• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Gassing Through Solutions

Migrated topic.
Gas cars use fuel pretty efficiently. Petrol and gas are excellent fuels to burn, and pretty easy to burn them.

I am not sure what you mean by : "gas cars waste lots of energy in the form of heat" since this is the exact point! you burn gas to make it to thermal energy that in turn converts to mechanical energy. Sure there is thermal energy that unavoidably escapes (as "heat" ) that cannot be harvested and converted to mechanical energy, but modern car designs have made their best via better engineering to minimise such losses.

For the water-based car you use electrical energy. Electrical energy which as explained before is used in a still VERY crude way to convert to thermal energy (water being the "medium" ). They are wasteful any way you think of it. A litre of water for instance will not convert to the same amount of thermal energy as a litre of petrol. Petrol (or other fossil fuel) are very very good at giving thermal energy.

This is how things are:

gasoline burning ---> mechanical energy (car moves) + heat (energy loss)

and for the "water" car:

electricity ---> oxyhydrogen + Heat

oxyhydrogen ---> mechanical energy + heat

But we should also not forget: where did we got the electricity in the first place?

petrol fuel/nuclear/aeolian/solar etc energy ---> electricity + Heat


And what we try to explain you as far as the "water thing" is concerned is that:

Why not go straight from electrical power to mechanical energy?

electricity -----> mechanical energy + heat?

So, why bother about energy losses through oxyhydrogen production? This makes utterly no sense.
 
Cheeto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hydrogen + Oxygen are only a means to store energy, just like gasoline or a battery. The only reason to use it is if it is a more efficient method(in terms of money, capacity, efficiency of conversion into mechanical energy) than the others. Also, a lot of the electricity used for hydrolysis comes from petrol(as Infundibulum pointed out), so you aren't avoiding it. Also, the designs for hydrogen cars use a fuel cell to combine hydrogen and oxygen, creating electricity which then drives the car.
 
Well the point i'm making is 20amps @ 12volts is no reason to complain about power loss when it does a good deed to our planet and wallet. And hydrogen as a compustable gas is far more efficient, as electric cars aren't, maybe if you can find free power or close to it, but it takes far greater energy to move a car with electricity than it does a combustable gas. The only flaw with the combustable gas is pollution, but if we used HHO gas that would not be a problem. The fact is 20amps @ 12volts is no reason to hold this back, that will not drain the battery, i don't know who got you thinking that. If that where the case no one would have a DVD player, Stero, or GPS system in there cars due to it draining the battery. So what of an energy loss, though the battery never actually losses the power, so i still don't really see the loss, but whatever, it still want drain the battery, and you car will get alot further off a tank of water over gassoline. I'm talking about the HHO Generator, not the fuel cell. Also with the fuel cell, wouldn't it be smarter to use the highly combustable hydrogen gas rather than create an energy crime by converting it to electricity? Wouldn't it take far greater power to move something with electrical power rather than combusting power.
 
Infundibulum said:
They are wasteful any way you think of it. A litre of water for instance will not convert to the same amount of thermal energy as a litre of petrol. Petrol (or other fossil fuel) are very very good at giving thermal energy.
[qoute/]

thermal energy? So your saying the point of fuel an a car is to create thermal energy? I thought the point of the fuel was to combust in the engine driving the pistons and creating motion which turns the wheels, and gas is no where near as combustable as HHO gas, so no, gas isn't better at running a car over HHO.
Click to expand...
 
Either way i think it is possible, and to add to my thoughts someone made a car that ran on water. Sure, i know you think he's a joke and a fake, yet thats not really suprising, just like the remote viewing and the pin wheel. I would also assume you don't think ghosts have any truth, probly hallucinations right? Or aliens, ufos, thoughs are hallucinations also right? Or secret millitary that isn't so secret. or how about John Hutchinson and the Hutchinson Effect, i'm sure thats a joke to you also, am i right?




