Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 209 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by Marchimedes
Today at 02:35 AM
Do we have a moderator?
by Marchimedes
Today at 02:25 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Marchimedes 2
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#33900 - 04/10/10 12:50 AM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100

Quote:

I have thought of building a HHO engine but I am still figuring out all of the different efficientcies that can be built into it as I am not designing an engine that runs on a product but one that runs on water alone.


What efficiency are you aiming for? Increase from 10% to 15%? 20%? That's nowhere near the >100% required.


Quote:

with a little salt or some other additive to increase the conductiveness of the water that only needs to be added

I've made a small HHO generator once, and adding salt did spectacularly increase the output rate. But it also spectacularly increased the power consumption: P=V^2/R

Quote:

I believe it will work as I believe that 1 + 2 = 3

A few years ago I found a giant gold nugget in the forest. It would have been worth millions of dollars. It was too big to dig out by hand and I didn't have a spade so I just left it there. It was at 3943'15.08"N, 10447'39.76"W and if I'm ever in the neighborhood I'll pick it up. Can't afford the airfare at the moment tho. I hope somebody else can find it so it doesn't go to waste just laying in the dirt.

Apart from the unlikely find, do you see a problem with my behavior in this story? This is analogous to the people writing those no-fuel generator websites. Why don't they bother taking the last few steps to get the huge payoff?


Quote:

using your energy out = < energy in method ?

Not sure about the universe, but it is extremely useful all over the place. Eg. I expect a 2000W heater to make twice as much heat as a 1000W heater. Why? Because the heat output is equal to the 1000/2000W electrical input. Power in = power out. Seems trivial but wouldn't you be suprised to find that the lower wattage heater produced more heat, while costing less on the power bill?

Quote:

900 litres of displaced water at 100 ft depth would probably get all or more of your (energy in ) back before you begin the (energy out) process.

You answered that yourself. The higher pressure underwater means it requires more energy to generate the HHO.

Similarly the reason that using vacuum isn't amazing is because it requires a vacuum pump that must continually use energy. Even if it's the engine, it's still using energy sucking gas through a pressure difference. That's energy that could have gone into the crankshaft. Don't believe me? Using a carburetted car, try repeatedly stomping on the brakes while the engine's idling. The booster uses up so much vacuum that the revs drop. Well it did for me, YMMV.


I'm still waiting for you to build it. Remember the rewards - richer than God, the new Einstein, Nobel prize, end global warming, end food shortages, prevent oil shortage, stop pollution, improve everybody's life. With that kind of motivation I don't know where you find the time to talk to people on message boards.

Top
.
#33902 - 04/10/10 12:41 PM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Kallog

there would be no increased pressures at the 100 ft depth that would interfere with HHO production because as the HHO is being produced at the bottom inside a closed container and the HHO is being directed out of the container at the bottom for use as a fuel and water is being fed by gravity into a previously emptied container at the top of the wheel , the electrolisis that occurs inside the containers would not be affectd by the pressures outside of the containers.

this would not cost any additional energy for the production of HHO however there would be additional energy produced by the torque of the wheel as it spins due to the buoyancy of the emptied containers.

so what you end up with is an overbalanced wheel that can produce more energy than is required to produce the HHO and you still have the HHO to use as a fuel.

now about that nobel prize.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#33904 - 04/11/10 02:46 AM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
How exactly does it work?

Are you using the bouyancy of HHO in air to help lift the empty buckets back up to the top of a traditional water wheel? Then you burn the HHO at the top as well as the additional HHO at the bottom too?

I think nobel prizes are only given to people who make useful contributions to the world. There have been a million and 1 ideas for perpetual motion, and not one has ever done any good. So you have to build a working model, demonstrate it to a few people, along with enough information for them to build their own, then the floodgates are open. Then comes the prize.

Top
#33906 - 04/11/10 03:25 PM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Kallog

Quote:
Are you using the bouyancy of HHO in air to help lift the empty buckets back up to the top of a traditional water wheel? Then you burn the HHO at the top as well as the additional HHO at the bottom too?


yes I use the buoyancy to lift the containers back to the top.

no its not a traditional water wheel type wheel.

the HHO is piped away from the containers both at the bottom and as water fills the container at the top.

