Hydroxy thermal energy is _______ BTU/liter ?

[BoyntonStu]

We are all exploring Hydroxy.

What is its nature?

How much heat is there in a liter?

We know that straight hydrogen has 10 BTU/liter.

Is it more or less than that?

Shouldn't we also know the value for Hydroxy?

Why is this fundamental value so elusive?

BoyntonStu

[Smith03Jetta]

This value is not elusive. It's just that we are not chemists. Go on some Chemistry Forum and ask them.

[BoyntonStu]

This value is not elusive. It's just that we are not chemists. Go on some Chemistry Forum and ask them.

Not chemists and playing chemistry does not make for a safe toy.

BoyntonStu

[Stratous]

Best I could find on the internet. Burning 18 grams releases 242000 Joules of heat energy or 229.5 btu. Found here. http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

[cougar gt-e]

Found this on the net under "How things work"

Hydrogen weighs just 0.08988 grams per liter

So using Stratous' numbers, 1 gram releases 13,444 joules or 12.5 BTU

1 Liter of hydrogen weighs 0.08988 grams so 1 liter of hydrogen contains 1.1 BTU of energy.

To get that 1 liter of hydrogen, you would need to generate 1.5 liter of gas from the electrolyzer. Many report 1 liter per minute total gas, so there is 3/4 of a BTU being added per minute (not much).

[BoyntonStu]

Best I could find on the internet. Burning 18 grams releases 242000 Joules of heat energy or 229.5 btu. Found here. http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

Thanks,

I found it:

"Suppose we wanted to run an internal combustion engine on this gas. How much energy would we get out? If we burn Brown's Gas we get pure water vapor. Burning 18 grams releases 242000 Joules of heat energy or 229.5 btu. (Allowing the vapor to condense would yield an additional 44500 joules, 42.4 btu, but in any conventional engine this output would only appear as waste heat and will be ignored.)

Thus if we drove an engine with 168 grams of gas per hour we would be putting 2.26 million joules per hour of heat energy into it. Operating at a plausible combustion temperature the thermal efficiency might be as high as 50% so we would get out 1.13 million joules per hour or 314 joules per second, that is 314 watts.

The bottom line is that we have put in about a kilowatt of electrical energy to get out under a third as much in mechanical energy. Considering that the efficiency of an electric motor would be over 85% there is no justification at all for using a Brown's Gas generator and an internal combustion engine. An electric motor would do better at less cost and with far greater reliability."


BoyntonStu

[BoyntonStu]

Found this on the net under "How things work"

Hydrogen weighs just 0.08988 grams per liter

So using Stratous' numbers, 1 gram releases 13,444 joules or 12.5 BTU

1 Liter of hydrogen weighs 0.08988 grams so 1 liter of hydrogen contains 1.1 BTU of energy.

To get that 1 liter of hydrogen, you would need to generate 1.5 liter of gas from the electrolyzer. Many report 1 liter per minute total gas, so there is 3/4 of a BTU being added per minute (not much).

That is for Hydrogen.

Hydroxy has ____BTU/liter ?

BoyntonStu

[Smith03Jetta]

BoyntonStu, are you a chemist? If not, I recommend you stop experimenting before you get hurt. Have you actually built a Hydroxy generator? Have you lit some bubbles with a lighter? If not, why don't you stop talking, go build one, put it on your car, then come back and preach your new religion.

It's common knowlege that Hydroxy has 6x more BTU than Hydrogen alone. You don't have to be a chemist to know that. You just need to know how to use Google!

60,000 KJ/m3 of energy at 1 atm for (Hydroxy) vs 10,000 KJ/m3 of energy at 1 atm for (Hydrogen).

Now that everybody knows this crucial, valuable information, what shall we do with it? I guess we can stick thermometers up our butts and watch the temperature rise as we get better gas mileage!!! We can then hypothesize that the rise in anal temp is a direct correlation to increased fuel economy. We can then wrap ourselves in electric blankets to bring up our core temperatures in hopes of hitting 100 mpg.

I know that adding an oxidizer to a flame increases its burn rate/intensity. I would hope that everybody on this forum has watched the video footage of the Hindenburg crash. The blimp was full of hydrogen gas. It burned up completely in 37 seconds. That's pretty quick. Remember?

Now let's say somebody had filled up the Hindenburg blimp with Hydroxy... I would venture to say that the Hindenburg would not have flown because of the hydrogen displacement volume of the Oxygen. The second thing that would have happened is that the Navy Base in New Jersey where the Hindenburg "burned" would not be left standing and there would have been no survivors or a video for us to watch. Everything would have been destroyed in the blast. The Hydroxy blast would have rivaled a small Nuclear explosion instead of the relatively slow burn of the Hydrogen alone.

[BoyntonStu]

"It's common knowlege that Hydroxy has 6x more BTU than Hydrogen alone."

Let's see: 2/3 of Hydroxy is Hydrogen.

Oxygen having zero thermal energy is occupies the other 1/3.

Oxygen has zero thermal energy, you cannot burn oxygen.

It is therefore quite obvious (Not!) that if you have a gas composed of 2/3 Hydrogen mixed with 1/3 of a zero energy gas, the result is a gas that has 6x the thermal value of 100% hydrogen.

Use Google, you cam find perpetual motion machines for sale.

BoyntonStu

P.S. You would do better here and in life by just staying with the facts.

And that goes for all of us.

Leave personalities issues in your head.

There was a guy at work who hated me, yet I always backed his technical points if I believed that they were correct.

I don't care if you like me, or respect me, the facts speak for themselves.

[Dewayne]

If oxygen will not burn why are there sign all over hospitals say " No Smoking Oxygen in use."

Remember what happened to the astronauts in the Apollo1 test. That was a 100% oxygen atmosphere or the tank on Apollo13.