Generating Electricity with HHO Gas: What Fuel Cell?

[orangeglow]

Is there a way to make the atoms in HHO gas (Browns gas) to separte into it's elements; so the Hydrogen atoms go one way and the Oxygen in another way. By doing this I'm hoping to generate electricity from the reaction by bringing them together again. What kind of fuelcell do I need?

 

[russ_watters]

"HHO" is just a pop culture name for a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. The best way to completely separate them from each other is to separate them when you generate them, as during electrolysis hydogen is made at one pole and oxygen at the other.

Note, since the reaction is symmetrical, this is just a method for energy storage, not generation. In a perfect world, you'd generate exactly as much energy in the fuel cell as you need to run the electrolytic cell. In the real world, you generate far less.

 

[PaulS1950]

Browns gas is the product of breaking water into it's two elements. If you are using electrolysis to make your Brown's gas then rather than allowing the two elements to mix you can collect them separately (which is a lot safer anyway) and combine them in any way you like - which is likely to be some form of combustion.
I must have been writing at the same time.

 

[alxm]

Sayeth wikipedia:

Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to operate a vehicle using water as a fuel, or that burn the gas in torches for welding and cutting at extreme temperatures, sometimes under the name "Brown's Gas" after Yull Brown who advocated such devices, or "HHO gas" after the claims of fringe physicist Ruggero Santilli.

Seems like your "HHO" is crackpot nonsense.

If by "HHO" you/they mean a molecule where one hydrogen bonds to the other, and the second to oxygen, then that's indeed nothing but nonsense. There is simply no such stable compound.

Separating water into hydrogen and oxygen and then recombining them in a fuel cell will not gain you any energy; that's basic thermodynamics. As for ordinary hydrogen fuell cells, that's pretty well-established technology.

 

[orangeglow]

@alxm
Yes, HHO is another term for Oxyhydrogen gas and no I'm not talking about energy "gain". The "gain", if any would occur @ the point of splitting water.

 

[orangeglow]

I guess the easiest way is to run a generator with the [STRIKE]hho[/STRIKE] oxyhydrogen gas then.

 

[russ_watters]

Sayeth wikipedia:

Seems like your "HHO" is crackpot nonsense.

It is often associated with crackpottery, yes.

oxyhydrogen gas

That's not a scientific term either.

 

[pantaz]

I guess the easiest way is to run a generator with the [STRIKE]hho[/STRIKE] oxyhydrogen gas then.

... Which is less efficient than directly using the energy required to split the water.

 

[subsonictonic]

Car engines have complex processes to which end they produce mechanical energy. This poses a number of problems/oportunities to the public and commercial sector - in terms of fuel, energy storage, collection, efficiency and perhaps a lot more aspects. I believe this avenue should be explored rather than shooting it down as "crack pottery" which I feel is simply the assumption of those who do not bother to look further into ideas that challenge their idea of science. This is exactly the reason why energy production has stayed in fossil fuels for so long, and technology is actively supressed.

That said, I believe the performance gain in these modifications is not due to the explosive effect that hydrogen has on the piston in the engine cylinder. To think that would be silly of course, if you understand the fundementals of thermodynamics and energy. Rather it is a catalytic effect that the fast burning hydrogen/oxygen mixture has on the fuel air mixture, causing higher fuel burn ratios - resulting in more power.

But it doesn't stop there - this needs to be more thoroughly researched and tested on a variety of engines before we can really see where it has the most benefit. Metals, electrode designs and configurations have to be further researched. Steel has already proven unsuitable for use in cars, although titanium fits this application remarkably from my research. Then the correct amount needs to be identified for peak performance to specific motors. It's something car manufacturers could do easily, but they have no desire to until we really push them.

The benefit to being able to store hydrogen in a cylinder (pure hydrogen, not hydrogen-oxygen mixture) is that it can be safely transported under pressure, much like a battery is a standard part of a car, even though its full of acid and poisonous metals. If hydrogen can be cleanly separated from these devices, it wouldn't matter if it costs you more energy to produce it - it could be made from solar or other free energy readily. The fact is you're trying to have condensed portable energy that could compare with camping gas, or even petrol with efficient designs.

You see, there's usually something to these crackpot theories. It's just that linear science in its vastly limited understanding (and for all its usefulness), gets the better of most people. I guess most people like to follow the big guys and not think or experiment for themselves. :-/

 

[Drakkith]

I believe this avenue should be explored rather than shooting it down as "crack pottery" which I feel is simply the assumption of those who do not bother to look further into ideas that challenge their idea of science. This is exactly the reason why energy production has stayed in fossil fuels for so long, and technology is actively supressed.

This is nonsense. Energy production research has been going on for decades and is not "actively suppressed". Research is very expensive and is actively influenced by the economy and politics. One reason there is so much more interest in alternate energy production methods now is due to the increased cost of fuel and public awareness of pollution. Another big thing is simply time. We have the advantage of being able to look back on a century or more of history regarding energy production for electricity and transportation purposes and seeing the pros and cons of different methods. Plus, newer energy generation techniques have benefitted enormously from technological innovations that were never even designed with energy production in mind. This isn't to say that research purposely for better energy production methods isn't needed, only that innovations in seemingly unrelated fields can greatly benefit each other.

You see, there's usually something to these crackpot theories. It's just that linear science in its vastly limited understanding (and for all its usefulness), gets the better of most people. I guess most people like to follow the big guys and not think or experiment for themselves. :-/

You misunderstand the issue. The vast majority of people who come here to PF and post about getting energy from hydrogen and oxygen ARE talking about crackpot theories such as free energy and such, whether they know it or not. Such theories commonly use incorrect terminology such as Oxyhydrogen and the like. Your view on "linear science" is completely misguided and incorrect. Such science has been the source of effectively all improvements in technology, including the ones for alternate energy sources. Crackpot theories only ever lead to fraud and misunderstanding, and never result in any improvements, as they are laden with misunderstanding of how nature itself works.

 

[berkeman]

Well said, Drakkith.

 

[berkeman]

After some clean-up, this thread is now closed.