I havent built this part yet.
I am still thinking of ways to improve on the overall system.

the wheel is an oblong wheel that is taller than it is wide.

picture two large gears and a chain one above the other and seperated by any distance you choose.

the distance is the deciding factor here.

the taller the oblong wheel the more empty containers on one side of the oblong wheel.

the containers are connected to the chain.
and spaced apart so that as the containers are emptied of water and replaced by HHO the gasses are piped out of the system.

as one container approaches the bottom , the container at the bottom is leaving the point where the HHO gasses are extracted from the water.

the electricity is delivered by contacts at the bottom to one container at a time.

the container at the bottom then releases the HHO gasses through the pipe system.

it is now buoyant to the extent of the amount of water that has converted to HHO.

the buoyancy of the emptied container and all of the emptied containers above it depending on the number of emptied containers above it will decide the amount of shaft torque that is available to produce energy.

so if each container holds 1 cu/meter of water or 1000 litres of water.

and each container is a 1 metre cube for instance the weight of each container would be 1000 kg or 2,204 lbs.

if you have 100 of these containers on each side of the oblong wheel and on one side there are 100 emptied containers the buoyant force of the 100 emptied containers
would be 100,000 kgf or 220,204 lbf
at the periphery of the gears or where the chain contacts the gears.

the center of the containers would need to be at least 2 meters away from the center of the gears so the shaft torque to a 10 cm dia shaft would be a ratio of 200 - 10
or 1,000,000 kgf or 2.204 million lbf

so there is plenty of torque to convert the slow moving rotation and high torque of the oblong wheel into a faster moving rotation and lower torque of a electric generator.

I used the sizes above for explanation purposes but a large one such as this could make a good power plant for industrial purposes.

the unit could be made as tall as the amount of electrcity you need or the amount of HHO you need as the amount of HHO you can get is only limited to height and lenght of the containers and number of containers , Im sure there are a number of configurations that could be used to accomplish any desired requirement of HHO production.

at the top where the water is being piped into the containers again there is a similar mechanism that connects piping to the containers to fill the container with water , water is not taken from the water that is being used to provide the buoyancy of the containers and this water that provides the buoyancy effect could be pressurized to provide even greater upward force.

the water that is used to fill the containers is comming from the water that is comming out of the exhaust of the engine that the HHO is directed to.

and that engine could power a massive generator or several.
it just depends on how much electricity you want !!!


Quote:
I think nobel prizes are only given to people who make useful contributions to the world. There have been a million and 1 ideas for perpetual motion, and not one has ever done any good. So you have to build a working model, demonstrate it to a few people, along with enough information for them to build their own, then the floodgates are open. Then comes the prize.


Im not really concerned with a nobel prize , besides if someone actually tries to keep something like this a secret long enought to build a working model and to attain a patent on it , he might get the usual high velocity lead prize that so many others have probably recieved in honor of their contributions to mankind.

and there are already so many people working on this HHO stuff in their garages and workshops already this added buoyancy effect energy might just help them along in their work.

it would be a great tool to use in a discussion or a debate as to the negative comments always made about the HHO requiring more energy in than you could ever get out.

the tables have just turned on those debates.




_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#33912 - 04/12/10 06:07 AM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
There's a difference in ambient pressure between the top and bottom. That's needed to make bouyancy work. So you're using more electric energy creating HHO at the bottom than you would at the top. But you're using it at the top. So ignoring the energy taken from bouyancy, you'd use less energy generating it at the top where it's used. After you recover some of it from bouyancy, it probably gets back towards even, as if you'd done nothing.

It doesn't matter how popular these things are on the internet, none of them have been shown to actually work. Maybe because they don't work, or maybe because the people writing the websites don't appreciate the magnitude of their claims, so they don't bother providing the much stronger evidence they need to persuade anyone. The only way is to demonstrate a working model in real life. Not on the internet, but in your own garage, or in a lab, to real people, and allow them to test whatever they like - at your expense.

