Hydrogen Fuel Cell

[samuel-a]

more and more people trying to get something from nothing

I'm with you on that one, even with the most efficiant fuel cell, one can not pull more energy (heat) then he put in (electrical).

I have my HHO project on hold for some reason (lazy?), all i need to do it to come up with a new bubbler + scrubber (the last one blew up) and try again.
The cell produce stoichiometric ratio of H2 and O2, i'm thinking, maybe I'll connect also my O2 bottle next time.

 

[KWyant]

Yes, I caught that. I am not sure what reaction they are using with aluminum to produce hydrogen, but I was simply planning on using electricity. My hydrogen needs are modest, just think it would be fun to use hho rather than buying bottled hydrogen, it might even be more cost effective, but I don't yet know. I've read much of Harold's advice in many posts since joining and in all that time I've never noticed a single error of fact in any of them, so I take your meaning. I've also learned a great deal from reading them. From what I could tell from this thread, Harold was mainly posting against the idea of using hho for massively improved mileage. My interest is a modest torch melting small quantities of gold. I wonder if a dry cell or a wet cell might be the best choice.

 

[stihl88]

here is my attempt at a HHO torch,

http://www.goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=8940&hilit=hho+torch

Theres a set of plans Ive added to the first post under the last picture i posted.

 

[Harold_V]

Harold was mainly posting against the idea of using hho for massively improved mileage. My interest is a modest torch melting small quantities of gold. I wonder if a dry cell or a wet cell might be the best choice.

That's correct. I have no quarrel with producing hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis---a process that has been accomplished on a commercial basis in the way of a small hydrogen torch used in the jewelry industry.

My quarrel with ANYONE is the one whereby they try to convince me that they can create more energy by producing hydrogen than the amount of energy consumed in its making. Physics says it isn't possible, and I've never seen even a remote indication that it is in my almost 72 years on this planet.

A person can go through life unscathed so long as they don't allow themselves to think there's a free lunch. Those that think so are often suckers just waiting to be scammed.

Harold

 

[leoinker]

In this discussion, almost everyone is right - and wrong at the same time.
No - You cannot use your alternator to produce energy via an HHO system
Yes - You can achieve better fuel economy using an HHO system on a gasoline engine.

The modern gasoline engine has an energy efficiency(from the inert chemical energy in the gasoline, to the kinetic energy of tire rotation) of about 25% to 30%. This ratio can be increased with the use of superchargers, turbochargers, water injection, methanol injection, HHO systems, cold air intake, regenerative braking, spoilers, amongst numerous other devices. Each device has it's own method, and is designed for use in a certain environment. - Too much water will kill a cactus, but you can't drown a fish.

There is no free lunch, but if we try to understand the methods we use to get our lunch, we just may discover some ways to make it easier!

 

[Harold_V]

There is no free lunch, but if we try to understand the methods we use to get our lunch, we just may discover some ways to make it easier!

Key, here, is keeping a sharp focus on the idea that there is no *free* lunch, the point all too many overlook. Pitiful as it may be, there's no shortage of people that still think there's a perpetual motion machine yet to be discovered.

I think not.

Harold

 

[leoinker]

I agree. But may I add?
Crazy, 'free-energy lovers' that don't understand the simple Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy tend to have a distorted view of every energy related device. These types of people like to hear themselves "talk" and they spew enormous amounts of "information" everywhere. It's easy to see that where they are wrong in their conclusion, but that doesn't mean the original invention is utterly useless.

What IS perpetual is the transfer of energy. We typically think of energy being "lost" via friction, heat, etc, during a process, when we have a specific goal that we want that energy to accomplish. - The "point" of an HHO device is to decrease these losses. If the amount of energy it takes to decrease the losses is less than the energy losses themselves, you have a more efficient transfer of energy towards the end goal - NOT a creation of energy.

And I know you already know this. - I'm writing this as more of a clarification to others.

 

[goldsilverpro]

A story and a puzzle.

