Hydroxy thermal energy is _______ BTU/liter ?

[BioFarmer93]

Horsepower is a unit of energy per time and cannot be associated with an amount of gas. However, a flow rate of gas can be associated with horsepower.

One horsepower is equivalent to 0.746 kilojoules per second. Since one liter of oxyhydrogen contains 8.47kJ, that means that one liter per second is equivalent to 8.47/0.746 = 11.35hp. Keep in mind that the internal combustion engine is not 100% efficient. With petrol, the modern ICE stands at about 19% chemical-to-mechanical efficiency. 19% of 11.35 is roughly 2.2 horsepower for a 1-liter per second gas feed, assuming the engine is running on pure oxyhydrogen.


To address Mr. Jacques' concerns regarding the energy content of the gas itself:

"Believe" is a strong word. If you're going to believe anything, believe me when I say that anyone with a firm grasp of physics can easily tell that neither the Eckman paper nor the KeelyNet article show any sort of credibility. If you follow the references, you will quickly find that the Eckman paper is simply a collage of shaky claims which have been tied together with physics the author obviously has little understanding for. If you wish, I am prepared to write a piecemeal rebuttal of the paper a capite ad calcem should you choose to entertain an opinion closer to fact.

Cheers,
ElectroNut

Wow, you sound like you're REALLY smart! I'd love to see some photo's of your builds. Thanks!

[ElectroNut]

Here's a rather well-documented start as of May 31, 2010:

(I'd repost it as a new thread this forum but the image limit seems to be too low)

http://backyardmetalcasting.com/foru...pic.php?t=4514

Thanks for the interest!


@myoldyourgold

The short answer is that the energy value is for the diatomic mix of gases. I would suggest reading about "standard enthalpy of formation" and "bond energy." These values are measured amounts of energy needed to break bonds between every possible combination of atoms. Take a look at this page: http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cch...20/bondel.html

For instance, a single C-H bond is worth 418kJ/mol. Examine methane, the simplest hydrocarbon: CH4. There are 4 C-H bonds, so to completely break methane apart, you would need 418*4 = 1672kJ per mole of methane. However, methane reacts with O2 to form 1 CO2 and 2 H2O molecules. This means that 2 C=O bonds are being formed (note the double bond) and 4 H-O bonds are being formed to make the water. Add all of these together and you get 393.5 + 2(285.8) = 965.1.

Since we used 418kJ to break methane but got 965.1kJ back after it reacted with oxygen, the net energy change is 547.1kJ. This means that burning one mole of methane releases 547.1kJ of energy. Follow? In simpler terms:

Total energy = (energy released when reaction products are formed) - (energy needed to break molecules into atoms)

These energy values can vary slightly depending on the particular bond length in the molecule. For simple molecules like methane, water, and carbon dioxide, these values are quite accurate. They only get distorted when bonds are stressed, for example in "caged" compounds like hexamethylenetetramine, adamantane, and many other heterocyclic hydrocarbons. A good example of the use of this strength is in the explosive octanitrocubane. It gains a bunch of energy by having stressed bonds. The downside is that it subsequently takes a lot of energy to make, so yields are extremely low.

Anyway, all of this also answers part 2 of the question. As you can see, once the energy holding the bonds together is broken, the atoms will react with each other. Therefore, monoatomic hydrogen and oxygen can never exist together without spontaneously reacting.

This may also give you insight about why you need a flame to light things on fire: The heat of the flame provides the initial energy required to smash the bonds in the molecules so they react with each other. The energy required to do this is referred to as the "activation energy." Once the atoms react, they release the energy required to break more bonds of adjacent unreacted molecules and the flame front proceeds on its own.

Hope that helps,
-ElectroNut

[Roland Jacques]

To address Mr. Jacques' concerns regarding the energy content of the gas itself:

"Believe" is a strong word. If you're going to believe anything, believe me when I say that anyone with a firm grasp of physics can easily tell that neither the Eckman paper nor the KeelyNet article show any sort of credibility. If you follow the references, you will quickly find that the Eckman paper is simply a collage of shaky claims which have been tied together with physics the author obviously has little understanding for. If you wish, I am prepared to write a piecemeal rebuttal of the paper a capite ad calcem should you choose to entertain an opinion closer to fact.

