HHO Gun possibility?

[SpudBlaster15]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras nec placerat erat. Vivamus dapibus egestas nunc, at eleifend neque. Suspendisse potenti. Sed dictum lacus eu nisl pretium vehicula. Ut faucibus hendrerit nisi. Integer ultricies orci eu ultrices malesuada. Fusce id mauris risus. Suspendisse finibus ligula et nisl rutrum efficitur. Vestibulum posuere erat pellentesque ornare venenatis. Integer commodo fermentum tortor in pharetra. Proin scelerisque consectetur posuere. Vestibulum molestie augue ac nibh feugiat scelerisque. Sed aliquet a nunc in mattis.

[Technician1002]

Thanks for taking up the response Spudbalster. However I learned long ago to never argue with fools. You can't win an arguement with one.

I posted my response and linked to a constant RPM fuel consumption site for stationary generators. He is entitled to his opinion. Unless he posts data to support his claim, it's just an opinion which we both disagree with. Flow meters are incorporated in many fuel consumption meters.

This claim is very easy to prove either way by someone with a fuel consumption computer.

In the end the truth will stand on it's own merits.

[THUNDERLORD]

Thanks for taking up the response Spudbalster. However I learned long ago to never argue with fools. You can't win an arguement with one....

So that's the reason you haven't corrected yourself then?
Or you can't even win an arguement with a "fool" because you're less than one???
BTW,"Spudbalster"

...He is entitled to his opinion. Unless he posts data to support his claim, it's just an opinion which we both disagree with...

Yeah, and unless YOU provide data, it's just an opinion as well.

...This claim is very easy to prove either way by someone with a fuel consumption computer.

So prove it then,
and not by increasing the load on a generator thus starting up and stopping/accelerating the engine more often.

Maybe I was wrong (honestly I am not 100% sure), but as you mentioned, it's a waste of time argueing with "fools"... 8)

[Technician1002]

So prove it then,
and not by increasing the load on a generator thus starting up and stopping/accelerating the engine more often.

Huh??

A generator runs at a constant RPM. Output frequency is directly related to RPM. Small portable generators with a 2 pole alternator run at 3600 RPM from no load to full load to generate 60HZ. Larger 4 pole units run at 1800 RPM, and some very large units with 6 poles run at 1200 RPM.

Other than DC plant and inverter generators like some of the Honda line, RPM is constant from no load to full load.

Where did you get start stop & accelerating from? A full tank of gas and a fixed load such as a couple lights, computer, or electric water pump would qualify for a reasonable steady load for the testing.

Did I miss something??.. I mentioned nothing about frequent starts or engine speed changes.
AC Generators run with a constant RPM except the high effeciency inverter models that can drop RPM on a light load and still output 60 HZ.


It is true a fast idle consumes much more fuel than a slow idle.

[THUNDERLORD]

...Huh??...

Huh??Huh??

...Did I miss something??.. I mentioned nothing about frequent starts or engine speed changes.
AC Generators run with a constant RPM except the high effeciency inverter models that can drop RPM on a light load and still output 60 HZ....

Seems we're both missing some info.(?)
If it's running at constant RPM's, the generator assembly (which has little frictional variation) would be spinning constant RPM's as well, Unless it has an automatic transmission of it's own (gears???)
I doubt that.
Hence it's probably varying RPM , start /stop time, or something to be consuming more fuel.

...It is true a fast idle consumes much more fuel than a slow idle.

Obviously, faster idle= higher RPM's
Slower idle =lower RPM's (ENGINE SPEED...FIRING RATE...FUEL CONSUMPTION...Directly related)...What I stated in the first place.

BTW, I was hoping this particular debate would fade away.
Not because I'm not interested in getting some concrete theory to this, but because my approach was embarassingly "Jack@ssish" [new word]...
I've Been having a bunch of issues/stress lately (probably obvious).

As far as "regenerative energy" seems like heat transferred to the H2O simply converting it to steam would add more energy to an internal combustion engine more efficiently than extracting the h2o2 or whatever "HHO"?
( ...I like the term "regenerative" braking for example , it effectively uses gearing rather than wasted brake pad heat to give some back to the source). ...Dang, More automotive discussion...
Also as Jimmy101 pointed out, I saw somewhere that a modern chevy pickup uses only IIRC 12HP to maintain 55mph cruise speed.

[Technician1002]

BTW, I was hoping this particular debate would fade away.

OK Done. Friends?

[THUNDERLORD]

BTW, I was hoping this particular debate would fade away.

OK Done. Friends?

