxygen gasses, send the seperated hydrogen and oxygen to your fuel cell. The only thing i can see that might possibly make it not work is if the fuel cell requires liquid hydrogen AND compressing hydrogen to liquid takes too much energy. But if you can easily convert hydrogen gas to liquid, or the cell dosen't require liquid, then it does work.
The reason i ask is to see a simple solution like i stated above, Have an HHO Generator that converts water from your tank into hydrogen and oxygen gasses, send the seperated hydrogen and oxygen to your fuel cell. The only thing i can see that might possibly make it not work is if the fuel cell requires liquid hydrogen AND compressing hydrogen to liquid takes too much energy. But if you can easily convert hydrogen gas to liquid, or the cell dosen't require liquid, then it does work.
Forget about getting hydrogen liquid. You need temperatures close to absolute zero. Hydrogen gets liquid at -252 centigrade if pressure is 1 atmosphere.
Alternatively, you can try to physically compress the hydrogen gas and make it liquid. I do not know what pressure we're talking about but it must be insanely a lot.
Hydrogen powered engines effectively burn hydrogen. If you burn hydrogen you make water. In the latter case of engines, hydrogen and oxygen are compressed in the ignition chamber of the engine by the the piston of the engine (this brings the molecules really close together so that they can react, but I do not think they get anywhere close to the liquid state). Then, a spark from the spark plug initiates the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, the released pressure backfires the piston giving you mechanical energy, blah blah blah.
But do not get fooled into thinking that the engines that work in this way consume water! What they ACTUALLY consume is electricity. You need loads of electricity to hydrolyse the water and produce hydrogen and oxygen. Much much more than you get back when they burn to give you mechanical energy. Water-based engines can run on water for some time, till their battery dies out. They are such a waste of energy actually.
So, using a oxygen-hydrogen Generator to give you hydrogen and oxygen to burn in a hydrogen-combustion engine (as I presume you are trying to do) is a energy crime with electrical power being the victim. Do not even bother trying anything like that!
Alternatively, you can try to physically compress the hydrogen gas and make it liquid. I do not know what pressure we're talking about but it must be insanely a lot.
Hydrogen powered engines effectively burn hydrogen. If you burn hydrogen you make water. In the latter case of engines, hydrogen and oxygen are compressed in the ignition chamber of the engine by the the piston of the engine (this brings the molecules really close together so that they can react, but I do not think they get anywhere close to the liquid state). Then, a spark from the spark plug initiates the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, the released pressure backfires the piston giving you mechanical energy, blah blah blah.
But do not get fooled into thinking that the engines that work in this way consume water! What they ACTUALLY consume is electricity. You need loads of electricity to hydrolyse the water and produce hydrogen and oxygen. Much much more than you get back when they burn to give you mechanical energy. Water-based engines can run on water for some time, till their battery dies out. They are such a waste of energy actually.
So, using a oxygen-hydrogen Generator to give you hydrogen and oxygen to burn in a hydrogen-combustion engine (as I presume you are trying to do) is a energy crime with electrical power being the victim. Do not even bother trying anything like that!
Infundibulum said:
I produced lots of gas with only little electricity, look at the HHO generators around that use electrolyte, they generally use 20amps as compaired to my 2 amps for the same production. Also i have seen many videos of people converting there cars, you can't believe everything you see, but when so many people do it you have to stop and think a second. I know that it actually dosen't take much electricity to produre HHO gas from water, like i said, with only 20amps @ 12v you can produce more than enough needed to drive the pistons. Look around you-tube and judge for yourself. Many people are playing with this for a reason, and many are claiming to get good results with shity designs. Also the battery is maintained, so its not like its actually even using any energy up, you could even safely pull 40amps without draining your battery, which would be too much gas and blow up your engine, thats in my setup, my HHO generator. Take note that the key to this working with small amounts of power is to have the anodes and cathodes as close as you can possibly get them without touching, the closer you get them the more production with the same amount of amperage.
I see to forget about compressing hydrogen. But also, does the hydrogen fuel cell require liquid hydrogen, or will gass be fine?
Cheeto, this is the thing people always get wrong;
What is loads of gas??? Seriously. "Loads of gas" is a meaningless term not only to me but all those people who are actually seriously working on energy-effective systems. So to speak, the answers one needs to be asking are:
1) How much oxyhydrogen gas one needs to run a car for, say a mile?
2) How much electricity (or electrical power) one needs to produce the amount of gas needed for this car to run for a mile?
Engineers get these questions into very serious considerations. Their calculations AND experiments always show that you needs massive amounts of electricity to produce enough oxyhydrogen to move a car. The verdict is that this oxyhydrogen strategy is a very very poor energy conversion;
electrical energy --> thermal energy ---> mechanical energy.
...and basically a much simpler model, like
electrical energy ---> mechanical energy. is far far more cost-effective. So why bother with the unnecessary complications of water hydrolysis?
Interconversion of a form of energy to another is never 100% accurate. There are always losses due to a variety of reasons. That is to say, one can transform 100 units of electrical energy to 20-30 units of thermal energy and this in turn will transform to 2-5 units of mechanical energy. So, from inputting 100 units of electrical energy you get a 2-5 useful mechanical energy yield. This sucks big time. Mechanical engineers are very well aware of this stuff problems. It is wasteful to spend 100 units of energy to get 2-5. That is why they prefer the straight conversion of electrical energy to mechanical (as it is in electricity-driven cars)
And they do both their maths and their experiments pretty well.
