Thread: anyone know about supplemental hydrogen?

Originally Posted by pRoFiT

Chairboy, Why do you disbelieve that this is possible?

You are not creating energey from nothing. All it is is pulling the atoms out of water and using them for fuel. Maybe current electrolisis is not effiecent enough but maybe some of these guys are on to something.

They make welders out of this technology already. It does use 220VAC to run.
http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/generator

The science behind this is what the internet guys refuse to believe. Here's the basic theory:

You cannot pull more energy out of something than is put into it.

When you create hydrogen using electricity, it will take more electrical energy to split the hydrogen than you can yield from the hydrogen when you burn it. The electrical energy comes from burning gasoline. Therefore, you burn more gasoline than you replace by the hydrogen.

Scientifically, this is the principal of the conservation of energy and it has yet to be disproved. So, the burden is on the hydroxy types to disprove it. Because of the scientific validation of this claim, one should be very, very skeptical of it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. This is an extraordinary claim.

Originally Posted by Bugbyte

The science behind this is what the internet guys refuse to believe. Here's the basic theory:

You cannot pull more energy out of something than is put into it.

When you create hydrogen using electricity, it will take more electrical energy to split the hydrogen than you can yield from the hydrogen when you burn it. The electrical energy comes from burning gasoline. Therefore, you burn more gasoline than you replace by the hydrogen.

Scientifically, this is the principal of the conservation of energy and it has yet to be disproved. So, the burden is on the hydroxy types to disprove it. Because of the scientific validation of this claim, one should be very, very skeptical of it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. This is an extraordinary claim.

Bugbyte, Come on really. If you pull oil from the ground and convert that to gass then burn it. is that not the same. You took energy to get the oil out of the ground. then you took energy to convert to gasoline. but it is still efficent enough to put into cars. The only reason the price is so high for america is because the government wont let us use the reserves we have and the green freaks wont let us pull it from the ocean floors.

If water has the chemicals in it to a use as a fuel we would not be making more energy then we used to make it because the energy is already in the water and we didn't make it (we did not make water). If we burn hydrogen we dont say we used more energy to ignite it then we get back from burning hydrogen, do we?

It really comes down to if there is an electrolis technique that is effiecent enough to pull the hydrogen and oxygen (that is in water already) apart and use to create a fuel.

Not creating more enegery then using. using energy that is already there.

Like an engine that generates electricity through the altenator then uses that energy to power a radio, lights, and the big one...ignite the gas and keep it burning.

A diesel engine doesn't even need a spark plug to keep it running, it uses a glow plug. how is that possible!

No laws are being broken here. But, Just because its a scientific law doesn't mean it cant be broken.

Another thing that bugs me. Everyone is scared about hydrogen blowing up. it still needs to be compressed like gass to explode. the stupid hindenburg was built with explosive material and thats why it went up so fast. it did not explode. it was just a ball of flames. i think gas fumes would do the same thing if you caught it on fire.

To get hydrogen without a huge steam factory, you need electrolysis. If you want to power an electrolysis machine from the gas powered motor, (via the alternator), and then inject it back into the system and burn it which in turn makes energy and runs the electrolysis and so on, it wont work. It wont give you efficiency.

You need to create hydrogen outside the car, and put it in a tank and use it on the road. But then the question is the cost of getting this hydrogen to use. So you can use a solar powered electrolysis machine, which currently exist for about $4000, and producce enough during the day to power 1 vehicle about 25 miles. Which is ok for some, but usually you will need a commercial centre that distributes hydrogen like this, or you will need to run it off the grid. Since most of the electricity in the US is created through messy fossil fuel plants, you may drive a hydrogen car, but you are still using fossile fuel.

The only way to get an efficient hydrogen car, is not by a hybrid gas/hydrogen, but with a full electric.

A 100% hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is about 40% efficient. Better than a gas car, but still an electric vehicle is in the 90% range.

Dont know why they dont just put up some more Nuclear plants, to power hydrogen plants and convert to fuel cells... Clean, safe, and cheap.

Originally Posted by pRoFiT

Bugbyte, Come on really. If you pull oil from the ground and convert that to gass then burn it. is that not the same. You took energy to get the oil out of the ground. then you took energy to convert to gasoline. but it is still efficent enough to put into cars. The only reason the price is so high for america is because the government wont let us use the reserves we have and the green freaks wont let us pull it from the ocean floors.

If water has the chemicals in it to a use as a fuel we would not be making more energy then we used to make it because the energy is already in the water and we didn't make it (we did not make water). If we burn hydrogen we dont say we used more energy to ignite it then we get back from burning hydrogen, do we?

It really comes down to if there is an electrolis technique that is effiecent enough to pull the hydrogen and oxygen (that is in water already) apart and use to create a fuel.

Not creating more enegery then using. using energy that is already there.

Like an engine that generates electricity through the altenator then uses that energy to power a radio, lights, and the big one...ignite the gas and keep it burning.

A diesel engine doesn't even need a spark plug to keep it running, it uses a glow plug. how is that possible!