Remember there have been millions of small improvements to the efficiency of engines, generators, etc. But despite these improvements, not one machine has ever been shown to violate the laws of thermodynamics in even the tiniest way. You're saying you can make similar little tweaks, but your tweaks will somehow violate the laws of thermodynamics. Don't think nobody's tried bouyancy on a water wheel, or a conveyor instead of a wheel. Even the motor->generator->HHO->motor loop has of course been attempted many times, with no known successes. These kinds of ideas are as old as the hills and have never ever been shown to do anything inconsistent with our current theories, let alone the larger deviations required for perpetual motion.

You're worried somebody will get shot if they patent such a thing??!!?! After it's patented the cat's out of the bag. Nobody can put the cork back in. That's just an unfounded excuse.

The only useful tool to combat negative comments about HHO is a WORKING MODEL!! But somehow nobody can quite manage to do more than talk about it.

Top
#33913 - 04/12/10 03:33 PM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Kallog

Quote:
There's a difference in ambient pressure between the top and bottom. That's needed to make bouyancy work. So you're using more electric energy creating HHO at the bottom than you would at the top.


the inside of the containers are not subject to the water pressures outside of the containers.

the container itself will not implode due to pressures outside of the container if it is built strong enough to withstand the highest pressures that it would be subjected to.

the water inside the containers will only be subjected to atmospheric pressures or the vacume that is supplied by the carburetion of the engine used to burn the hydrogen.

if you tie the end of a water hose to a plastic bag , then insert two electric wires
(that have the ends stripped of insulation)
through the water hose , then fill the plastic bag full of water , and sink this in a swimmng pool , then yes the underwater pressures would require more electricty to convert water into HHO.

but if you use a metal container or a continer that would not bend under pressure under water then the same amount of electricity would be required as if the conversion from water to HHO were being done in an open container above the water.

Im sure you know this as you say you have some engineering experience.

think of a submarine they go thousands of feet under water
but the people inside the submarine are living in atmospheric pressures inside the submarine.

for an example the outside skin of a submarine at a depth of 3000 ft will be apx 1300 psi while a sailor inside the submarine can drink a glass of water at 14.7 psi or 1 atm.

Quote:
After it's patented the cat's out of the bag.


with something like this the cat might live longer if you let it out of the bag before you attempt a patent , otherwise the bag and the cat might end up in a storage area somewhere along with all the other cats in the bag.


here is an example of someone who uploaded a video to youtube about usng the buyoancy of hho to gain the lost energy back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2ZDmotdwpc

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#33918 - 04/12/10 10:40 PM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul

the inside of the containers are not subject to the water pressures outside of the containers.

Then you have to use energy evacuating it. I've already explained that vacuum energy from the engine intake consumes fuel. So does any vacuum pump. If you had a source of free vacuum power that was otherwise wasted, you could simply drive a generator with it directly.


Quote:

for an example the outside skin of a submarine at a depth of 3000 ft will be apx 1300 psi while a sailor inside the submarine can drink a glass of water at 14.7 psi or 1 atm.


That's beside the point. What's relevent is the sailor can't go for a piss over the side. To do so requires a lot of energy to pump fluid from the low internal pressure to the high external pressure.




here is an example of someone who uploaded a video to youtube about usng the buyoancy of hho to gain the lost energy back.

He's generating the gas at high pressure, so we know why that doesn't work. If he did it in an atmospheric container that moves up and down, he'd have to use a huge force pushing the empty container back to the bottom. If he fills it with water at the top and lets it sink, then drains the water out, then fills it with gas that could work. But he has to keep topping up the main vessel which of course requires a pump.


"I have set this idea to the side to work on ideas involving sterling engines to power cars."
As usual. Why do these people all have an extreme lack of motivation to finish their projects? Don't they know the future of the planet is in their hands? Would you really walk away from the million dollar gold nugget because you got distracted by a pretty butterfly? But that doesn't matter, he hasn't got a working model so his ideas are as worthless as the millions of other perpetual motion machines that've been proposed but never worked.