Cheers,
ElectroNut

Thanks for your generous offer. But a rebuttal to those papers is not necessary for me. For me first and second hand repeatable testing carries more weight than papers. Not to mention most scientific papers are over my head. While you could debate the papers, IMO there is "evidence" (shaky claims) that shows that there is more going on in browns gas than simply H2 +O2 Or energy in matching up with a giving energy out formula. Personally im more impressed by testing and results than theorys on paper. You might say i do things backwards, in that i see results and then look for theorys that support the results.


As far as Having a firm grasp on Physics. History shows that "a firm grasp on Physics" is a relative thing.

Re-noun physicist Lord Kelvin in 1889 said
"Radio has know Future"
"Heavier than air flying machines are a impossibility."
and
"X-Rays will prove to be a hoax."

I believe that most would have said that he had a firm grasp on Physics.

[Farrahday]

Holy cow, your worse than my teenage daughter. Always gotta have the last word. I joined these boards in May and Mr Smith has done alot more to further the cause here than you have. His contributions are way more useful than yours have been. I dont want to ban you as you obviously are intelligent and could possible offer valuable information, but if all you intend to do is pose rediculous questions and then not be part of the solution, then I will. So play nice as Mr Smith will not be the one who gets put out. I respect your intelect, but your personal relation skills are lackluster. This is not a physics forum nor a chemistry forum. Those things have a place here, but most of us are into the "hows" not the "whys"

No one will ever learn anything around here if people aren't prepared to listen to those that are clearly more intelligent and more knowlegeable. I can't believe you would even consider banning BStu, for saying this:

There is a saying: "Beauty is temporary but stupidity is forever".

particularly as it appears to have been a very polite and restrained response to this quite offensive and very childish statement posted by Mr Smith:

Frankly STU, you are getting on my nerves along with everybody else on this forum. Please leave. If you do not chose to leave, I will ignore you for the rest of my life. Thanks and have a good time riding your nerdy recumbent bike and the little elevator that you built in the corner of your room. Please spend your time ****ing people off on the Legal forums. Lawyers love to argue. I just want to tinker with my car. Leave me the F__K alone.

Its absurd.

BStu is clearly educated and could be an asset, just like ElectroNut, and unlike Mr Smith who must surely be living in some alternate reality:

Originally Posted by Smith03Jetta

After that, I'm blotting you out of my existence. I am intelligent. I'm an IT professional. I turned down a Stanford Scholarship once. I have multiple college degrees but what I've learned in real life has taught me more than what I will learn in some theoretical setting. Who cares how hot a flame is. The fact is you will get burned if you put your hand in it. Some things you don't need to understand, just take them on faith.

Yeah, right and my mom's the queen of England!

The devil is often in the detail when it comes to science, so to say, "Who cares how hot a flame is. The fact is you will get burned if you put your hand in it. Some things you don't need to understand, just take them on faith", is one of the most ridiculous and unscientific statements I have ever read. Educated people just make these kind of stupid remarks, let alone talk so trashy. I think you will find that intelligence is relative, Smithy.

Clearly the uneducated and ignorant folk are threatened by the knowledgeable and intelligent, by commonsense and reason, and as the science and maths is so far beyond them, they simply go on the defensive and dismiss it all. Instead of attempting to gain information, understanding and actually learn something, they simply rebuff the intelligent poster with all manner of pathetic arguments and illogical diatribe in vain attempts to disguise the fact that they're half-wits. Unfortunately it doesn't work.

One thing that does happen however, is that legitimately intelligent and knowledgeable folk are hounded off the forum. This is a real shame, as all this does is reduce the overall IQ level of the forum, while at the same time increasing the general level of ignorance. Sad really.

