So Sick of the Naysayers

[AlexR]

Found this definition of a catalyst:
From here http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-catalyst.htm


Glen,

That's a great explanation of a catalyst, thanks for posting it.

[Philldpapill]

...Hydrogen is not a catalyst for Hydrogen. Hydrogen is what you "burn" an a hydrocarbon reaction. The heat(a spark or "fire) ionizes the atoms in the gasoline molecules. From that, there is NO difference between the hydrogen ions from the gasoline, and the hydrogen ions from the HHO. What you are implying, is that the flashpoint of the gasoline is lower with the addition of HHO gas(without a spark yet)? That's just not true. If you are implying that the ionized Hydrogen(when combustion begins and the molecules are heated, and thus ionized) is lowering the flashpoint, again - just not true due to my previous point about HHO H+ having no difference than the gasoline H+.

If you want to start a new thread, I'd like to discuss this subject of WHAT really is going on. I for one, believe there IS indeed something going on, but I'd like to discuss just what that is.

[Philldpapill]

Sorry, didn't read your 2nd to last post on the previous page. I'm not trying to jump all over you about it. It's just that your theory doesn't seem to be based on something logical(read previous post before this one). The theory I have, I think at least, is based on logic and already understood scientific principles.

I understand those are your opinions, but it bugs me when I talk to someone about this and they laugh at me. They don't laugh at me because what I'm saying - they laugh at me because of the crackpots that they have heard ABOUT this subject. In other words, yes, it does get to me a little when I hear someone on here just spewing absolute non-sense about this stuff, and sometimes outright calling physics a big fraud. I don't mean you, in particular, but when someone makes claims based on nothing more than a theory that "sounds cool and high tech". I appologize if my statements sound personal. I don't mean to climb all over YOU, just theories I know to be logically and scientifically incorrect.

[biggy boy]

If you want to start a new thread, I'd like to discuss this subject of WHAT really is going on. I for one, believe there IS indeed something going on, but I'd like to discuss just what that is.

Ok lets go for it sounds like fun.

Start one up and I'll be there!

Glen

[biggy boy]

Jeez I though the HHO made the flash point of gasoline higher not lower!?!?

[Philldpapill]

Thread started: HHO/MPG Theory Debate

[gizzy]

Jeez I though the HHO made the flash point of gasoline higher not lower!?!?

Here's a good one to try if you dare. Get a bucket of water and put some soap in it. Put your bubbler tube in the bucket. Let the bubbles accumulate for a few seconds. Get a blow torch, lay on the ground so the water level is above your head. Light the torch and duck your head. Now try the same with gasoline. The difference is C-4 is explosive to HHO and to dynamite to gasoline. C-4 is like lightning. gasoline is like a fire. Ok. Now do some research.

[Philldpapill]

gizzy - huh? Are you saying C-4 is reactive to HHO and dynamite? i.e. C-4 will spontaneously explode when in the presence of HHO? HHO explodes so violently because it is, by nature, a stochiometric mixture... perfect for combustion. Gasoline, however, "burns" in the air because it is just a concentrated vapor, reacting with whatever random molecules of O2 just happen to come in contact. What are you saying?

[gizzy]

gizzy - huh? Are you saying C-4 is reactive to HHO and dynamite? i.e. C-4 will spontaneously explode when in the presence of HHO? HHO explodes so violently because it is, by nature, a stochiometric mixture... perfect for combustion. Gasoline, however, "burns" in the air because it is just a concentrated vapor, reacting with whatever random molecules of O2 just happen to come in contact. What are you saying?

No. Not at all. But yes as far as the volatility when a flame is introduced to each one of the gases. I was giving an example on the speeds of travel of an explosive reaction that is the difference between the two. C-4 burns at a speed un-comprehensible to imagine. If you lined up det-cord which is the cord made of C-4 an lit it in L.A. it would be in N.Y. in 3 seconds. Gasoline on the other hand would take 8 hours. I was just making a comparison. HHo explodes and gasoline more or less burns. Sir I was just being sarcastic but, also making an example. And as far as being a scientist or chemist I'm not. I just am making a relative comparison of burn speed.

[Philldpapill]

Holy hell... If that really is the case(LA to NY in 3 seconds), that is amazing. It's about 3000 miles from LA to NY, so that's 1,000 miles per second, OR 5.28 MILLION feet ber second, OR Mach 4800. I know there's a difference between an "explosion" and a "burn" - just the speed of reaction and expansion.

I think you are indeed right about the speed of propogation between the flamefront in HHO and stochiometric gasoline/oxygen. I would love to see some data and expirements that address this.