Top
#33919 - 04/12/10 11:56 PM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Kallog

Quote:
Then you have to use energy evacuating it. I've already explained that vacuum energy from the engine intake consumes fuel. So does any vacuum pump. If you had a source of free vacuum power


well if the buoyants dont produce enough energy then all you have to do is add more buoyants / containers , its that simple.

I know your brain is rejecting this as this is not what you have been taught , but its what is and theres plenty of time to relearn the wrong stuff the right way.

otherwise before long you will be trying to say that the coriolis effect would be why it wont work , then it would be the alignment of the planets or any straw you could pick.

Quote:
If he fills it with water at the top and lets it sink, then drains the water out, then fills it with gas that could work. But he has to keep topping up the main vessel which of course requires a pump.


that idea he has wouldnt work because he is not using a sealed container.
he is using a lever at the top which could avoid the need for a wheel as he could pressurize hydraulic fluid to turn a hydraulic motor to turn a generator.
he just needs to figure out how to get the HHO out at the bottom without subjecting the water inside the container to the water pressure at the bottom.


water expands 1800 times when converting water into HHO gasses so in the example I put up with the 1 cu metre containers the 1 cu/metre would expand to 1800 cu/metres of HHO.

but the example could be scaled down to 1 litre per container.
because the experimenters are working with 1 litre HHO measurements this way someone might build a working model
to determine the height that a unit would need to be
and post it on youtube for others to see.

determine how much energy your HHO generator looses during HHO production then find a generator to generate that much energy plus apx 25% then determine the generator requirements for rpm and H.P.and build from there.

number of 1 litre buoyant containers x the buoyant force of a 1 litre container to find the force needed to be applied to the chain or gears.

my point was to clarify that HHO production can be paid for in a simple to understand process.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#33927 - 04/13/10 11:38 AM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul

Well if the buoyants dont produce enough energy then all you have to do is add more buoyants / containers , its that simple.

If one bouyant doesn't produce enough energy to make up for filling/emptying itself, then adding more will only compound the problem.


Quote:

otherwise before long you will be trying to say that the coriolis effect would be why it wont work , then it would be the alignment of the planets or any straw you could pick.


Again you're ignoring the significance of this claim. It's not something to waste time arguing about. If you're right then you better quit your job, sell your house, commit everything in your life to building one ASAP. The benefits are too huge to imagine, and will easily repay any investment you might put into it. But you aren't doing that, so you know it probably can't work.


Quote:

my point was to clarify that HHO production can be paid for in a simple to understand process.

The only way to clarify that is to build it. It really is pretty simple. I mentioned I built an HHO generator once. It was harder for me because I wanted to separate the H2 and the O so I had to spend $10 or so on garden hose connectors and plastic tubes. This is trivially easy stuff! Just go and do it!


Anyway! I actually can't solve this problem. Here's a picture of what I imagine after combining your description with convenient bits of the youtube video. Any idea why it won't work?

Open the image in a new window if it's too small.

Top
#33930 - 04/13/10 01:38 PM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Kallog

in your image it looks like you are fillig the container at the bottom , and extracting the buoyant energy as it rises upwards to the top , then filling it with water and sinking it , then at the bottom you would need to let the water out again in order to put more gasses in.

this wont work because you would need to pump that amount of water back into the resouvior.

in my example the water is turned into HHO inside the container then the HHO is fed out of the system to the engine.

and in my example you dont fill the container from the water in the resouvior to cause it to sink again.

this way you dont need to pump water into the resouvior as in your example and the example in the video.

it does not use the buoyancy of all of the HHO it only uses whats left in the container after the electrolisis
process is completed.