Incidentally I fully concur with ElectroNut's statement with regards to the Eckman Paper. The paper is littered with very blatant errors, so it's hard to take seriously when much of the simple science is so obviously incorrect. That said, for all it's flaws, the results from the mass spectrometer are quite interesting and informative,

[BioFarmer93]

Farrah,
Since I am one of the low IQ semi intelligent halfwits that are hesitant to listen to obviously more intelligent (and modest) scientific demi-gods such as B-S and yourself, I can only comment that you two socially inept over educated arrogant Brit twits probably need to be in a forum dedicated to snobby class oriented thinking knit-pickers like yourselves... Surely you must feel that no one here is up to your stratospheric caliber? Otherwise why would you resurrect a thread that was (thankfully) dropped back in February if not only to demonstrate your simpatico with a fellow wonk? You are the type of person that really has no business on a forum like this. Granted, that your education COULD be a valuable resource to us if your personality was not such a detractor. Unfortunately, very few people will be likely to ask you a question because of the snobby, superior, arrogant way it would be answered as well as the opportunity it would give you yet again to revel in your self avowed superior intellect. You see, you're an intellectual snob.. But I'm a sonofa*****, and I call them like I see them. I didn't like you over at Nick's Realm, and I don't care for you here either. Most people here don't care for you. So do us a favor, remain silent and act like an encyclopedia.. When called upon, divulge the secrets that only scientifically superior beings such as yourself have understanding of, then dumb it down so that we mere mortals may hopefully understand the basics of it, (as the fine points would most assuredly be lost on us) then disappear until someone rubs your lamp again. -or you could just go away... ta

[Farrahday]

Farrah,
Since I am one of the low IQ semi intelligent halfwits that are hesitant to listen to obviously more intelligent (and modest) scientific demi-gods such as B-S and yourself...

You said it, not me! However after your last post I'm inclined to be in full agreement with you.

I found this thread by looking for posts by ElectroNut, who appears to be one of the few truly educated people around here, only to find that BStu too was being alienated for his educated input. I see nothing that indicates BStu was being rude, offensive or indeed arrogant, he was simply being factual. The problem he had was that he was trying to converse with uneducated people that didn't really have a clue what he was talking about, and took offence to his greater knowledge.

Obviously some of you people have a problem with facts and truth, or anything pertaining to reality that might interfere with the fantasy worlds you appear to live in. Real science is just a little over your heads, so make it up as you go along, eh. But you are right about one thing, the likes of you really don't care about anyone that is above your pitifully low intellectual plane, I guess we highlight all of your inadequacies.

I tried to be helpful to Larry on Nicks Realm, but he found me to be an irritation, just as it appears you and others did. Don't you people ever tire of going around in circles and getting nowhere, because the only people that could move you forward have been made unwelcome and gone? I guess ignorance really is bliss for most of you. But on a supposedly scientific forum, how pathetic is that!

So do us a favor, remain silent and act like an encyclopedia.. When called upon, divulge the secrets that only scientifically superior beings such as yourself have understanding of, then dumb it down so that we mere mortals may hopefully understand the basics of it

Try to be realistic Farmerboy, there is a limit to how far things can be 'dumbed down'. And when the audience has only a couple of grey cells firing at any given time, I fear the effort is futile. Perhaps cards with pretty pictures on them, saying E is for Electrolyser would be the place to start!

You might call it as you see it.. I call it as it is!

[koya1893]

Maybe I've been spending way too much time in my little garage going in circle trying to develope an efficient system, and don't remember seeing any photos of system built by Farra using all the smarts I read from his reply and shared it with us.

Everytime I am asked how this process works I can't help but put it in terms so the average "Joe" can understand it and even see the advantage of having a system hooked up to their old tired, paid for Ford and benefit from it. My point is, some of us are well educated, they pop in here and start throwing theories and figures and symbles I have not seen since my teen years and expect simple minded people like this "Olde Salty" chief understand it.

I managed to learn everything about "N" power from anther "Salty Olde" chief, how he shared it with me so I can learn it had to be simple. We get blinded by the comflexity of how things should be and not see how things are.

This electrolyst process to split water into the two gases that forms it, is enough to drive anyone crazy, so if you expect the general public to embraced this process and actually would like to have a system design for their "old tired" ford truck, you need to keep is SIMPLE.

[BioFarmer93]

You said it, not me! However after your last post I'm inclined to be in full agreement with you.

I found this thread by looking for posts by ElectroNut, who appears to be one of the few truly educated people around here, only to find that BStu too was being alienated for his educated input. I see nothing that indicates BStu was being rude, offensive or indeed arrogant, he was simply being factual. The problem he had was that he was trying to converse with uneducated people that didn't really have a clue what he was talking about, and took offence to his greater knowledge.

