Posted on 05/13/2006 7:14:51 AM PDT by Neville72
Take a look a this amazing news report on the local Fox Channel 26 in Clearwater, Florida on local inventor, Denny Klein and his water powered citting /welding torches and HHO/gas hybrid car.
Video on the technology:
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/BrownsGas/WaterFuel.wmv
Amazing stuff at first glance. I'd love to hear some of our Freeper energy experts weigh in on the potential of this.
Hydrogen is one of the most expensive ways of powering a car. See:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/Fuel_of_the_Future-e852.pdf
Its hard to argue with the video...impressive.
Mythbusters tried it last week on their show, and busted it flat. You simply cant produce enough hydrogen on board a car, to power the car. Its easy to produce hydrogen, in miniscule amounts, but enough to power a car? Nope.
You can't create energy, and so the person who made the news story was blissfully unaware of the all consuming question that everyone would have... "where does the energy come from to 'crack' the water into H and O?"
The story would lead one to think that he's invented a way to use less energy seperating water into H and O, than is recovered when you burn the H and O back into water. Sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me.
The report conveniently omits to mention how much electricity is required for the electrolysis process. What we need to know is how many BTUs in (for electrolysis) vs. how many BTUs out (when the resulting HHO gas is burned). The former must at least equal the latter (else we would have a perpetual motion machine in violation of the laws of thermodynamics). What we will find is that HHO is not a fuel, but an energy storage medium. Therefore, it will not reduce demand for conventional fuels.
"Cap'n, Ah kinot git BLUUD from a RRRRRRock."
How was he heating and cutting the metal?
How was he holding the tip of the torch as it was burning?
How and why did he receive a patent on the technology and a contract from the American military to outfit a Hummer with his new technology if it is bogus?
Those are a few of the many questions this report raises.
I'm no expert, but that would have been my guess too. Freshman chemistry taught me that equations have to balance. On one side, we have water, on the other side, we have the same amount of water, recombined at the tailpipe after combustion. Energy is produced to move the car down the road, so how much energy (electricity) must be input in order to balance the equation?
Even if it weren't expensive, it has other problems such as the safety and size of tanks needed for vehicles. That said, however, hydrogen could be produced cheaply if we got over our taboos of nuke plants.
From the web site:
The HHOS has been tested in two different vehicles (the current prototype, which is a 1994 Ford Escort Wagon, and a 1998 Ford Ranger pickup) and fuel economy increases have ranged from 22.9% to 100% depending upon the amount of electrical energy (amps & volts) that are available for the production of Aquygen™ Gas.
Looks like the details aren't as impressive as the video.
>You can't create energy, and so the person who made the news story was blissfully unaware of the all consuming question that everyone would have... "where does the energy come from to 'crack' the water into H and O?"
>The story would lead one to think that he's invented a way to use less energy seperating water into H and O, than is recovered when you burn the H and O back into water. Sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me.
...then why is Hummer building with it?
...then why is Hummer building with it?
What are you talking about?
A battery is an energy storage medium as well. How you "charge" the battery will determine if you can reduce the demand for "conventional" fuels. If you use nuclear energy, fission today, maybe someday fusion, converted to electricity, do the charging, then you could indeed reduce the need for "conventional" fuels, such as oil or coal. Of course coal is nothing to sneeze at either. It can be converted to liquid or gaseous fuels, or burned in a central power plant. Much of the electricity generated now is from coal.
He says in the report I've linked to that his electrolyser cost 70 cents per hour to operate
http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBKD7YQIGE.html
I would have liked to see him drink the water before he put into the tank...
It looks like he made a small, portable hydrogen cracker, which I think would be very valuable in the field where gasoline/diesel might be scarce. Soldiers could use this machine to crack hydrogen from water and use it to power their Hummers, and that has obvious value.
Cracking hydrogen from water is not a new science or a novel idea, but it does take a lot of energy (electricity) to do it. In fact, with today's technology, it takes more energy (electrical) to crack hydrogen from water than the energy (chemical) it produces, so it's not viable as a mass energy process. However, in situations like battlefields, under the right conditions (water and electricity is available), it's a great idea.