Quote:
If one bouyant doesn't produce enough energy to make up for filling/emptying itself, then adding more will only compound the problem.


if I have a rope that has a 1 lb weight tied at the end of it and threw the end with the weight into the ocean.

and you were holding the other end , and you jump into the ocean , and I was going to tie 1 more 10 lb weight to the end dangling in the ocean every minute at which point would you ask me to stop.

because every time I tie on another weight to the rope
you must supply the force to keep yourself afloat.

if the rope has only 1 lb of weight on it you need to supply a constant force of 1 lb to keep you from sinking.

but if the rope has only 100 lb of weight on it you need to supply a constant force of 100 lb to keep you from sinking.

so adding more buoyants does make a difference and since you are only emptying 1 container at a time , the more empty containers the more force they will supply to pay for the energy you use to make the HHO.

for instance a 1 litre container has a buoyant force of
2.2 lbs
2 = 4.4 lbs
4 = 8.8 lbs
10 = 20.20 lbs

remember constant force.

the energy reqired to make 1 litre of HHO a minute at the bottom will never change.

but the amount of energy you can recover with the buoyants will increase with every added container.




_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#33932 - 04/13/10 11:27 PM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
No, I let it fill with air at the top. That's why it says "air" :P It sinks because air is heavier than HHO and the container is carefully balanced to be bouyant with HHO and sinking with air.

I think it's the same as your idea. I just drew the HHO generator outside, but it could have been electrodes in the container itself. Neither is ever subjected to the water pressure at the bottom of the main vessel.

There's no pumping of water or gas. The air just drifts out at the bottom as it's displaced by HHO, and drifts in at the top as the HHO is used by the generator. You could have a membrane to keep the two gasses seperated.

You could also generate excess HHO at the bottom and burn off what doesn't fit in the container, driving the generator. But you may as well burn it at the top because there's HHO in the container when it gets to the top. Also, the less burning you do, the more siginficant any bouyancy power becomes by comparison.

Top
#33933 - 04/14/10 01:39 AM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Kallog

I couldnt read any of the writting sorry.

the containers at the top in your design would sink as they are counterballanced by the containers on the opposite side.

and the extra buoyancy you would have would only be the difference of the weight of the HHO as it goes up and the weight of the air as it goes down.

still thats cutting it pretty close and you need energy to open and close valves etc.

but its interesting just not practical.

1 litre of water can be converted into HHO in 1 hour using 2.34 watts of electricity.
1 (cu foot) = 28.3168466 litres

if I used 1 cu/ft containers in my example the energy to convert 1 cu/ft of water into HHO gasses would be
2.34 watts x 29 hours = 67 watt hours.

http://www.convertunits.com/from/foot-pounds/to/watts+second

to regain this energy I would need to generate 49 ft/lbs
using the buoyancy of the container.

1 cu/ft of water has a weight of 62.4 lbs
and the empty container has an upward force of 62.4 lbs
if I allow it to rise for 1 foot
it would generate 62.4 ft/lbs

but then theres valves and resistance and such so we could let it rise for 2 feet.

then we will probably be using a inefficient modern product somewhere where every bit of the efficiency has been designed out , so we should opt for 3 feet.

I think your catchin on to the idea prety well.
you might want to keep it to yourself when at work
because it could cause problems.

but your off time is yours as I see it.

who knows you might be the first to upload a video to youtube that explains this stuff.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#33936 - 04/14/10 10:23 AM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul
Kallog

I couldnt read any of the writting sorry.

Open the picture with right-click or download it/etc. It's much bigger than in the forum. I think you got completely the wrong idea.

Quote:

still thats cutting it pretty close and you need energy to open and close valves etc.

That's effectively zero, not doing any work.

Quote:

but its interesting just not practical.

Practicalities are unimportant. If it works in theory, that's already a breakthrough.

Quote:

1 cu/ft of water has a weight of 62.4 lbs
and the empty container has an upward force of 62.4 lbs
if I allow it to rise for 1 foot
it would generate 62.4 ft/lbs

How do you get the container back to the bottom for another cycle? As you said, can't fill it with water. Can't push it down with the bouyancy of another container or that one won't be generating energy.

Quote:

you might want to keep it to yourself when at work
because it could cause problems.