Of course.
It was never anything personal.
Glad you weren't very offended.
I know excuses are like... but i tried to explain.
It's cool you understand Tech.
Thanks my spuddy buddy!
BTW, How are your spudling crops doing???
Just wondered. 8)

[Technician1002]

I know it wasn't personal. I'm just sometimes relentless in the pursuit of truth. Not offended.

My spud crop is doing well. It's after dark so no photo updates today. I think the blooms are all done.

[john bunsenburner]

Wow, this got way of topic.
I remember readyig somewhere that there is an alternative way to split the H₂O molecule into H₂ and O₂. This is simply done by heating it to about 2000°C, this is also the reason why thermite can't be extinguished(sp?) with water, as this causes a huge burst of flames, or even an explosion.
Would this meathod, or heating H₂O work better than electrolosis, is it more efficient, ect.ect.

Just throwing ideas out.

[CpTn_lAw]

there also is another solution...

Vapor electrolysis. You heat your water to a certain temperature (i don't know what it is) then run the vapor between two stainless steel plates and send massive current through the plates. when vapor is dense enough, current will flow, resulting in a molecular separation.
Think i saw it somewhere on the web... perhaps here

Oh yeah, and here (careful, pdf)

[inonickname]

John, thermite isn't really put out by much at all. It doesn't care if you throw liquid nitrogen on it while it's going..but yet it's a pain to start..

[jimmy101]

Wow, this got way of topic.
I remember readyig somewhere that there is an alternative way to split the H₂O molecule into H₂ and O₂. This is simply done by heating it to about 2000°C, this is also the reason why thermite can't be extinguished(sp?) with water, as this causes a huge burst of flames, or even an explosion.
Would this meathod, or heating H₂O work better than electrolosis, is it more efficient, ect.ect.

Just throwing ideas out.

Almost any polyatomic molecule can be split into it's component parts by high temperatures. It's a result of the equilibrium between the more complex molecule and the simpler component parts. Higher temperatures shift the equilibrium (that's called Le Chatelier's Principle );
2H₂O = 2H₂ + O2
Higher temperatures force the equilibrium to the right, the side with the larger number of molecules, and higher entropy (disorder). Get it hot enough and you get 2H₂ + O2. Even at room temperature a sample of water is in equilibrium with very small amounts of 2H₂ + O2.

There are a couple practical problems with using high temperature to create 2H₂ + O2 from water. 1) Heat loss; anytime your are trying to heat something that hot there is going to be pretty massive losses of heat to the container. 2) When you cool the 2H₂ + O2 down it'll tend to spontaneously convert back to water as the temperature falls. 3) Most of the heat used to heat the water up is lost, in addition, you probably need to actively cool the 2H₂ + O2 back down to ambient temperatures to avoid recombination. That active cooling takes even more energy.

The general strategy of using high temperatures to convert large molecules into smaller ones is used industrially in a number of ways. In "hydrocarbon cracking" large organic molecules (often the leftovers from oil refining) are "cracked" to smaller, higher value hydrocarbons like ethylene. "Fuel reforming" is another application where high temperatures are used to accomplish otherwise difficult conversions. For example, in methane reforming methane is converted to hydrogen. In practice, most of these high temperature processes also use a catalyst to reduce the required temperature. And, most of thse processes require large amounts of energy.

[john bunsenburner]

Do the amounts of energy used corespond to the amount of energy recieved by recomination, when a catalasis is used, as 100% efficient systems don't exist of coarse?

I just threw it out there, though i would like to have an attempt at steam reforming CH₄

[jimmy101]

Do the amounts of energy used corespond to the amount of energy recieved by recomination, when a catalasis is used, as 100% efficient systems don't exist of coarse?

A catalyst doesn't change the overall thermodynamics of a process. A catalyst just makes the reaction happen faster. That can indirectly result in less energy being used since much energy is lost in any process that requires high temperatures. If you make the reactino faster then there is less time to loose energy. The amount of energy added to, or subtracted from, the reactants themselves is unchanged by the presence of a catalyst.

For reforming and cracking type processes the energy used is generally much more than the energy you'll get back when you burn the product. Much energy is lost in any process that requires high temperatures.

[boyntonstu]

Thanks for taking up the response Spudbalster. However I learned long ago to never argue with fools. You can't win an arguement with one.

I posted my response and linked to a constant RPM fuel consumption site for stationary generators. He is entitled to his opinion. Unless he posts data to support his claim, it's just an opinion which we both disagree with. Flow meters are incorporated in many fuel consumption meters.

This claim is very easy to prove either way by someone with a fuel consumption computer.

In the end the truth will stand on it's own merits.

Truth here?



BoyntonStu