Register to reply

H2O->HHO, water power

by Pengwuino
Tags: h2o>hho, power, water
Share this thread:
Pengwuino
#1
Jun15-06, 11:11 PM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/06/waterfuel.html

Since the nobel prize hasn't been awarded to them yet, something must be up that either makes it non-greatest-invention-ever or the news footage kept crucial info out... anyone know about this?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Security CTO to detail Android Fake ID flaw at Black Hat
Huge waves measured for first time in Arctic Ocean
Mysterious molecules in space
Ivan Seeking
#2
Jun15-06, 11:39 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
I'm not sure what they are claiming. The welding machine requires 220VAC, so maybe they are doing something that is more efficient than typical electrolysis systems, but they are not getting the energy from water. And the car appears to be a gasoline powered engine powering the hydrogen generator. So again, unless they are intentionally misleading people, and it really seems like they are at times, it may just be a more efficient process than what's used today. I tend to...am strongly inclined to doubt that they are doing anything special at all.
Pengwuino
#3
Jun15-06, 11:42 PM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Yah it came off to me as if the welding machine wasn't even plugged into anything.

How does/can the flame be almost cool to the touch and still create such a high output? Or might that be part of a hoax as well?

Gokul43201
#4
Jun16-06, 12:00 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,155
H2O->HHO, water power

I don't see how the welder in that clip is any different from a 1960s era oxyhydrogen electrolytic torch. This one probably uses separate ducts for the two gases.
Rach3
#5
Jun16-06, 01:13 AM
Rach3's Avatar
P: 318
It's not even debunkable! There's no description of the process, or of the chemistry, or of anything - only vague, indefinite claims.
Pengwuino
#6
Jun16-06, 01:14 AM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Quote Quote by Rach3
It's not even debunkable! There's no description of the process, or of the chemistry, or of anything - only vague, indefinite claims.
I was hoping someone had heard of the guys or its a common hoax or something to that effect
Rach3
#7
Jun16-06, 01:27 AM
Rach3's Avatar
P: 318
What difference would it make to you - if it's obvious crackpottery, does it make an iota of a difference whether it's "original", or a rehash of some decades-old scam? Scientific claims ought to stand or fall on their merit alone, notwithstanding any sociological contexts. In this case, it's not scientific, nor is it a claim at all (more definite then the nebulous "it's not hydrogen").

In this case it's a decades-old psuedoscience, apparently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown's_gas

The claims have been around since 1966, and no supporting evidence has ever been presented apparently. Nor even a specific description of what it is, exactly, that's being claimed - is it a combustible mixture of hydrogen gas? Or a bizarre new metastable molecule that turns quantum chemistry on its head? (yeah right!) Or do they think water vapor is spontaneously combusting? H2O->HHO, water power
Pengwuino
#8
Jun16-06, 01:30 AM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Because then i would have an actual answer from a horribly vague report

Take your pills
Rach3
#9
Jun16-06, 01:36 AM
Rach3's Avatar
P: 318
Quote Quote by Pengwuino
Because then i would have an actual answer from a horribly vague report
Huh?........
Pengwuino
#10
Jun16-06, 01:40 AM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
It would be nice to know what is going on here compared to not knowing what's going on here.
mrjeffy321
#11
Jun17-06, 12:36 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 882
I have heard of this guy before….by which I mean I have seen this video before.

It sounds totally bogus beyond belief.
Obviously, you cannot expect a reporter to know any science, much less report it (ordinary viewers will get bored), he is probably just restating what this guy has told him.

"The flame instantaneously turns hotter than the surface of the sun",
Really, the surface of the sun? That is pretty hot (although the corona can be millions of degrees, the surface is “only” about 6000 K…but the news reporter knew that, right?), you would think that would melt through the gas nozzle too, or at least melt that brick and metal ball faster than it does (despite being claimed that it melts “instantly”).
Just by watching the video, one can see that it take more than 3 seconds to melt that metal ball, contrary to what is claimed, “"3 seconds turns a brass ball to glowing liquid metal".