I already know my design won't work. I know from applying the law of conservation of energy. I just don't know where the energy is lost, it's not obvious to me.

Top
#33942 - 04/14/10 04:51 PM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Kallog


I have a image upload account now so it should be
much easier to explain things.

clicking on the below image should open a new window
where 4 images can be viewed to better understand how
the container would sink again.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#33963 - 04/15/10 12:50 PM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
I see.

I think the engine must be located at the top of the main tank. Otherwise the water exhaust will have to be pumped up to refill the container - wasting any bouyancy energy you recover.

This might be where the problem is. The HHO generated at the bottom has to climb up to the top. It won't float up because there's no air flowing back into the container to displace it. The energy needed to 'pump' the entire containerful of water (in HHO form) up to the generator is no less than the energy you can recover from the bouyancy.

Top
#33965 - 04/15/10 03:14 PM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Kallog

Quote:
I think the engine must be located at the top of the main tank. Otherwise the water exhaust will have to be pumped up to refill the container - wasting any bouyancy energy you recover.


exactly. we wouldnt want to build all this just to remove
the efficiencies by pumping water uphill.

Quote:
This might be where the problem is. The HHO generated at the bottom has to climb up to the top. It won't float up because there's no air flowing back into the container to displace it. The energy needed to 'pump' the entire containerful of water (in HHO form) up to the generator is no less than the energy you can recover from the bouyancy.


the vacume of the engine supplies the power to pull the HHO
up to the engine.

in a internal combustion gas engine the vacume is used to pull the heavy liquid gasoline up into the cylinder.

HHO is much lighter than the heavy gasoline fuel.

even if there was no vacume pulling the HHO up to the engine
the HHO being generated in the container at the bottom would generate plenty of pressure to just push the HHO through the pipe to the engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfk8jXVUF34

remember the pipes cross sectional area x the lenght of the pipe
to the engine would contain the amount of HHO that would need to be pumped.

if its 5 ft tall and the pipe is 1/2 inch dia inside then

((.5 / 2) ^2 * pi) * (12 * 5) = 46.8 cu/inches

0.78 x 60 = 46.8 cu/inches

if you go outside and hold your hand out you will have
all the air from your hand to outer space sitting on top of it.

which delivers a pressure of 14.7 psi to your hand , but you dont
feel it.

neither would the container !!!

and HHO is lighter than air !!










_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#33966 - 04/16/10 03:28 AM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Kallog

wow what a mistake.

Quote:
1 litre of water can be converted into HHO in 1 hour using 2.34 watts of electricity.
1 (cu foot) = 28.3168466 litres

if I used 1 cu/ft containers in my example the energy to convert 1 cu/ft of water into HHO gasses would be
2.34 watts x 29 hours = 67 watt hours.


I dont know if you caught that mistake or not but the above is wrong.

it should have been 1 litre of HHO gasses can be converted in 1 hour using 2.34 watts.

so the 1 cu/ft container would expand to 1800 cu/ft.

there are 28.31 litres in 1 cu/ft so lets rework the math.
so to convert the entire 1 cu/ft of water into HHO

2.34 watts x 1 hour = 2.34 watt hours

2.34 watts x (28.31 x 1800 hours) = ? watts

2.34 watts x 50958 hours = 119241.72 Watt hours
or
119 kWh in 2123 days.

thats a long time.

...

I found that 1 watt is equal to 44.253 ft-lbf/minute

so the target here is 119,241 watts hours

obviously it wont take 2123 days for the 1 cu/ft container
to rise to the top of the tank.

now how far up would a single 62.4 lb container have to travel to produce that much energy in 1 hour?

well if it travels 1 foot in 1 minute it will exert
62.4 lbf x 1 foot = 62.4 ft-lbf/minute.

but lets say it travels the entire distance in 1 minute.

now what is the distance?

well 62.4 ft-lbf/minute = 1.41005 watts.

so I divide 119,241 watts by 1.41005 = 84565 ft

62.4 lbs x 84565 ft = 5276856 ft-lbs

5276856 ft-lbf/minute converts to 119 kW

thats 16 miles !!!!!

it would have to be traveling 960 mph to go that far in
1 minute.

so I suppose using a 1 cu/ft container is not a good idea.
and using only 1 container for recovering the energy in
HHO production by using the buoyant energy is also not a good idea.