No laws are being broken here. But, Just because its a scientific law doesn't mean it cant be broken.

Another thing that bugs me. Everyone is scared about hydrogen blowing up. it still needs to be compressed like gass to explode. the stupid hindenburg was built with explosive material and thats why it went up so fast. it did not explode. it was just a ball of flames. i think gas fumes would do the same thing if you caught it on fire.

There is a big difference between oil and water. Oil (even crude) is a fuel, water is not. Look at it this way: at the start of the process you have water. After burning hydrogen the result is water. The energy needs to come from somewhere.
With oil, the result is mostly CO2. The original source of oil, but needing a very long and energy consuming (solar energy, pressure from gravity) process to get there.

To understand, just try to make full circle with any energy "source".

I put source but actually they are mostly methods of transport and storage of energy...

Joa

Originally Posted by pRoFiT

Bugbyte, Come on really. If you pull oil from the ground and convert that to gass then burn it. is that not the same. You took energy to get the oil out of the ground. then you took energy to convert to gasoline. but it is still efficent enough to put into cars.

No, it is not the same. You have to look at the entire cycle. Basically, oil right out of the ground can be used as a fuel. That means its chemical composition permits a ready release of energy -usually in the form of heat, most often through combustion.

The energy and ready chemical composition of that fuel came from the millions of years of plant decay and geologic pressures that turn it into petroleum. Refining that petroleum is straightforward - just use *more* petroleum. It's not a closed system. You add energy to refine crude oil into a higher octane mixture for gasoline.

In the case of electrolysis you are manufacturing your own fuel rather than relying on nature and gravity to provide the energy. That means you have to generate the energy, in the form of electricity. That electricity is generated by your alternator (and stored in your battery) which is powered by...wait for it...the gasoline in your tank.

Effectively, you have an oil powered hydrogen extractor in your car.

Originally Posted by pRoFiT

No laws are being broken here. But, Just because its a scientific law doesn't mean it cant be broken.

Agreed. But scientific laws are derived from theories that are tested through repeated and varied experiments which can prove or disprove the hypothesis they are based on. It doesn't become a law until the scientific community is pretty sure it is true. That's why claiming that the law is wrong requires not only proof, but the claim must be both repeatable and consistent before it can be accepted.

Let's take a different approach. Let's conduct the following thought experiment:

Suppose that the electrolysis process extracts enough hydrogen to provide MORE energy than the gasoline required to power the electrolysis process. Over time, you should be able to store the excess hydrogen and power your car off of more and more hydrogen, right? At a certain point, you would find that you no longer need to fill the tank with gasoline. In fact, you could use the hydrogen that you created from the electrolysis process to power the electrolysis process. The only thing you would need to add more of is water.

Since no one is making that claim, the electrolysis process must create less energy than it uses, thus the conservation of energy law is not broken. The only question to ask oneself at that point is: "how much energy is being added by the hydrogen vs. the energy required to extract it?" Convert that to dollars and there's your savings in gas money.

I have see zero scientifically validated experiments that answer this question. Only opinion and assertion.

Let's pretend, though, that the answer is, "a meaningful amount." Say, it adds 25% to your gas mileage. If that were true, then we should apply this same process to hydrogen fueled vehicles to make them more efficient too, right? By that, I mean we if we had a car that had a hydrogen engine in it and a hydrogen gas tank, we could use some of the hydrogen in the tank to power an electrolysis process that would use water to refill the tank with hydrogen, right? We could probably make it more efficient by capturing the exhaust of the hydrogen engine (water) and not have to carry as much water with us either!

Why don't they do that? Certainly, one of the problems with hydrogen as a fuel is that in order to carry enough of it to have the same range as a gasoline powered automobile, the tanks either have to be huge or you have to compress it and store it as a liquid at temps way below zero. If this process works, it would help increase range and require you to carry less hydrogen.

I suspect the answer is that you simply can't generate meaningful amounts of hydrogen through the electrolysis process. It's better to simply burn the hydrogen directly than to waste it trying to generate more of it. And I think the answer is the same for gasoline powered vehicles, too.

2K1 is right. The best bet for cars is to figure out how to store electricity. We can figure out all kinds of ways to generate electricity without oil. If we want to use that electricity to extract hydrogen, that's great, but we shouldn't think of it as an 'efficient' process. It is probably more efficient to put the electricity to work directly.

You guys are just jealous.

Originally Posted by Tidder

You guys are just jealous.

I know I am... I want to be able to break the law of conservation of energy too like all these people.

Anyone see the electro magnetic engine that is self sustaining? Hmm i cant find it.

Damn Check this one out, i dont know but if possible this would be sweet.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5z8L4LBJE&feature=related[/media]

Or this EVM technology. an electric motor outputting kilowatts of free energy? 40% more power out then needed to run.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDeXTXYFKAY&feature=related[/media]

This first one would be great. i would have to see it in person. The second one would be nice for the house. no more electric bill.

I know water and oil are not the same. but they both have the capabilities to be used for energy.