Absoloutely that is true. Diesel engines were originally designed to run on peanut oil. If I owned a diesel, I would be hunting up a buddy who owned a fish camp or something similar, and get myself a source for used grease. I would then make myself a filtering station that could pretty much be left up to gravity to handle the job. As a matter of fact, I'm leaving right now to go buy myself a diesel!
"Hydrogen is one of the most expensive ways of powering a car"
The physics of the electrolysis of water cannot be overcome.
But the economics of large-scale production of hydrogen might be. In March of this year GE announced a price-breakthrough in electrolysis of water into hydrogen.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16523&ch=biztech
Prediction is for a hydrogen cost equivalent to $3/gal gasoline
Mythbusters tried it last week on their show, and busted it flat. You simply cant produce enough hydrogen on board a car, to power the car. Its easy to produce hydrogen, in miniscule amounts, but enough to power a car? Nope.
The video seems to say otherwise
Electrolysis of water uses a LOT of high grade expensive energy. The hydrogen is only a transport medium for a small portion of the energy consumed in its production.
A. Point for point, Brown's Gas is the torch gas of choice!
Q. If you want to neutralize radioactive waste, then:
A. Brown's Gas is the answer to the largest problem the nuclear industry faces today!
Q. If you are in ore concentration, then the answer is:
A. Brown's Gas helps recovery of extraordinary volumes of metal, even from ores that were previously resistant to traditional techniques!
No Brown's Gas organization in the world has ever been able to offer an investment opportunity like this before.
The first step in the marketing plan concentrates on only one of dozens of possible applications. No Brown's Gas organization in the world has ever been able to offer an investment opportunity like this before.
The first step in the marketing plan concentrates on only one of dozens of possible applications.
To repeat --- this one application has over $300,000,000 per year income potential.
This application has had 100% acceptance in our market research.
This is your OPPORTUNITY. Become a distributor!!!
Allright, I think we have seen enough of this right now.
Every few months I post this advice to potential investors:
If you want to avoid the next Dot.Bomb.Bubble, when you hear these terms, run for your life:
1: Hydrogen "Energy"
2: MEMS
3: "Nano*"
I have worked in R&D all my life, much of it in these areas, including DoE hydrogen programs. (14 patents issued, World and EU crossfiles, and six published applications pending to date.)
Reminds me of that old joke about the two nuns, a bedpan, and their car by the side of the road.
So would drilling in the ANWR.
A 22% increase is not the same as saying you are running your car on water. And we don't know the cost of the equipment nor the cost of running it.
I actually saw a guy doing this 2 weeks ago. He goes around to all local restaurants who normally pay to get rid of the stuff and takes it off their hands for nothing. He puts it in barrels and told me that he uses it in his truck. He said he had to have conventional diesel to start the truck, and after it was started he could switch over to the home made fuel for driving it. Seems like a clever idea. It isn't a solution though because if everyone did that there wouldn't be enough of a supply of such oil because everyone and their brother would be looking for it.
Hydrogen has much less energy density than gas so even at $3 a gallon equivelant it's still more expensive.
"It isn't a solution though because if everyone did that there wouldn't be enough of a supply of such oil because everyone and their brother would be looking for it."
True enough. Supply and demand.
I'd sure as hell take a 22.9% increase right now regardless of what you called it. How about a 100% increase? Would that "impress" you?
I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY, that I'll sell you in exchange for the royalties off of this product.
Whaddya say??
Sheesh.
Even the Fox26 site looks suspicious.
BB62
However, if you are one of a few people in your area who know to do this, you will be saving a small fortune in fuel costs. =)
Looks like it's gone beyond just being a theory and already has working models and test vehicles.
With the above in mind, in military situations, the ability to have a Hummer operate off hydrogen or be supplemented by Hydrogen makes practical sense.
This has absolutely zero to do with replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen for civilian use or using Hydrogen as an energy source, because it ISN'T one.
The video was beyond misleading, playing on the general public's stupidity about Hydrogen and where it comes from.
FYI
11-27-2005
Clearwater Man Puts Technology To Work
Tampa Bay Online ^ | 11/27/2005 | WILL RODGERS
Posted on 11/27/2005 9:53:37 AM EST by wjersey
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529266/posts
[snip]
This 'inventor' is infringing on Yull Brown's U.S. Patent (U.S. Patent 4081656, 1978) for Brown's Gas. Hope he has a good lawyer.