Ok here is the power problem solved by your average person, which shows scientists haven't even gave it thought. Put some solar film on your car, have an extra battery for the HHO Generator which is charged evry day by the solar film. There, was that so hard?? Now you have free HHO Gas out of water. Solar Power --> HHO GAS --> combustable power --> Motion
 
psychonaut said:
Hydrogen + Oxygen are only a means to store energy, just like gasoline or a battery. The only reason to use it is if it is a more efficient method(in terms of money, capacity, efficiency of conversion into mechanical energy) than the others.
Click to expand...

Ha, exactly! HHO Gas is more combustable(Less HHO to create the same bang), with the conversion a tank of water will drive you way further then a tank of gas. Water is cheaper then Gas. I'd say there is a very good reason to use HHO as fuel.

psychonaut said:
Also, a lot of the electricity used for hydrolysis comes from petrol(as Infundibulum pointed out), so you aren't avoiding it.
Click to expand...

Well he'll have to point it out again because that dosen't make sence, i can't avoid using gas because its used as a power source for hydrolysis?? No, the battery powers the HHO generator, it has nothing to do with gas, and gas is not needed at all. Maybe i don't understand what you mean because that statement makes no sence at all. I'm not using a gassoline generator to get power for hydrolysis, i'm using the battery in the car, or another battery charged by solar film, or something along thoughs lines since apparantly you all think CD players cause batterys to die quickly(As in thats how much power you need for the HHO generator, like hooking up another cd player in your car).
 
Cheeto said:
Either way i think it is possible, and to add to my thoughts someone made a car that ran on water. Sure, i know you think he's a joke and a fake, yet thats not really suprising, just like the remote viewing and the pin wheel. I would also assume you don't think ghosts have any truth, probly hallucinations right? Or aliens, ufos, thoughs are hallucinations also right? Or secret millitary that isn't so secret. or how about John Hutchinson and the Hutchinson Effect, i'm sure thats a joke to you also, am i right?
Click to expand...
Geez a break mate, I do not like ad hominem arguments. They make you sound silly too.

Please go study some physics if you really have such ambitious pursuits. My role is not to contradict anything you say, I just try to give the best possible advise according to what I know. You seem to miss basic understanding of elementary concepts on physics but this is OK. We are just try to explain you that what you propose is not bad, simply not good enough. There are too many parameters into play, and it would be selfish for you to think that you have the solution in a problem where many a brilliant minds are still trying.

But if you think you have a good idea to help the problem (which is perfectly OK) then do your homework to consolidate and fortify this idea in a way that it can convince other people, especially scientists. You can get very useful feedback from scientists. I ask for feedback all the time from my peers, this is how better ideas are born.
 
Well do you know if anyone has tried placing the s/s plates with the slightist seperation possible for them anyway? Or do you know, in the best generator availble the, seperation space, say has anyone managed to make a cell with plates seperated 0.5 mm, and plates only 0.25 mm thick. I've seen the power boost without electrolyte by simply getting thicker plates not as close. just asking.
 
Well, I'm mot a physicist, so I do not know the answer to that. But what makes you think that placing the plates in as little distance as possible (or using plates of different thickness) would give you better results? What is the physics behind this theory?
 
Infundibulum said:
Well, I'm mot a physicist, so I do not know the answer to that. But what makes you think that placing the plates in as little distance as possible (or using plates of different thickness) would give you better results? What is the physics behind this theory?
Click to expand...

Well that much i know isn't theory, i'm not sure how to explain it, but its a very simple observation. Place two S/S screws(one Neg screw , one Pos screw hooked to a 9v battery) in a cup of water with a little electrolyte. If you spread the screws out far you get less reaction, the closer you get them, the more the reaction increases. I would assume there is less water to travel accross to rip apart the molecule would be the reason. Less space = less distance for electricity to travel acrross a pour conductor(Water) = Less electricity needed to to split a water molecule. That is the whole reason i stated the question about how they determined how much power it takes to split a water molecule when its obvious that different distances and shapes of the Negative and Positive polls or plates or whatever require different amounts of power to split water molecules, so to give a correct caculation you would have to add this into the equation. Look on youtube for HHO generators for examples, and i made some of my own generators, no one is lieing about there production, and some have found the same as me, if your plates are so close you do not need eletrolyte to get very good production, and also instaed of 20 amps you only pull around 2-4 amps depending on your setup. And thicknes of plates has to do with spreading out the power for best production, think of having a 1 inch thick plate compaired to 1mm plates = to 1 inch, which do you think will be more energy efficent in hydrolysis? More space for bubbles to appear due to molecules being ripped apart.
 
