Electrolysis of water into Hydrogen & Oxygen

[dogman]

A more complete combustion is very plausible, and would be worth it even if it cost you more. My common sense alarm says teeny tiny ammounts are not enough to affect it much. Its not a catylyst, Just a gas that burns real good. In large quantities it would surely have signifigant effects.

[TylerDurden]

Its not a catylyst, Just a gas that burns real good.

Agreed.

Analogy was to advance the idea of getting more energy, by combining mixtures in the ICE. (redundantly repeating, I know)

Flame propagation is the major issue in ICE efficiency, so the HHO may burn early in the event, heating the fuel/air to higher combustion temps and supporting more complete energy extraction.

[truckerzero]

so if the effeincy increase in the ice is greater than the energy used to create hho then you could get a increase in fuel milage is that the idea?

[dogman]

That is how I understand it to work. But I still suspect a lot of people just start driving better after the install, and viola! they get better mileage. There is no doubt though, that the gas burns real good. Especially at about midnight on the 4th. My wife got called out to the NMSU chem building one summer. The campus police were sure the whole building was going to collapse and the fire dept wouldn't get within 1/4 mile of the building. That must have been one loud boom. Too much fun gas avaliable to a bored grad student.

[truckerzero]

true bu whats weird driving better dont always help i got a ford explorer and weather im soft on takeoffs and drive 50 mph or accellarate hard and drive 60 to 65 i always get 13 mpg nothing i do makes a difference but im selling it becase im getting a grand prix pretty soon that gets like twice the milage by by to the big gas guzzelers

[JRP3]

My common sense alarm says teeny tiny ammounts are not enough to affect it much. Its not a catylyst, Just a gas that burns real good. In large quantities it would surely have signifigant effects.

That's the thing, these on board HHO generators only produce teeny tiny amounts, seemingly too small to matter.

[dogman]

Iv'e had the same experience with other fords. But mine have been so old they run shitty no matter what. Bugs and Subarus I've owned seemed very sensitive to how you drive. Maybe just a different type of vehicle, but I have heard ford owners say the same thing many times. More modern stuff seems different. My wifes focus seems to get really good mileage if you drive smart, and avereage if you don't.

[truckerzero]

my sunfire gets 27 driven concervative and 25 if driven hard maby its just these american cars that just get badmilage no mmatter how you drive

[dogman]

Multipy that 2mpg times the mileage for the year and you will see that it may be worth it to you to drive better. Once you are in an electric car, you will have to or get stranded so learning how now is worth it.

[mcstar]

Here's some math to make it concrete...

At 25mpg if you drive 10K miles => you burn 400Gallons @ $3.80 == $1520
At 27mpg if you drive 10K miles => you burn 370Gal @ 3.80 == $1470
Savings == $50 if you're consistent

At 25mpg if you drive 20K miles => you burn 800Gallons @ $3.80 == $3040
At 27mpg if you drive 20K miles => you burn 740.7Gal @ 3.80 == $2814
Savings == $225 if you're consistent

[truckerzero]

my realistic idea is a electric motorcycle using lithium batterys and since the pack is much smaller than a car the price is managable (a few thousand and should last 50,000 miles)
and when the weather is bad ie rain or sub zero tepatures ill drive a fuel efficient ice

[dogman]

Judging by the mods people are making to thier bikes, that is exactly where a whole lot of us are headed. To really save money, the 25 mph ebike takes the prize. But to get there in time, you need 50 mph. Thats a motorcycle. I wish I could just take the bus, but not in this town. if I was rich I'd own a prius now. I really hope the price of both lifepo4 and photovoltaic panels comes down.

[mcstar]

Speaking of LIFEPO4, does anyone have any real world market information on the suppliers of these batteries? If we start making and selling cars to use them, wouldn't that put pressure on the battery price to go up? I think that until some large company (like duracell or somthing) starts mass producing them, we should see the price of LIFEPO4 go up eventually commensarte with gas prices.

If you want to go 100% electric, here's a full electric vehicle using LIFEPO4.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... =p3907.m32
Based on PING's price/volt/ah I decided to attempt to determine what his minimum reserve price must be. He's got at a mimimum $30,000 in batteries alone. This car will need to sell for $40K or more cover their costs! Before you bid though, consider the following math.