Also, what is this HHO stuff it is talking about?
Of course normal water is H2O, two Hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to an Oxygen atom. Writing it as HHO almost implies that the Hydrogen is the central atom in the molecule (for example, writing Sodium Hypochlorite as NaOCl instead of NaClO) with the Oxygen with another Hydrogen atom covalently bonded to it (not something that is prone to happen considering Hydrogen only needs 1 bond to fill its S orbital).
It claims this HHO is a gas, which would imply that the intermolecular forces of attraction between the molecules are significantly less than water. The Hydrogen bonded within the ordinary water molecule keeps it in the liquid phase when it would ordinarily be a gas at room temperature. HHO apparently lacks this Hydrogen bonding, which I guess would make sense, sort of, since the Oxygen might not be the central atom any more (assuming that is possible), but you will still have a an electronegativity difference between the “central” Hydrogen and the Oxygen, making the Oxygen side (along with its unbonded electron) negative, leaving the other side less negative, if not positive.

Also, if he has his car capable of running purely off "water", why
does he still use a water-gasoline blended Hybrid fuel system? If
his special water is so great, why still use gasoline, especially
with today's prices?

As the news story says, he has his process patented. I think he
could be a little more open with us (and the rest of the world) as
to what is going on here...for the good of humanity (assuming it is
legit).
kmarinas86
#12
Jun17-06, 10:00 AM
P: 1,011
See also MagneGas:

http://www.usmagnegas.com/technology/hy-coal.htm

http://www.hytechapps.com/presentati...%20Journal.pdf

Page 1

"It is indicated that the creation of the gaseous and combustible HHO from distilled water at atmospheric temperature and pressure occurs via a process structurally different than evaporation or separation, thus suggesting the existence of a new form of water, apparently introduced in this paper for the first time, with the structure (H × H)–O where “×” represents the new magnecular bond and “−” the conventional molecular bond. The transition from the conventional H–O–H species to the new (H × H)–O species is predicted by a change of the electric polarization of water caused by the electrolyzer. When H–O–H is liquid, the new species (H×H)–O can only be gaseous, thus explaining the transition of state without evaporation or separation energy. Finally, the new species (H × H)–O is predicted to be unstable and decay into H × H and O, by permitting a plausible interpretation of the anomalous constituents of the HHO gas as well as its anomalous behavior. Samples of the new HHO gas are available at no cost for independent verifications, including guidelines for the detection of the new species."

Page 2

"2. Experimental measurements on the new HHO gas Under visual inspection, both the HHO gas results to be odorless, colorless and lighter than air, as it is also the case for the Brown gas. Their first remarkable feature is the efficiency E of the electrolyzer for the production of the gas, here simply defined as the ratio between the volume of HHO gas produced and the number of Watts needed for its production. In fact, the electrolyzers rapidly convert water into 55 standard cubic feet (scf) of HHO gas at 35 pounds per square inch (psi) via the use of 5 kWh, namely, an efficiency that is at least 10 times the corresponding efficiency of conventional water evaporation, thus permitting low production costs. The above efficiency establishes the existence of a transition of water from the liquid to the gaseous state that is not caused by evaporation. By keeping in mind the combustible character of the HHO gas compared to the noncombustible character of water vapor, the above efficiency suggests the existence of new chemical processes in the production of the gas that deserve quantitative studies."

Page 3 - Column 1

"A fifth feature of the gas is that it exhibits a widely varying thermal content, ranging from a relatively cold flame in open air at about 150 ◦C, to large releases of thermal energy depending on the substance to which the flame is applied to, such as the instantaneous melting of bricks requiring up to 9000 ◦C. The measurements conducted by the author at various independent laboratories on the HHO gas can be summarized as follows. On June 30, 2003, Adsorption Research Laboratory of Dublin, Ohi, measured the specific weight of the HHO gas and released a signed statement on the resulting value of 12.3 g/mol. The same laboratory repeated the measurement on a different sample of the gas and confirmed the result. The released value of 12.3 g/mol is anomalous. In fact, the conventional separation of water into H2 and P2 produces a mixture of 2/3 HBN2 and 1/3 O2 that has the specific weight (2 + 2 + 32)/3 = 11.3g/mol. Therefore, we have the anomaly of 12.3 − 11.2 = 19 1g/mol, corresponding to 8.8% anomalous increase in the value of the specific weight. Rather than the predicted 66.66% of H2 the gas contains only 60.79% of the species with 2 atomic mass units (amu), and rather than having 33.33% of O2 the gas contains only 30.39% of the species with 32 amu. These measurements provide direct experimental evidence that the HHO gas is not composed of a sole mixture of H2 and O2, but has additional heavier species. Moreover, the HHO gas used in the tests was produced from distilled water. Therefore, there cannot be an excess of O2 over H2 to explain the increased specific weight. The above measurement establishes the presence in HHO of 5.87% of hydrogen and 2.94% oxygen bonded together into species heavier than water, as identified below via mass spectroscopy and other analytic measurements. Adsorption Research Laboratory also conducted scans of the HHO gas via a Gas Chromatographer (GC)"

