Posted on 05/13/2006 7:14:51 AM PDT by Neville72
Take a look a this amazing news report on the local Fox Channel 26 in Clearwater, Florida on local inventor, Denny Klein and his water powered citting /welding torches and HHO/gas hybrid car.
Video on the technology:
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/BrownsGas/WaterFuel.wmv
Amazing stuff at first glance. I'd love to hear some of our Freeper energy experts weigh in on the potential of this.
FYI
11-27-2005
Clearwater Man Puts Technology To Work
Tampa Bay Online ^ | 11/27/2005 | WILL RODGERS
Posted on 11/27/2005 9:53:37 AM EST by wjersey
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529266/posts
[snip]
This 'inventor' is infringing on Yull Brown's U.S. Patent (U.S. Patent 4081656, 1978) for Brown's Gas. Hope he has a good lawyer.
18 posted on 11/27/2005 10:33:25 AM EST by AmericaUnited
Brown's patent can be found at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=15&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1=4081656&OS=4081656&RS=4081656
21 posted on 11/27/2005 10:38:10 AM EST by NewHampshireDuo
This is a good link for more info: http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm
Also at this one we see that guy has ripped off other's technology: http://www.watertorch.com/links/links1.html
32 posted on 11/27/2005 11:08:20 AM EST by AmericaUnited
How can two H and one O combine and NOT be water? Oxygen has two hooks, hydrogen has one hook. THere's only one configuration for them to hook up.
Under normal temperature/pressure conditions, gaseous hydrogen and Oxygen are both diatomic. That is, they exist in nature as stable molecules H2 and O2. These "stable" gases can coexist in proportions that would form water without actually doing so. It takes a "spark" of energy to blast at least a few molecules of hydrogen and oxygen out of their diatomic state, whereupon they'd be free to recombine as H2O, and releasing MORE energy than what was required as input in the original spark. This, of course, sets off a chain reaction throughout the mixture until all the hydrogen and oxygen are combined.
As near as I can figure, this Clearwater "genius" must be using some highly insulated, temperature/pressure controlled storage vessel to prevent the mixture from combusting. And may also be using weird temperature/pressure conditions to hold the H and O in their unstable monatomic states.
Pretty nifty engineering, if that's what he's doing. But I'd prefer viewing any demonstration from at least a mile away.
39 posted on 11/27/2005 11:52:16 AM EST by Willie Green
Actually it does mention use of their system as the only fuel, but they don't seem to have reduced that to practice yet.
What it appears that they are doing is increasing the efficiency of the overall system, over pure gasoline or diesel. The energy to produce their "gas" which may be monomolecular hydrogen, not H2, clearly comes from the burning of the composite fuel. They claim a horsepower increase of 17 HP, and estimate the system to produce their "HH0" gas eats up about 4 HP of that. Thus what they must be doing is increasing the overall efficiency of converting gasoline (or JP-4 in the case of a Humvee) to mechanical horsepower. Not magic, but worthwhile.
Gallon equivalent not gallon. The comparison is the amount of hydrogen needed to get the same energy, or horsepower hours if you will, as a gallon of gasoline.
I encourage everyone who finds this report credible to invest heavily in it.
I won't be.
1) Used in a car the gas combusts and emits water vapor as the only effluent in its exhaust.It's also high protein feed for farm animals, a powerful explosive, insulation for low-income housing, and a top-notch engine coolant.
2) A solid-state refrigeration unit in which temperature could instantly be changed with no freon or other refrigeration chemicals.
3) A room heater fueled with the gas will carbonize a strip of paper held near it but not create flames or smoke.
4) Used in an acetylene torch it singed hairs from a welder's forearm but didn't burn the skin.
5) Flame from this gas can glaze concrete thus rendering it impervious to acids and other corrosives and greatly extending the concrete's useful lifespan.