Perspective :
IF the battery really does last 100,000 miles
100,000miles at 30mpg == 3333 gallons of fuel
At $4.00/gallon that's $13,000 in gasoline
At $5.00/gallon that's $16,500
At $10/gallon that's $33,330

So, if the gas price goes up to $10/gallon you'd break even for the premium you pay on the batteries alone. Then they'll need to be replaced again for another $30,000

[truckerzero]

plus after 100,000 miles your range is reduced by 20% but if your ok with that you can still continue to drive

[truckerzero]

how about this idea
you get a battery with a 100%warranty to replace once its range drops to 80%of new and you would simply pay a certin set price per mile each month you own the car
for example if the battery cost the manufacturer 10,000 bucks and had a projected range of 100,000 miles then every month you pay .10 cents per mile you drove and as soon as your range = 80% of new they replace it that way you dont have to get financing or come up with a huge chunk of doe when your expensive battery goes bad
pay as you go persay

[mcstar]

The only problem with that is that the real cost for LIFEPO4 would be about $30,000 (depending on hp and range needed of course) for such a battery and then your cost would be .50/mile. That's equivalent to $6/gallon. My bet is that the price of LIFEPO4 batteries will go up in cost long before gas gets that expensive.

[dogman]

Ya mean, between now and next friday?

[TylerDurden]

^^^ ^^^

[dogman]

Wow! first three dogbones and now three smileys. Thanks Tyler.

[Lessss]

[ptd]

Here's some math to make it concrete...

At 25mpg if you drive 10K miles => you burn 400Gallons @ $3.80 == $1520
At 27mpg if you drive 10K miles => you burn 370Gal @ 3.80 == $1470
Savings == $50 if you're consistent

At 25mpg if you drive 20K miles => you burn 800Gallons @ $3.80 == $3040
At 27mpg if you drive 20K miles => you burn 740.7Gal @ 3.80 == $2814
Savings == $225 if you're consistent

you might wanna check your math, lol... gordo, really?!? what's 370 x 3.80 ?

[Gordo]

+1 on the math

[TylerDurden]

Let's see the inventor run the RF generator using the salt-water heat.

[pdf]

Well, while I find these stories interesting and while I am pretty sure no one on this newsgroup gets taken it, it gets a bit tiresome to keep seeing these "amazing inventions" from the back of Popular Mechanics come up over and over again.

So all he is doing is taking energy and making a fuel. A simple calculation that he has apparently not done will show him that he is using more energy than he is "creating". By the way, the first law of thermodynamics still applies here. He is merely splitting water to make hydrogen and oxygen. When it is burned, it is going to release no more energy than he used to "create" it. It is the same reaction in reverse. And here, the second law of thermo is going to kill him and he will find out that he only gets a small fraction of the energy he pulled out of the wall back.

Some believe hydrogen is a good way to create a fuel from another source of energy. Some don't. At any rate, the success or failure of such schemes depends first of all on where you plan to get the energy to create molecular hydrogen. If you use solar energy, then maybe you have something; this will depend on a lot of things like how much energy you have to put in to create the system to convert the energy. Materials availability is also an issue. If you reform natural gas, you are using the embedded energy in methane to create a different fuel. When you run out of methane or create enough CO2 to cause problems, then you are stuck again.

I know I am preaching to the choir but it makes me nuts.

[oldpiper]

WOW! This is simply and utterly AMAZING!!!

Unfortunately, what is amazing is how totally wrong he is about absolutely everything. He hasn't invented anything new, he has reinvented the microwave oven that has been a staple in Seven-Elevens forever and was first introduced as a consumer item as the Amana RadarRange in 1970 or so. He is just producing a more focused microwave beam than a microwave oven, so a small volume of water is getting heated to a high temperature instead of a large volume of water getting heated moderately. There is no electrolysis going on, none at all.

Instead of electrolyzing water, he is pumping a bucketload of energy into it, raising the temperature "to 1500 C" (certainly possible here), producing superheated steam at the surface of the water. The escaping steam carries dissolved ions in it, and at 1500 C (or actually quite a few degrees lower), metal atoms in particular emit visible light: sodium: yellow, potassium and calcium: red, etc. So it's easy to get a yellow-orange "flame" which is not a flame at all. If he really had found a way to electrolyze, then burn salt water, then putting his hand into the microwaves would catch it on fire quickly. After all, what is blood? Salt water with some other junk (cells, proteins, cholesterol) floating in it. (By the way, when hydrogen burns, it produces a very faint bluish flame, not yellow-orange.)

He inadvertently showed his total lack of scientific knowledge when he said that "[water] is the most abundant element in the world." He doesn't have the slightest idea of what an element is. And, whoever APV Polymer is, I wouldn't trust them with my polymers (after all, polymers are chemicals, too), they are equally clueless.

Bad show all around.

The only redeemable point is that microwave heating to run a Stirling engine is quite possibly still more efficient than an ICE (I could be wrong here, I'm too lazy to figure up the numbers but we all know that an ICE is incredibly wasteful), considering that we're all using electrical energy for better efficiency in our vehicles, but that is just coincidence in this TV "news" drivel.

Cameron