Page 3 - Column 2

"On July 22, 2003, the PdMA Corporation in Tampa, Florida, conducted InfraRed (IR) scans reported in Figs. 2–4 via the use of a Perkin-Elmer IR scanner model 1600 with fixed point/single beam. The reported scans refer to a conventional H2 gas (Fig. 2), a conventional O2 gas (Fig. 3), and the HHO gas (Fig. 4). Inspection of these scans shows a substantial differences between HHO gas and H2 and O2 gases. In fact, the latter gases are symmetric molecules, thus having very low IR peaks, as confirmed by scans 2 and 3. The first anomaly of HHO is that of showing comparatively much stronger resonating peaks. Therefore, the indicated IR scans establish that the HHO gas has an asymmetric structure, which is remarkable since the same feature is absent for the conventional mixture if H2 and O2 gases. Moreover, H2 and O2 gases can have at most two resonating frequencies each, one for the vibrations and the other for rotations. Spherical distributions of orbitals and other features imply that H2 has essentially only one IR signature as confirmed by the scan of Fig. 2, while OO2 has one vibrational IR frequency and three rotational ones, as also confirmed by the scans of Fig. 3. Inspection of the IR scans for the HHO gas in Fig. 4 reveals additional novelties. First, the HHO scan show the presence of at least nine different IR frequencies grouped around wavenumber 3000, plus a separate distinct frequency at around wavenumber 1500. These measurements provide experimental evidence that the species with 18 amu detected in the GC scans of Fig. 1 is not water vapor, but a yet unknown bond of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms."

Page 7

"In conclusion, the experimental measurements of the flash point and of the scans of Figs. 5 and 6 establish beyond doubt the capability by the HHO gas to have an anomalous bond with liquid fuels, that is, a bond that is not of valence type."

Page 11

"Note that the studies of the Brown gas [2] have indicated the need for atomic hydrogen. Therefore, the presence of atomic and polarized hydrogen is a novelty
of the HHO gas."
Rach3
#13
Jun17-06, 06:14 PM
Rach3's Avatar
P: 318
Again, blatant crackpottery!

"It is indicated that the creation of the gaseous and combustible HHO from distilled water at atmospheric temperature and pressure occurs via a process structurally different than evaporation or separation, thus suggesting the existence of a new form of water, apparently introduced in this paper for the first time, with the structure (H × H)–O where “×” represents the new magnecular bond and “−” the conventional molecular bond.
Everyone knows magnetic effects between electron orbitals are orders of magnitude weaker than even H-"bonds", let alone covalent molecular bonds. Hilarious name - "magnecular" - can you advertise yourself as a crackpot anymore loudly?

When H–O–H is liquid, the new species (H×H)–O can only be gaseous, thus explaining the transition of state without evaporation or separation energy.
Thermodynamics? What's that?

I've skimmed through the 2nd paper, it's awful. Basic misconceptions about QM and atomic physics abound (not a single equation - they do "conceptual drawings"!).
kmarinas86
#14
Jun18-06, 01:23 AM
P: 1,011
Quote Quote by Rach3
Everyone knows magnetic effects between electron orbitals are orders of magnitude weaker than even H-"bonds"
That includes me of course.