When I was experimenting with ion-exchange membranes, I did this crazy experiment to try and produce solutions that were out of balance, electrically. In other words, I tried to produce solutions that were either overly rich in anions (-) or in cations (+). I somehow thought these out-of-balance solutions might be a new energy source. If I remember right, I ended up with 7 chambers, all in a line, each separated with either cathodic or anodic membranes in a definite order. The anode was in the chamber on one end and the cathode was on the other end.

When I turned the current on, the laws of nature fooled me. I could see gassing occurring at the bottom of each membrane, even though they were made of non-conductive organic materials. The system was splitting water in each chamber to make up for this discrepancy of either anions or cations. Where anions were needed, hydrogen gas was given off and OH- entered the solution. Where cations were needed, O2 was given off and H+ entered the solution. Nature wouldn't allow an electrical imbalance, obviously.

I never followed this up because, my experiment, at the time, failed. However, after thinking about this for years, I have always wondered if the amount of water splitting (and, therefore, the hydrogen generation) exceeded the current applied. In this experiment, I produced hydrogen from water splitting at 3 membrane surfaces. The current applied was reduced, somewhat, by the resistance in the system but was equal in each chamber. Were those chambers in parallel or in series?

?????? Any ideas?

 

[leoinker]

separated with either cathodic or anodic membranes

Can you tell us more about these "membranes"? I'm having a hard time visualizing your experiment.

Something like this?
(+) |_|_|_|_|_|_|_| (-)

What materials were used?

 

[goldsilverpro]

separated with either cathodic or anodic membranes

Can you tell us more about these "membranes"? I'm having a hard time visualizing your experiment.

Something like this?
(+) |_|_|_|_|_|_|_| (-)

What materials were used?

Exactly right, but eliminate 2 chambers. The electrodes occupied the 2 end chambers - 6 membranes and 7 chambers. The membranes, widely available commercially, either pass anions only or cations only. They were alternated somehow in this arrangement in a manner to attempt to produce either anion or cation rich solutions in the 5 intermediate chambers. I don't remember exactly how but I could probably figure it out.

If this is a series circuit (which I think, in essence, it is), the amperage in each chamber or cell would be constant and would be the amperage generally applied by the PS (taking the resistance into consideration, of course). The water was split at every membrane membrane surface but, the way I had it set up, 3 of the membranes produced H2. The big question is, did I get an energy advantage, or not?

Maybe, the question of series or parallel doesn't apply in this case. It's just current flowing between the electrodes with 6 membranes in between, each of which creates a voltage drop. Actually, though, this sounds series to me.

The amount of current flow determines the amount of water splitting. If the current is the same, and not divided, at each membrane surface, it seems logical that there would be an advantage.

Over the years, I've posed this problem to a lot of intelligent people and no one has been able to tell me, mathematically, whether or not I got more hydrogen out than what would be predicted by the amount of current going in. I guess the only solution is to set it up and measure the total H2 coming off without contaminating it with the O2 coming off the other membranes.

 

[eeTHr]

GSP---

Your cells were in series. As such, the individual resistance of each of the cells would add together, and the sum would be the total resistance of the set of cells.

If all the cells were the same dimensions, then the current in each cell would be the same.

The amperage "applied" by the power supply is mis-terminology. Voltage is electrical pressure, while amperage is a flow resulting from that pressure. So voltage is "applied," and the resulting amount of current is dependant on the resistance of the circuit. If there is no return path to the other terminal of the power source, it is an open circuit, which is maximum resistance. If there is virtually no resistance in the path back to the other terminal of the power source, it is a "short" circuit, resulting in tripping a breaker, blowing a fuse, or dangerously high levels of heat in the wire, or melting of the wire resulting in an open circuit.

So, several cells in series would reduce the current that would normally flow through only a single cell set-up, for the same amount of voltage applied. And the power dissapated by the string of cells in series, would be the same as for only one cell by itself.

Although I'm not familiar with the membrane particulars, or the theory of how they work, it's almost certain that the production from the several cells would be the same as from a single cell if it were by itself, because of the power distribution.