Aye, it makes sense. But still, how about energy losses? even the best electrolysis equipment used for industrial production of hydrogen are not 100% efficient. why lose energy to make oxyhydrogen while you can use this electricity straight to move your car? You can never get more energy out that the amount you input. This is universal law. This is why the "water run" car is never going to hit the market. Why bother with such silly and energy wasteful interconversions? It is much more likely that energy capture through photovoltaics will get efficient enough to capture a fair amount of solar energy.

But why not use this electrical energy to move the car? It is so so so so so so much simpler and totally uncomplicated!

So, electrolysis of water to make a car move makes not much sense and it is a waste of electricity that could be used better. But electrolysis of water to do other things (e.g. putative desalinisation of water) can be promising and development of better electrolysis systems is pretty much desirable.
 
Infundibulum said:
Aye, it makes sense. But still, how about energy losses? even the best electrolysis equipment used for industrial production of hydrogen are not 100% efficient. why lose energy to make oxyhydrogen while you can use this electricity straight to move your car? You can never get more energy out that the amount you input. This is universal law. This is why the "water run" car is never going to hit the market. Why bother with such silly and energy wasteful interconversions? It is much more likely that energy capture through photovoltaics will get efficient enough to capture a fair amount of solar energy.

But why not use this electrical energy to move the car? It is so so so so so so much simpler and totally uncomplicated!

So, electrolysis of water to make a car move makes not much sense and it is a waste of electricity that could be used better. But electrolysis of water to do other things (e.g. putative desalinisation of water) can be promising and development of better electrolysis systems is pretty much desirable.
Click to expand...

The whole point is that electricity is not the best choice for pushing something like a car, thats the whole reason electric cars aren't popular, they didn't have enough power until lately, still the power dosen't compair to combusting power. If you only use a little power to create alot of exploding power, though certain processes waste a little energy, you are in fact gaining power in this simple sence. This isn't fact ofcourse, just used to explain...Say it takes 1amp@6v to drive a car 60 miles an hour, yet with hydrolysis you manage to use 20mA@1v to produce enough gas to drive a car 60 miles an hour. The only reason electric cars are even being though of is because of possibility of obtaining free or near free power, or to get rid of polluting gasses produced by combustable engines. So far electricity dosen't even compair with the combusting power of gas, thats why generators are turned by combusting engines, because combusting power is stronger for the buck. Thats why i say i don't see the energy loss, sure some porcesses waste energy, but in the whole process you come out ahead greatly. I'm sure with my design you could get more than enough gas to fully operate a car without using more than 20amps@12v(=to a CD player), i'am sure you can just as easily get that power from solar energy and a chargeable battery. So look at it like this, you have a HHO generator that you don't have to supply power to(Solar Powers Job), So now you have HHO Gas Combusting --> Pistons causing motion and heat and your fuel is water. Though like i have been saying, even without the solar power your only using enough power to run your cd player, you are in no way at all draing the battery, the reason your CD player dosen't drain the battery is because the alternator maintains the battery. But, look at it from the solar point of view for now, i know you can obtain the little power required in a proper advanced HHO generator to supply all gas needs for the car. So it really does work, because its the same concept as using gassoline only your using a more combustable gas, + in the form of water is alot of compressed hydrogen and oxygen gas. That means you have 2 +'s for increasing gas mileage, more combustable and cleaner gas + more compressed gas saving space(Water is more heavy than gassoline, and i think Oxygen + hydrogen gasses are lighter than gassoline). Remember, now i'm proposing my energy for the conversion of watter to HHO is taken care of by solar power, meaning its free power, though the process does waste energy, the energy its wasting is free so it dosen't matter.

Important rule of thumb, if energy is free its never a waste.
 