Quote Quote by Rach3
let alone covalent molecular bonds. Hilarious name - "magnecular" - can you advertise yourself as a crackpot anymore loudly?
In science, names are not supposed "hiliarious". Nonetheless, I find it amusing that someone exagerratedly sees the word "magnecular" as hilarious. Names don't prove worth a damn; they would be better being replaced by ellipses. If you think I'm talking about ovals now, then you're brainwashed. Ellipses is also the plural of the word "ellipsis" which can be seen as three periods "...".

Quote Quote by Rach3
Thermodynamics? What's that?
A course in thermodynamics, as opposed to a one sentence "definition", provides a better answer to this question.

Quote Quote by Rach3
I've skimmed through the 2nd paper, it's awful. Basic misconceptions about QM and atomic physics abound (not a single equation - they do "conceptual drawings"!).
Not to be assumed ad litteram of course. Their ideas do not imply anything about their experiments, but their experiments, which can easily be seen as being existent (e.g. welding certain materials with ...) do influence their "ideas". The only way you could understandably make criticisms like that is if you don't take everything with a grain of salt. To take everything with a grain of salt would include litterally everything to say the least. That is not to say that we should treat all ideas equal as there are ideas which are patently false such as flat earth and other kook hypotheses.

Kook theory is an oxymoron. Well substantiated ideas cannot come from kooks.

But even kooks can make pretty a pretty damn good welding apparatus such as the H20 2000. ;)
Ivan Seeking
#15
Jul4-06, 02:13 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
It has been requested that this thread be opened again. It looked to me like we were done, but we will see.

The thread is open.
kmarinas86
#16
Jul4-06, 06:45 PM
P: 1,011
Quote Quote by pigscantfly
There is an extremely rigorous 19th century test that can be applied to this problem: measure the mass of water produced by burning HHO in an isolated system. If no water mass is lost, then the process is strictly chemical, and they are full of crap! You cannot alter a compound and then return it to its previous state without losing energy! Does anyone smell perpetual motion here? If water mass is lost, then they have discovered something other than combustion, and we're in for a whole new world of physics!
I know about this test. On wikipedia talk pages I did mention the possibility of mass loss.

Quote Quote by pigscantfly
Bottom line: this is garbage!
When it has not been demonstrated that there is a lack of mass loss? What is the point of the 19th-century test then if you are free to make a conclusion without the applying the test?

Bottom line: What is really going on will have to wait for later.
Gelsamel Epsilon
#17
Jul5-06, 10:02 PM
P: 316
www.watertorch.com

Aparently the combustion reaction of HHO -> H20 reduces the volume so much that a vacuum is formed as it is coming out the nozzle, with aparently a very low radiant heat property it does not heat up the tip of the torch much.
mrjeffy321
#18
Jul5-06, 10:50 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 882
Quote Quote by Gelsamel Epsilon
www.watertorch.com

Aparently the combustion reaction of HHO -> H20 reduces the volume so much that a vacuum is formed as it is coming out the nozzle, with aparently a very low radiant heat property it does not heat up the tip of the torch much.
I would not really call it a combustion reaction.
It is a little bit difficult to try to classify this reaction since both the reactants and the products have the same chemical composition but, supposedly, the arrangement is different is my understanding. Perhaps and Decomposition + Synthesis?

Assuming this is real (I have extreme doubts, but for the sake of argument),
HHO --> H2O
1 mole of HHO "gas" forms 1 mole of H2O gas (steam due to the elevated temperature).
It is a 1:1 mole ration of gasses in the reaction
Since the HHO is close to room temperature....lets assume STP, then it will have a volume of about 22.4 Liters per mole (ideal gas assumption).
If we assume the steam is an ideal gas at 134 degrees C, then it will have a volume of 33.4 Liters per mole. This would not create a vacuum as the volume of the products is greater than the volume of the reactants.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Conference on Water, Steam, and Aqueous Solutions for Electric Power Mechanical Engineering 1
Formula for water pressure, flow and power Introductory Physics Homework 2
Power of Water Pump (from continuity?) Introductory Physics Homework 12
Power saving with the water heater General Discussion 6
Why do nuclear power plants raise the temperature of sea water? Introductory Physics Homework 5