6) The gas when burned does not explode but implodes. "An intriguing situation arises when a volume of Brown's Gas is detonated because the contraction in that volume which occurs is revolutionary in character. Of an order of 1,860:1, the contraction can be defined as an implosion, as opposed to an explosion." 1979
7) When heating water in an iron basin using a torch if applied only to the water barely raises its temperature even after long exposure. The flame applied to the bottom of the basin raises the temperature of the metal so high, and so instantly, that the water boils away almost in the blink of an eye. When directed at a brick under the surface of the water, however, the flame can heat the brick as easily as though the brick was not water covered.
8) Steel, after treatment with the flame, is much more impervious to rust and before treatment. 9) The flame can fuse plastic to titantium.
10) Directing the flame at Cobalt-60 radiation was reduced by 70% in the sample.
11) Directing the flame at Americium the radiation was reduced 100%.
"Water don't burn"
No, but it sort of seems like it oughtta, too. We drink liquid rocket fuel if you stop and think about it. *burp*
Seems he rams tubing in the posteriors of each animal in his trailer, ties the tubing into a collector box and siphons the collected gas into the engine.
The livestock are fed high fiber feed prior to the trip and have CNN and the Highlights of Bill and Hillary's Excellent Adventure on flat screens in the trailer.
/ sarc
I've been talking about this for years. Thought it up after 8th grade science class in 1983
Sounds like a great idea if someone can come up with the idea of inventing a hydrogen-producing machine. Ah, but the oil companies, auto companies or govt would buy up the technology faster that a person can say "snap".
But mostly, it is a con, by con men..
http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm
Read some of the criticisms for yourself, especially " Does Brown's Gas Implode ? " and others...
You will quickly see that it's not mysterious, not special, it's just hydrogen and oxygen, and it takes more energy to create "brown's gas" than you'll ever get out of it..
To even consider it as an alternative fuel is foolish..
To promote it is dishonest, possibly illegal.. ( fraud )
Brown's Gas is a con, and the guy promoting this water fuel is a fraud and a con man..
"Hydrogen has much less energy density than gas so even at $3 a gallon equivelant it's still more expensive."
Yes, hydrogen has much less energy per gallon than gasoline.
But the GE article was based on mass, not volume.
1 kg of hydrogen has more energy than 1 kg of gasoline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16523&ch=biztech
Prediction is for a hydrogen cost equivalent to $3/gal gasoline
What would you expect from a company that makes Power Plants?
You can make H2 for way less than the equivalent of $3/gallon and not use electrolysis. You make it from *gasp* Fossil Fuels.
The very same fossil fuels that will be powering the generators that would be making $3/gallon equivalent hydrogen through electrolysis.
Ping
Yes, getting hydrogen from methane or other hydrocarbons is easier than electrolysis of water.
Just don't want the leftover carbon going into the air as CO or CO2. (defeats the purpose of hydrogen combustion). Otherwise we could just burn the hydrocarbons directly.
How Far Can You Drive On A Bushel Of Corn?
There are two links on page 1, the first is an HTML file that illustrates cost & performance of alternative fuels & gasoline/ethanol..
The 2nd is a pdf file.. Shows mileage of each fuel, and energy equivalents..
Both of you may find it interesting to see the comparisons of the various fuels..
Just don't want the leftover carbon going into the air as CO or CO2. (defeats the purpose of hydrogen combustion). Otherwise we could just burn the hydrocarbons directly.
The fossil fueled power plants generating the electricity for the electrolysis would be pumping more carbon into the air than there would be if the fossil fuels were converted directly into H2.
The Fisher-Trope process can convert coal into H2 and sequester the carbon in 99.9% pure CO2 for industrial uses or pumped into the ground or solidified.
I guarantee you none of the coal Power Plants that would be used to power GE's magic electrolysis machine are currently doing this.
Fisher-trrope could be used to make REAL fuel, too. Like Diesel and Jet Fuel.
Until the $5000 Fuel cell is perfected, Hydrogen as transportation fuel is just a bad joke brought to all of us by Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling and the rest of the clowns at Enron.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.