anybody tried hydrogen generation?

[mechman600]

I am amazed this topic still comes up.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by mechman600

I am amazed this topic still comes up.

...to paraphrase the old 'Peter Principle' business addage:

"...they rise to their level of idiocy..."

[SOUL-DRIFTER]

Originally Posted by Ryland

cost of running a generator to produce electricity is 5 times that of electricity from a wall outlet and my figures to produce enough hydrogen to replace a gallon of gasoline, figuring that it takes 240 watts to produce a liter of hydrogen and that it takes 1352 liters or hydrogen to equal a gallon of gasoline and my electrical costs are $0.12 per KWH it would cost me $37.30 at home to produce enough hydrogen to replace a gallon of gasoline, or it would cost $186.50 if I was using my cars alternator to power a hydrogen generator, I've made hydrogen at home and I've made hydrogen using a small industrial fuel cell hydrogen generator and those figures look pretty accurate, that is why if you buy a bottle of hydrogen from a welding supply shop, it's extracted from natural gas, extracting it from water costs to much!

Then how did Stan Meyers do it?
If he wasn't using hydrogen and was duping everybody...how so?

[t vago]

Originally Posted by SOUL-DRIFTER

Then how did Stan Meyers do it?
If he wasn't using hydrogen and was duping everybody...how so?

You explain that to us.

It's already been shown, time and time again, how much it would cost to make enough hydrogen to be considered equivalent to a gallon of gas. The base figures are easily available on the internet.

It's up to the true believers to show how a single person was somehow able to make some hare-brained scheme work, when many thousands of others could not do so, given the same materials and information.

[SOUL-DRIFTER]

A cop out explanation, double talk...figures.
So I assume then that you and others take the position that your assertions are absolutes and anything else is absolutely impossible.
News flash...there are many possibilities and anyone who thinks they know it all is absolutely wrong.
Just because the popular method to produce hydrogen takes lots of energy does not PROVE that cheaper ways can still be found or have not been used by a few such as Stan perhaps.
Dead end thinking is not at all conducive to innovation....

[Air-Hybrid]

Originally Posted by SOUL-DRIFTER

A cop out explanation, double talk...figures.
....

All t_vago is gently trying to point out, I believe, is that Scientists (by which I mean all who follow the rational path from an idea[theory] to bench-testing[experiment] to data-gathering[measurement] to Proof) are following the principles of Empiricism that have served humankind pretty darn well for centuries ... Finding the proof has always lain on the side of the experimenter, design-engineer or backyard tinkerer, so get out of the dark ages.

And, no, there's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind, but that's no reason to turn it into an open sewer; ie. let any old s**t flow in there because it suits your, uhum, world view.


Site Mods, don't you have a tool to merge all this HHO BS into one easily avoidable pile?

[Ryland]

People have been looking for more efficient ways to produce hydrogen for over 100 years, so when someone claims that they made a brake through that brakes the laws of physics it's common for it to be chalanged like was the case with Stan Meyers and in 1996, while it was still alive, he was found to be a fraud, but he also patented what he was doing, now patents are not proof that something works but are more so a copy right on an idea and a big part of patents is that they become part of public record and that they have to be clear enough that they can be reproduced by someone with an understanding in the area of the patented idea, in other words if you look up his patents you should be able to reproduce what he did, if of course you try to sell what you build then you are infringing on the patents, but you are free to build as many as you want for your self and your own use!
But the math says it doesn't work, reviews of what he did say it didn't work, laws of physics say it doesn't work and no one who has tried to reproduce what he did has been able to show proof that it does work.
Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Air-Hybrid

Site Mods, don't you have a tool to merge all this HHO BS into one easily avoidable pile?

You are knee-deep in it right now.

[user removed]

Originally Posted by mechman600

I am amazed this topic still comes up.

It comes up because people who can not understand the physics believe their is some way they can alter the laws of physics.

A liter pf pure hydrogen contains the same amount of energy (btus) as 1.5 wooden matches. How long do you think that amount of energy would keep a modern engine idling? Probably not even 1 second, but let the believers do the research.

Remember that Browns gas is mostly oxygen, which is not a fuel and contains no energy. The majority of your energy spent separating the hydrogen from the oxygen produces no energy whatsoever.

regards
Mech

[max_frontal_area]

has anyone on EM or any other place experimented with on vehicle (while driving) hydrogen generation simply to supplement the main fuel -gas, diesel, whatever? are there any numbers for such experiments?
secondly on the same vehicle(s) has pre-generated hydrogen been supplemented at the same rate. are there any numbers for that?