Infundibulum said:
why lose energy to make oxyhydrogen while you can use this electricity straight to move your car? You can never get more energy out that the amount you input.
Click to expand...

This is true for energy, but different energies are better at effecting different things, example being combustable power takes very little energy to create a powerful explosion which is great for things like turning generators and moving cars, the amount of energy in the form of electricity it takes to match the combusting power is far greater. Thats why a generator cannot produce enough electricity to turn its self, thats what makes electricity proffitable, you use a little combusting power to create alot of electrical power, but even in this process the amount of electricity you get from the combusting power is not enough electricity to turn the generator, it requires combusting power.
 
"even the best electrolysis equipment used for industrial production of hydrogen are not 100% efficient"

I think i might have to go for that, i know what your talking about, i think my design would blow there's out of the water, and i am really thinking about looking for a way to get a patent for my design and get it produced. Make me some bank so i can maybe work on my paranormal experiments and other things as well.
 
I thought of something that could have been misleading to you if you where not aware. A HHO generator and Hydrolysis are two completely different things. Hydrolysis has limitations to distance due to its purpose is to obtain only hydrogen, for this there must be distance in order to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen, so yes, hydrolysis does take alot of energy, but an correctly built HHO generator dosen't take alot of power at all to operate. So little that a car with solar film today could keep a seperate battery charged for its needs, so little it could use the already existing battery without draining it. Thats why i say this scientific energy loss is a bullshit reason, ofcourse in any conversion you want to try to get back as much as the energy you put in, that simply applies to setup of your process for best results. Example, with a HHO generator you use a little power to get alot of gas, the water absorbs heat. The gas by its self isn't energy, so in this process you do nothing but loose electrical power(But you got it from a free source because you require so little the alternator can keep up), but you gain something better then that little electrical power, better for the job anyway, you got a combustable gas. So that process though you basicly just lost energy, you gained enough gas to move the car. That was no where near enough electrical power to even think about moving the car, yet what it created easily moves the car. The only extra expence you have to account for is you water, but water is very cheap, you could fill up your 20 gallon tank for under 2 bucks, also there is no telling how much further you'll get per the gallon, way over twice as far. You seem to gain energy because you are converting to another energy thats more efficent for the job. Truly i don't get the you can only get as much energy as you put in, because you don't blow up gas to get it to blow up, no matter how much gas there is, you only put in one little spark of energy, and you get a very powerful explosion. Dosen't an explosion have tons of energy in it? So right there you used a little energy to create alot of energy, how does you only can get what you put in explain this? Well, i guess i can see that you didn't use a little energy to get a lot, you used a little energy to unlock alot of energy stored in the gas. The more i think about it, i don't think that rule even applies here.."You can only get back the amount of energy you put in". When you give gas a spark all you do is use energy to unlock energy, you don't get any energy back from what you put in. The explosion want recharge your battery from which the spark came.

So this is the process with th HHO Generator. You use a little electrical power to convert water molecules to there basic elements hydrogen and oxygen, In this process you have a 100% energy loss. The gas you released was storing massive amounts of energy though, way more energy then it took to release them. See, its not a matter of looking souly at parts of the process that so called waste energy, because the water already has more energy than you can believe, all you have to do is release it, thats what makes this work, the energy water holds in the form of hydrogen and oxygen gas.
 