Obviously some of you people have a problem with facts and truth, or anything pertaining to reality that might interfere with the fantasy worlds you appear to live in. Real science is just a little over your heads, so make it up as you go along, eh. But you are right about one thing, the likes of you really don't care about anyone that is above your pitifully low intellectual plane, I guess we highlight all of your inadequacies.

I tried to be helpful to Larry on Nicks Realm, but he found me to be an irritation, just as it appears you and others did. Don't you people ever tire of going around in circles and getting nowhere, because the only people that could move you forward have been made unwelcome and gone? I guess ignorance really is bliss for most of you. But on a supposedly scientific forum, how pathetic is that!



Try to be realistic Farmerboy, there is a limit to how far things can be 'dumbed down'. And when the audience has only a couple of grey cells firing at any given time, I fear the effort is futile. Perhaps cards with pretty pictures on them, saying E is for Electrolyser would be the place to start!

You might call it as you see it.. I call it as it is!

Farrah,
His arrogance and social ineptitude was truly only marginal, (compared to yours) but his ego is large enough that he didn't pick up on the fact that my comment to him was pure sarcasm.. But you, sweetcheecks, are the one that takes the cake in the rudeness department. Your continued reference to how unintelligent we are, and how educated and intelligent you are has done little to endear you to us, and has begun to sour many of us on your continued presence here. So please, save yourself the futility of effort you refer to in the above, and just go away. I feel certain that if anyone actually wishes to read your insults, they will PM you. By the way dear, for a lass who's supposed to be "all that" as a scientist, I have not noticed you offering any tremendous break-through's, insights or contributions to this forum's efforts. So apparently you with all your tremendous intelligence and scientific learning, are simply "going around in circles" also.. Now really, go away please.

[RichW]

I am an inventor that deals with HHO and the calculations of HHO and other forms of fuel for conversion purposes.
The simple answer to your question of how many BTU's are in 1 liter of HHO gas is 9.548.
The number of Liters of gaseous HHO to equal 1 pound of Propane (obviously, in liquid form) is roughly 2252 liters, which gives you roughly 21,500 BTU's.
While i am a huge promoter of the use of HHO, even i have to admit that unless ways of massive production of HHO gas is found for a very reasonable cost, it is unlikely that HHO will actually turn out to be a viable fuel source for almost anything.
Let me give you an example of a conversion:
a mid-range residential propane heater that is made to heat roughly 1000 Sq. Ft, uses 1.38 pounds of propane per hour. Here is the conversion so you understand that mathematically, this starts to become unreal:
Propane = 36.43 cubic feet per gallon
1 pound of propane = .235849 gallons, thus;
36.43 times .235849 give us 8.5919 cubic feet of propane per pound
The unit uses 1.38 pounds per hour, so we multiple 8.5919 by 1.38 and get a total of 11.86 cubic feet of propane per hour being consumed by this heater.
Because gaseous HHO does not produce the same BTU's as propane, we have to multiply the 11.86 cubic feet times 4.76 to adjust the BTU's, which gives us 56.45 cubit feet of HHO needed to equal the BTU value of the propane.
There are 28.3205 liters in 1 cubic foot, and we generally measure HHO gas in liters, so:
56.45 cubic feet of HHO equals (56.45 times 28.3205) 1598.69 liters of HHO gas needed per hour to fuel this heating unit per hour.
Last I checked, units that produce 1500 liters of HHO/hr were costing about $3800 each:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/23...Generator.html
I cant speak for anyone else, but spending $3800 on a system that is still going to have a cost to use (electric), to power a single 30,000 btu heater is kind of spendy...
the above heater is just an example. It would take 3 hours for that heater to use 1 gallon of propane, and as of the date of this writing, I am paying 1.899/gallon of propane (in Minnesota), so i could run this heater continuously for 6003 hours for the cost of the HHO generator. Just as a foot note, 6003 hours equals 250 days at 24 hours a day of this unit running.....

[myoldyourgold]

The bottom line for heating is cost. I get used engine oil just for the cost of picking it up form a friendly farmer. I can't thank him enough and then mix it with heating oil. Then by adding a little HHO to burn up more of the hydrocarbons making the exhaust clean cuts my heating bill down by 2/3. I can not complain. There is more to the process and changes to the burner but none of it is that complicated or expensive. There has been many conversions to straight used engine oil that work very well.