18 posted on 11/27/2005 10:33:25 AM EST by AmericaUnited
Brown's patent can be found at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=15&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1=4081656&OS=4081656&RS=4081656
21 posted on 11/27/2005 10:38:10 AM EST by NewHampshireDuo
This is a good link for more info: http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm
Also at this one we see that guy has ripped off other's technology: http://www.watertorch.com/links/links1.html
32 posted on 11/27/2005 11:08:20 AM EST by AmericaUnited
How can two H and one O combine and NOT be water? Oxygen has two hooks, hydrogen has one hook. THere's only one configuration for them to hook up.
Under normal temperature/pressure conditions, gaseous hydrogen and Oxygen are both diatomic. That is, they exist in nature as stable molecules H2 and O2. These "stable" gases can coexist in proportions that would form water without actually doing so. It takes a "spark" of energy to blast at least a few molecules of hydrogen and oxygen out of their diatomic state, whereupon they'd be free to recombine as H2O, and releasing MORE energy than what was required as input in the original spark. This, of course, sets off a chain reaction throughout the mixture until all the hydrogen and oxygen are combined.
As near as I can figure, this Clearwater "genius" must be using some highly insulated, temperature/pressure controlled storage vessel to prevent the mixture from combusting. And may also be using weird temperature/pressure conditions to hold the H and O in their unstable monatomic states.
Pretty nifty engineering, if that's what he's doing. But I'd prefer viewing any demonstration from at least a mile away.
39 posted on 11/27/2005 11:52:16 AM EST by Willie Green
Actually it does mention use of their system as the only fuel, but they don't seem to have reduced that to practice yet.
What it appears that they are doing is increasing the efficiency of the overall system, over pure gasoline or diesel. The energy to produce their "gas" which may be monomolecular hydrogen, not H2, clearly comes from the burning of the composite fuel. They claim a horsepower increase of 17 HP, and estimate the system to produce their "HH0" gas eats up about 4 HP of that. Thus what they must be doing is increasing the overall efficiency of converting gasoline (or JP-4 in the case of a Humvee) to mechanical horsepower. Not magic, but worthwhile.
Gallon equivalent not gallon. The comparison is the amount of hydrogen needed to get the same energy, or horsepower hours if you will, as a gallon of gasoline.
I encourage everyone who finds this report credible to invest heavily in it.
I won't be.
1) Used in a car the gas combusts and emits water vapor as the only effluent in its exhaust.It's also high protein feed for farm animals, a powerful explosive, insulation for low-income housing, and a top-notch engine coolant.
2) A solid-state refrigeration unit in which temperature could instantly be changed with no freon or other refrigeration chemicals.
3) A room heater fueled with the gas will carbonize a strip of paper held near it but not create flames or smoke.
4) Used in an acetylene torch it singed hairs from a welder's forearm but didn't burn the skin.
5) Flame from this gas can glaze concrete thus rendering it impervious to acids and other corrosives and greatly extending the concrete's useful lifespan.
6) The gas when burned does not explode but implodes. "An intriguing situation arises when a volume of Brown's Gas is detonated because the contraction in that volume which occurs is revolutionary in character. Of an order of 1,860:1, the contraction can be defined as an implosion, as opposed to an explosion." 1979
7) When heating water in an iron basin using a torch if applied only to the water barely raises its temperature even after long exposure. The flame applied to the bottom of the basin raises the temperature of the metal so high, and so instantly, that the water boils away almost in the blink of an eye. When directed at a brick under the surface of the water, however, the flame can heat the brick as easily as though the brick was not water covered.
8) Steel, after treatment with the flame, is much more impervious to rust and before treatment. 9) The flame can fuse plastic to titantium.
10) Directing the flame at Cobalt-60 radiation was reduced by 70% in the sample.
11) Directing the flame at Americium the radiation was reduced 100%.
"Water don't burn"
No, but it sort of seems like it oughtta, too. We drink liquid rocket fuel if you stop and think about it. *burp*
Seems he rams tubing in the posteriors of each animal in his trailer, ties the tubing into a collector box and siphons the collected gas into the engine.
The livestock are fed high fiber feed prior to the trip and have CNN and the Highlights of Bill and Hillary's Excellent Adventure on flat screens in the trailer.
/ sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.