.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#33967 - 04/16/10 05:07 AM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
I have to admit I kind of phased out when I saw those confusing units. But the jist of it is what matters. Even if it needs 16 miles and 900miles/hr, that's just a practical problem. It won't stop this being a revolutionary breakthrough.

Top
#33968 - 04/16/10 05:23 AM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
If you use the vacuum of the engine, then you're losing power. Even if it somehow doesn't reduce the engine's efficiency, that vacuum could be utilised driving a generator itself.

The HHO is still generated at a higher pressure because it's at the bottom of a column of fluid. Doesn't matter if it's HHO, air, water, mercury, helium, or whatever, it's still got density, so it still applies a pressure.

I thought that air could be allowed to fill the container and pipe while it's generating. Then as HHO appears, it 'bubbles' up the pipe through the air. But that means you have the even higher pressure of a column of air for the generator to work against.

And the bar has been raised. I found that industrial scale hydrogen electrolisis plants only have about 80% efficiency, although they do produce compressed gas, so that might account for some of it. Also, apparently the theoretical maximum efficiency is something like 94%. To get that you also need a 100% efficient engine (miles above the theoretical upper limit), and you need to recover the thermal energy present in the exhaust steam - ie you have to condense the exhaust into water, extract the heat and run another generator with it. There's an even lower theoretical upper limit on that efficiency because the exhaust is at a lower temperature than burning HHO.

Fuel cells are more efficient than combustion engines. So why not use one of them? Not that i'll help because it's still constrained to much less than 100%.

Top
#33969 - 04/16/10 02:39 PM Re: Harnessing the power of the sun [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Kallog

Quote:
If you use the vacuum of the engine, then you're losing power. Even if it somehow doesn't reduce the engine's efficiency, that vacuum could be utilised driving a generator itself.

The HHO is still generated at a higher pressure because it's at the bottom of a column of fluid. Doesn't matter if it's HHO, air, water, mercury, helium, or whatever, it's still got density, so it still applies a pressure.


Yes! I see your points there , and also the viscosity of the fluid as it travels upwards inside the pipe would detract a portion of energy which would result in a loss in overall system efficiency.

even the humidity of the atmosphere where the engine is placed
could cause undue stresses to the vacume that would cause a fluctuation in vacume pressures seen at the container at the bottom resulting in abnormal HHO prduction.

and when the moon passes overhead the increase gravitation would
greatly vary the pressures presented to the bottom container and cause a substantual increase in amounts of HHO production so care should be taken when determining a location for an instalation.

Quote:
I thought that air could be allowed to fill the container and pipe while it's generating. Then as HHO appears, it 'bubbles' up the pipe through the air. But that means you have the even higher pressure of a column of air for the generator to work against.


I agree , and the air would have to burrow itself into the pipe
through the rising HHO and this would require even more energy to push the air into the pipe , im not sure how this could be done perhaps if the air were electrically charged this way the air would flow into the pipe.


Quote:
And the bar has been raised. I found that industrial scale hydrogen electrolisis plants only have about 80% efficiency, although they do produce compressed gas, so that might account for some of it. Also, apparently the theoretical maximum efficiency is something like 94%. To get that you also need a 100% efficient engine (miles above the theoretical upper limit), and you need to recover the thermal energy present in the exhaust steam - ie you have to condense the exhaust into water, extract the heat and run another generator with it. There's an even lower theoretical upper limit on that efficiency because the exhaust is at a lower temperature than burning HHO.

Fuel cells are more efficient than combustion engines. So why not use one of them? Not that i'll help because it's still constrained to much less than 100%.



80% efficent is pretty good considering all the negatives
involved , which process do they use , are they using membranes
or electrolysis or steam passing , or chemical.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.