Cheeto said:
I thought of something that could have been misleading to you if you where not aware. A HHO generator and Hydrolysis are two completely different things. Hydrolysis has limitations to distance due to its purpose is to obtain only hydrogen, for this there must be distance in order to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen, so yes, hydrolysis does take alot of energy, but an correctly built HHO generator dosen't take alot of power at all to operate. So little that a car with solar film today could keep a seperate battery charged for its needs, so little it could use the already existing battery without draining it. Thats why i say this scientific energy loss is a bullshit reason, ofcourse in any conversion you want to try to get back as much as the energy you put in, that simply applies to setup of your process for best results. Example, with a HHO generator you use a little power to get alot of gas, the water absorbs heat. The gas by its self isn't energy, so in this process you do nothing but loose electrical power(But you got it from a free source because you require so little the alternator can keep up), but you gain something better then that little electrical power, better for the job anyway, you got a combustable gas. So that process though you basicly just lost energy, you gained enough gas to move the car. That was no where near enough electrical power to even think about moving the car, yet what it created easily moves the car. The only extra expence you have to account for is you water, but water is very cheap, you could fill up your 20 gallon tank for under 2 bucks, also there is no telling how much further you'll get per the gallon, way over twice as far. You seem to gain energy because you are converting to another energy thats more efficent for the job. Truly i don't get the you can only get as much energy as you put in, because you don't blow up gas to get it to blow up, no matter how much gas there is, you only put in one little spark of energy, and you get a very powerful explosion. Dosen't an explosion have tons of energy in it? So right there you used a little energy to create alot of energy, how does you only can get what you put in explain this? Well, i guess i can see that you didn't use a little energy to get a lot, you used a little energy to unlock alot of energy stored in the gas. The more i think about it, i don't think that rule even applies here.."You can only get back the amount of energy you put in". When you give gas a spark all you do is use energy to unlock energy, you don't get any energy back from what you put in. The explosion want recharge your battery from which the spark came.
Click to expand...

Well, a HHO generator and a hydrolysis apparatus equipment are more-or-less the same thing.

As far as the other stuff you wrote are concerned, you really need to study more about conservation of energy. There's an article on wikipedia, I haven't read it but it might be enlightening.

I am ready to stop the conversation here since I get the feeling that your ignorance of basic physics laws is quite appalling. What you wrote above violates pretty much the foundations of physics laws. I am afraid that I no more have the patience nor the time to clarify these things you, maybe another guy can be luckier.

But simply put, what you're talking about is pure bullshit. Get yourself straight and seriously study some physics. Without this prior knowledge you are no credible of making claims such as those above.
 
Well thats funny, don't know why you want to go to name calling. But you seem you lack some understanding as well. And i find it really offensive when you claim i have a elementary understanding of physics when you your self can only judge small parts of what i'm saying because of your lack of physics knowledge. Example, How do you figure placing the plates closer gets more reaction. In my opinion thats elementary, you saying that HHO generators and Hydrolysis is the same thing is elementary understanding. They are not the same thing, Both produces Hydrogen and Oxygen gas, in hydrolysis you need TWO containers linked with a bridge so electricity can pass through alowing you to keep ONLY hydrogen. In HHO Generators you only need ONE container, because you do not have to seperate gasses you can take advantage of saving power by placing you Positive and negative polls closer together. I hate to say things like you lack simple understanding, but you do. I can't make it any more clear, though i may lack understanding of HOW things works in areas, you lack the more simple understanding. Like when we were talking about the pin-wheel and the amount of force it takes to move it compaired to an ice cube. You tried to bounce around with your physics knowledge about force rather then looking at the very simple truth, that i was correct. You where so busy being the more knowedgeable one you missed somthing a kid could understand. And i'm probably wrong, but it seems like you can't prove me wrong because i make sence out of it, so you get mad an insult me. You can't prove it dosen't work because it does work, Thank you. Right here i should you it does work, and you have nothing other than insults as a reply.

(Free Source of energy, The SUN)Solar Power --> HHO Gas Production + Heat
HHO Combusting + Heat --> Pistons creating motion


And if you think electricity is better than combusting gas with driving force you need to read some books, get out a little or something, because it is SCIENCE FACT, thats WHY ELECTRIC CARS ARE NOT IN WIDE USE AND WILL NEVE REPLACE THINGS LIKE WORK TRUCKS.

As for an argue, you started it. Maybe you shouldn't speak on things you know nothing about, you state you KNOW hho generators aren't worth shit and you do not know shit about them, so exacly how did you come to that conclusion? You didn't, you just took the word of others, i built the shit so don't act like you know more than me about it.
 
Either way, istead of an arguement lets just not agree. But this i am going to go for, so do look for it in say the next 3 years. I will attempt to make something no one can doubt, a HHO Generator Which has its on Power Source that is long lived and cheap that produces enough gas to supply all needs for a car. That way there is no reason to doubt, it will be the same as having your tank full of HHO gas because the car will not have to give any power to the generator. Only you will be full of water instead.
 
