Psycho1990 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Is it easy to make a safe one? I'm not concerned with mobility. Edited March 21, 2011 by wajed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamerat Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Need to find a way to contain the H2 and O2 in a safe way, that's the main safety concern. Compressing them is the way to contain useful amount of gas- and with compressed H2 comes the risk of explosion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho1990 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Need to find a way to contain the H2 and O2 in a safe way, that's the main safety concern. Compressing them is the way to contain useful amount of gas- and with compressed H2 comes the risk of explosion Aha, I understand. Isn't it possible to do it on the fly? (i.e. generating H2 and feeding the motor at the same time) Edit: Or maybe doing it on small steps... I've just seen these videos: Edited March 21, 2011 by wajed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 HHO, aka Brown's gas is a sham. You can't get more energy out of combining the molecules than it cost to split the water in the first place. In reality you will get less, owing to inefficiencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 HHO, aka Brown's gas is a sham. You can't get more energy out of combining the molecules than it cost to split the water in the first place. In reality you will get less, owing to inefficiencies. Yes, these "HHO" devices are pseudoscience; but I should point out that there is legitimate electrolysis of water, it's just always a net energy loss process. You spend more energy electrolyzing the water than you can get from burning the hydrogen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho1990 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) What about Stan Meyer's method? If it is also inefficient, what other efficient (and cheap) methods for generating electricity? (Other than wind turbines, wind turbines, and solar cells.) Edited March 21, 2011 by wajed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 What about Stan Meyer's method? If it is also inefficient, what other efficient (and cheap) methods for generating electricity? (Other than wind turbines, wind turbines, and solar cells.) The Meyer method was also a hoax. Your second question depends upon how much electricity you want to produce and if you consider your own effort in the efficiency equation. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho1990 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 How much electricity... 300W-3000W... Obviously, more is better! I'm willing to put effort, but something like generating electricity by cycling on a bike wouldn't be efficient at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 What about Stan Meyer's method? If it is also inefficient, what other efficient (and cheap) methods for generating electricity? (Other than wind turbines, wind turbines, and solar cells.) Stan Meyer was found guilty of fraud. No one could ever duplicate what he claimed to be able to do, which should tell you something. There are no cheap methods of generating electricity. You could probably spend your time better buying a gasoline-powered generator and then figuring out how to make THAT more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho1990 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) "... but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death." From the same page. About "No one could ever duplicate it". I don't know. But the papers are online, so I think one who knows physics should be able to prove him being wrong. Edited March 21, 2011 by wajed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Wajed, there are no magic bullets. First make yourself very electricity efficient and then do what Phi for All suggests and build a wood gas generator to run the gasoline motor. After you set up the infrastructure, and if you are clever and get free wood, aside from your effort the electricity is free until the engine wears out. You might have to start a small subsistence farm so you could use the wastes to make methane to run the generator. One of the favorites on my hobby wish list is a steam driven generator that would run on wood. There are some people in my area, with access to a live stream, who have set up a small hydro generator relatively inexpensively. Otherwise, do as I have done and go PV (photovoltaic) solar. SM EDIT- addition, the HHO and Meyer methods are perpetual motion machines and have been debunked by physicists. Edited March 21, 2011 by SMF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 "... but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death." From the same page. So he was killed but his plans were left? Why would killing him stop production of a water fuel cell that worked? About "No one could ever duplicate it". I don't know. But the papers are online, so I think one who knows physics should be able to prove him being wrong. Believe me, many have tried to prove him right and they all failed, which is almost the same as being proved wrong. The only conspiracy theorists who still believe in this are people who never tried to duplicate the cells. They lack the knowledge to do so, but they remain convinced they are right. If the plans worked, don't you think someone would be making a lot of money with it, in spite of everything the oil companies could do? It's not like the plans require a fortune in start up capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho1990 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) @SM I will research the two options. Thanks for making things easier to me. So he was killed but his plans were left? Why would killing him stop production of a water fuel cell that worked? I'm not trying to support their claims. You considered Wikipedia a source, and I brought (from the same source) something to consider. However, I agree with you but to an extent. The fact that he could do it, doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else can replicate it, unless he released enough information about how to do it. Believe me, many have tried to prove him right and they all failed, which is almost the same as being proved wrong. The only conspiracy theorists who still believe in this are people who never tried to duplicate the cells. They lack the knowledge to do so, but they remain convinced they are right. If the plans worked, don't you think someone would be making a lot of money with it, in spite of everything the oil companies could do? It's not like the plans require a fortune in start up capital. Ummm... he doesn't have to necessarily think of money. But yeah, then, why would he not try to release what he achieved to people to benefit from it! Edited March 21, 2011 by wajed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Many years ago, I saw Joseph Newman on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. He claimed to have a motor that combined electromagnets and gyroscopes to make an EM field so big it could be used to feed electricity back into itself for not only perpetual motion, but extra free electricity besides. He was very persuasive and had everyone (except real physicists) fooled. No one but Joseph Newman could ever recreate one of his motors. That's the real test in science, predictions that can be reproduced by others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho1990 Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 I don't know who such hype would benefit. You mention Joseph Newman. I've seen a similar experiment by an Australian that also made a machine which on one but him could replicate (which produces electricity more than it takes.) Also this guy: John Kanzius. But his story is a bit difference, from Wikipedia: "Kanzius admitted that this process could not be considered an energy source". It just seems that the media is/was hyping it! Maybe it's just "good" material for media for bringing audience. Anyway, back to HHO, from Wikipedia: "Kanzius admitted that this process could not be considered an energy source, as more energy is used to produce the RF signal than can be obtained from the burning gas and stated in July 2007 that he never claimed his discovery would replace oil, asserting only that his discovery was "thought provoking."" If that RF signal can be produced using energy other than "burning gas" (i.e. solar heat,) then that may be efficient. (?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dolsen Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 To all, I would like every one experimenting with HHO generators or what ever you are calling them to look at some thing called Hexavalent chromium. Some one for your own good do a test on the HHO cells you build. buy a chromium test kit and test the water. Research the internet to find out more. If you find hexchrom is leached from stainless steal used in a HHO cell then watch the movie Erin Brokovich. http://www.watertestamerica.com/national-well-water-test-parameters.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 To all, I would like every one experimenting with HHO generators or what ever you are calling them to look at some thing called Hexavalent chromium. Some one for your own good do a test on the HHO cells you build. buy a chromium test kit and test the water. Research the internet to find out more. If you find hexchrom is leached from stainless steal used in a HHO cell then watch the movie Erin Brokovich. http://www.watertestamerica.com/national-well-water-test-parameters.html To all, I would like every one experimenting with HHO generators or what ever you are calling them to look at some thing called thermodynamics. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 To all, I would like every one experimenting with HHO generators or what ever you are calling them to look at some thing called thermodynamics. Or hell, look at something called valence bond theory. Either will work really 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Or hell, look at something called valence bond theory. Either will work really Agreed. Let the Valence bond theory, or thermodynamics, be your light in the darkness of pseudoscience hell. I have a profesisonal allergy to HHO. (But not to H2O, H2 or O2, luckily). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now