What is loads of gas??? Seriously. "Loads of gas" is a meaningless term not only to me but all those people who are actually seriously working on energy-effective systems. So to speak, the answers one needs to be asking are:
1) How much oxyhydrogen gas one needs to run a car for, say a mile?
2) How much electricity (or electrical power) one needs to produce the amount of gas needed for this car to run for a mile?
Engineers get these questions into very serious considerations. Their calculations AND experiments always show that you needs massive amounts of electricity to produce enough oxyhydrogen to move a car. The verdict is that this oxyhydrogen strategy is a very very poor energy conversion;
electrical energy --> thermal energy ---> mechanical energy.
...and basically a much simpler model, like
electrical energy ---> mechanical energy. is far far more cost-effective. So why bother with the unnecessary complications of water hydrolysis?
Interconversion of a form of energy to another is never 100% accurate. There are always losses due to a variety of reasons. That is to say, one can transform 100 units of electrical energy to 20-30 units of thermal energy and this in turn will transform to 2-5 units of mechanical energy. So, from inputting 100 units of electrical energy you get a 2-5 useful mechanical energy yield. This sucks big time. Mechanical engineers are very well aware of this stuff problems. It is wasteful to spend 100 units of energy to get 2-5. That is why they prefer the straight conversion of electrical energy to mechanical (as it is in electricity-driven cars)
And they do both their maths and their experiments pretty well.
I really wish i knew more, because i just don't see that many people faking their experiments, sure maybe a few, but not every. And it would all depend on there calculations of how much electricity it takes to convert water to HHO gas, when there is no true answer for how much power it takes because the amount of power needed depends on the setup of the anodes and cathodes. Thus there caculations are based on how much power they neede in there setup, but the real question for a real conversion would be what type of setup did they get the caculations of how much power it takes to convert the water. I know for a fact you can't just say it takes this much power for it to work, because i depends on the design of the Negative and Postive polls. So what was there design? Was it basic, or was it an attempt to take advantage of the fact that you can get the negative and positive polls closer together to require less power needed, or you can turn them to plates to save even more power by getting them closer together? I would not trust there word without this information. I see many reasons for greedy people to hide useful information and play it off as a joke, its seems to be a common strategy of many of the people in power.
Even the best hydrolysis cells today are very low on their efficiency, mate. But I see your point, if someone would get to create a system where hydrolysis could be achieved with a very high yield, like 100 units of energy being converted to 90 units of thermal energy (oxyhydrogen) that woudl be a fair breakthrough. But that's still science fiction.
And unfortunately it IS about trust. Surely one can be wary of what Texaco or Shell may try to sell you as a solid proof, buuuuuuut....there are people who are totally serious about energy-effective systems and I have not reason not to trust them, especially when they happen to be friends, whose affiliations, connections and intentions I know very well.
That's how it goes. There is still a lot of work to be done before someone seriously turns their head to the water-powered engines.
And unfortunately it IS about trust. Surely one can be wary of what Texaco or Shell may try to sell you as a solid proof, buuuuuuut....there are people who are totally serious about energy-effective systems and I have not reason not to trust them, especially when they happen to be friends, whose affiliations, connections and intentions I know very well.
That's how it goes. There is still a lot of work to be done before someone seriously turns their head to the water-powered engines.
I actually think that can easily be acheived. If you had a plate setup like i explained with the plates only a hair of seperation. And only have enough water to fit within the plates, with a setup like that i can see the water converting so quickly that you would have to stream in water to keep the cell full. Its only a matter of having the plates close enough that they almost instantly convert all the water in its seperation space to gas. Using less water would also cause less energy loss, like i said, just enough water to fit in those hair seperated plates.
Go make history then, defeating so many other minds who have squeezed their brains out on this problem.
Should I expect some breakthrough from you pretty fast then (by pretty fast I mean 3-5-years?) hahaha?
Should I expect some breakthrough from you pretty fast then (by pretty fast I mean 3-5-years?) hahaha?
Ha, okay........sure i could, if i where able. Sadly i'm not, i don't have factories that can build peices i need nor the money to get them made. It seems simple and very possible to me though, so i don't know what the deal is with thoughs minds, i see it as simple science.
psychonaut
Rising Star
Cheeto said:
But you would still need a power source for hydrolysis. You can only get as much energy out of combining oxygen and hydrogen then you use splitting water apart. Having an on-demand generator would be less efficient than just having an electric car.
Ha, i just thought of something, gas cars waste lots of energy in the form of heat, there is a mayjor energy loss there yet we use them all over the world, so is this scientific energy loss just bullshit to keep us from using a more safe and cheap fuel, aka water?
I know energy loss is not bullshit, its a caculation, but just because there is an energy loss dosen't mean shit, the ultimate proof is gas cars. Huge energy loss, yet works great besides pollution. So what of this, why is it different when it comes to a car that uses water, why do we hate on its energy loss when i'm sure its less than a gas car? Just being an equal energy loss, or even a little more energy loss would be great considering it wou greatly help with polluition and cheaper fuel. By the word of energy loss, cars shouldn't exist if that is a problem, so in return thats no excuse.
I know energy loss is not bullshit, its a caculation, but just because there is an energy loss dosen't mean shit, the ultimate proof is gas cars. Huge energy loss, yet works great besides pollution. So what of this, why is it different when it comes to a car that uses water, why do we hate on its energy loss when i'm sure its less than a gas car? Just being an equal energy loss, or even a little more energy loss would be great considering it wou greatly help with polluition and cheaper fuel. By the word of energy loss, cars shouldn't exist if that is a problem, so in return thats no excuse.