Cheeto said:
Well thats funny, don't know why you want to go to name calling. But you seem you lack some understanding as well. And i find it really offensive when you claim i have a elementary understanding of physics when you your self can only judge small parts of what i'm saying because of your lack of physics knowledge. Example, How do you figure placing the plates closer gets more reaction. In my opinion thats elementary, you saying that HHO generators and Hydrolysis is the same thing is elementary understanding. They are not the same thing, Both produces Hydrogen and Oxygen gas, in hydrolysis you need TWO containers linked with a bridge so electricity can pass through alowing you to keep ONLY hydrogen. In HHO Generators you only need ONE container, because you do not have to seperate gasses you can take advantage of saving power by placing you Positive and negative polls closer together. I hate to say things like you lack simple understanding, but you do. I can't make it any more clear, though i may lack understanding of HOW things works in areas, you lack the more simple understanding. Like when we were talking about the pin-wheel and the amount of force it takes to move it compaired to an ice cube. You tried to bounce around with your physics knowledge about force rather then looking at the very simple truth, that i was correct. You where so busy being the more knowedgeable one you missed somthing a kid could understand. And i'm probably wrong, but it seems like you can't prove me wrong because i make sence out of it, so you get mad an insult me. You can't prove it dosen't work because it does work, Thank you. Right here i should you it does work, and you have nothing other than insults as a reply.

(Free Source of energy, The SUN)Solar Power --> HHO Gas Production + Heat
HHO Combusting + Heat --> Pistons creating motion


And if you think electricity is better than combusting gas with driving force you need to read some books, get out a little or something, because it is SCIENCE FACT, thats WHY ELECTRIC CARS ARE NOT IN WIDE USE AND WILL NEVE REPLACE THINGS LIKE WORK TRUCKS.

As for an argue, you started it. Maybe you shouldn't speak on things you know nothing about, you state you KNOW hho generators aren't worth shit and you do not know shit about them, so exacly how did you come to that conclusion? You didn't, you just took the word of others, i built the shit so don't act like you know more than me about it.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to add 1 bit of information and then I am done. You can't get more ENERGY(ie: joules) OUT than you put IN. Simply because you convert electrical energy to chemical energy(HHO in this case), you do NOT increase the amount of energy. What we were trying to explain is, electric cars are more efficient at converting electrical energy(battery)->kinetic(movement) than HHO powered cars which convert electricity(input to hydrolisis)->chemical(HHO)->kinetic(movement), or with fuel cells which convert electricity(input to hydrolisis)->chemical(HHO)->electricity(fuel cell)->kinetic(movement) (and this way seems to be more efficient than simply combusting HHO because there is much less loss to heat and better overall conversion).

I am done, peace
 
I don't expect a reply or debate, but still i do not see this. My whole point is that it takes more energy in the form of electricity than it does in the form of combustable gas to move a car. So in an energy sence, you have 2, A = Combustable Gas; B = Electrical Current.

To Move a car takes alot more energy(B) than energy(A)
So to gain power in you project it would be best to convert all energy from (B) to (A)
When it come to THIS job ---- A > B for the task. So why use more B when you can get better results with less A?



This is not a theory of mine, common knowledge i thought, but niether of you seem to get it. Why use more energy to move something when you can use less and get better results. If you do not believe i am correct please read something on it before you disagree. What you guys are saying is a electric car is equal to a gas car, or better, and it is simply not true, that is why we use them now. Eletric cars if they make it big, will only replace small cars for transportation, never anything heavy duty because of lack of power. And most important you have to cheaply feed this car alot of electricity, as far as i know electricity isn't cheap.


I really don't see how you could think that an electric car would be better than a car with HHO gas in the tank, HHO is better than gassoline for running a car, and gassoline is better than electricity at running a car. Maybe you save more energy in your process, but you use way more energy alltogether when you try to move something big and heavy with electricity. Thats why we designed combustable engines and hydraulics, because electricity sucks for heavy duty work.
 
Back
Top Bottom