The energy overhead for electrolysis at high pressure is small, and there is no need to use a lossy and expensive compressor.
Ah. So the electrolysis itself pressurizes the gas. Pushing it straight into a tank with a one-way valve, or something like that.
And since the 2 gases are nover mixed the explosion danger is minimised.
That part I knew.
See the book by Peter Hoffmann, "Tomorrow's Energy," MIT Press, 2001. Recommended by Bockris.
The classic specious claim for using hydrogen and oxygen to boost internal combustion engines is that you use engine power to drive a generator to generate electricity with which to electrolyze water. The resulting oxygen and hydrogen is then mixed and reintroduced into the engine through some sort of magical carburetor or injector and because of this, fuel economy is greatly improved. Many scams have been based on this idiocy. While injecting small amounts of hydrogen into an engine may boost mileage somewhat, generating it entirely from onboard power results invariably in net losses. This is glossed over by the same sort of imbeciles and scammers who push magnetic motors and other impossibilia on gullible investors.
The above would not apply to legitimate applications of hydrogen, oxygen and fuel cells, as, for example, where solar energy is the source of power used to achieve electrolysis.
And far as I know, the claim that Brown's gas (""Brown's gas" and HHO are fringe science terms for oxyhydrogen." -Wikipedia) has apparently magical properties is false. It's just oxygen and hydrogen mixed together and that is, at the ratio the scammers promote, an explosive mix.
QuoteDisplay MoreFringe science
Brown's gas has become associated with various exaggerated claims.[16][17] It's also called "HHO gas" after the claims of fringe physicist[18] Ruggero Santilli, who claims that his HHO gas, produced by a special apparatus, is "a new form of water", with new properties, based on his fringe theory of "magnecules".[17] ("MagneGas" or "MagneHydrogen") .
Many other pseudoscientific claims have been made about Brown's gas's pretended ability to neutralize radioactive waste, help plants to germinate, etc.[17]
Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with vehicles that claim to use water as a fuel. The most common and decisive counter-argument against producing this gas on board to use as a fuel or fuel additive is that more energy is needed to split water molecules than is recouped by burning the resulting gas.[16][19] Additionally, the volume of gas that can be produced for on-demand consumption through electrolysis is very small in comparison to the volume consumed by an internal combustion engine.[20]
An article in Popular Mechanics reported that Brown's gas does not increase the fuel economy in automobiles.[21]
"Water-fueled" cars should not be confused with hydrogen-fueled cars, where the hydrogen is produced elsewhere and used as fuel or where it is used as fuel enhancement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
ETA: I am not sure what is currently meant by Ohmasa gas. In the past (2009) Sterling Alan's Peswiki page touted it as being water as fuel. That's nonsense. Water is not fuel.
Ohmasa gas is what you get according to the inventor if you stir the water in a special way and then do an eloctrolysis of it. And get that
thing that should be oxy someting but is different. They claim that it is compressible to a large degree and also liquifies at high temperatures.
which the oxy thing does not. These facts is what teases my imagination and if I was in Japan I would make sure to verify those facts.
Currently BG and friends is torching tungsten and claim that that cold thing of a torch can melt tungsten. But before jumping to conclusion
one need to note that the torch is think filled with oxygene and oxidation of metal might as well explain the effect. Also the flash at the tungsten
is white hot it looks not 200-300 degrees or whatever the torch is. Again the most probably explanation is some kind of oxidation. A bit too quick to
conclusion for my taste and Iam wondering what Ohmasa thinks of BG laughing around in his Keanu Reeves sun glasses.
A bit too quick to
conclusion for my taste and Iam wondering what Ohmasa thinks of BG laughing around in his Keanu Reeves sun glasses.
This is the main problem of BG, it behaves like a small child who has no manners and behavioral problems and thus invalidates any scientific research, as a serious researcher, I would distance myself from him.
Weld two tungsten rods together with that torch and I will be impressed.
filled with oxygene and oxidation of metal might as well explain the effect
the Teflon bit effect on the titanium might be a thermite type reaction where the fluorine in PTFE grabs Ti.
here is BobG's 5 cents worth 2 yrs ago.
when he wakes up.. BG will probably write a bit more
The classic specious claim for using hydrogen and oxygen to boost internal combustion engines is that you use engine power to drive a generator to generate electricity with which to electrolyze water. The resulting oxygen and hydrogen is then mixed and reintroduced into the engine through some sort of magical carburetor or injector and because of this, fuel economy is greatly improved.
That sounds very unlikely, but it is at least plausible. The mixing part is ridiculous. You would use a fuel cell, not combustion. If you had an extremely effective method of electrolysis, this might work as a replacement for the battery in a conventional series hybrid electric car. In a series hybrid car, the engine is only used to generate electricity. The motor never drives the wheels directly, the way it does in a Prius. The electricity goes to the electric motors that drive the wheels, or it is stored in batteries. Battery storage and discharge are extremely efficient, so very little energy is lost in that step. Overall efficiency is higher than an ordinary car because the motor runs at an optimum speed and load at all times. Look at a curve of internal combustion engine efficiency and you will see that at slow speeds starting up they are extremely inefficient.
If an electrolysis method were nearly as efficient as battery storage, this might be a good option because you can store more energy per pound with electrolysis than with a battery. It also takes up less space; it is more compact. So, your hybrid car would have a bigger buffer. That might not be needed. I don't know how series hybrids perform or whether they need a big buffer. An ordinary Prius buffer is small and it runs out halfway up any large hill or small mountain, after which efficiency falls to the level of an ordinary internal combustion engine car.
This would be similar to electrolysis storage in place of batteries by power companies, something people have been trying to develop for a long time. It is not a specious claim, it just isn't competitive.
This is the main problem of BG, it behaves like a small child who has no manners and behavioral problems and thus invalidates any scientific research, as a serious researcher, I would distance myself from him.
I have been wondering if team of school children could do better at that. BG should write a paper titled 'Estimating temperature of thin body by cutting second thin body with more or less known melting point with the first body'. I did a lot of that too when I was 8.
You would use a fuel cell, not combustion. If you had an extremely effective method of electrolysis, this might work as a replacement for the battery in a conventional series hybrid electric car. In a series hybrid car, the engine is only used to generate electricity. . . .
It sounds like a Rube Goldberg machine. As does a Prius or other hybrid car. A hybrid car only works better because ordinary direct drive internal combustion engine cars are hideously inefficient. Even a Rube Goldberg machine is better. The efficiency of a motor => generator => electrolysis => fuel cell => powertrain car can be estimated from the second figure on p. 4 of this document:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf
It isn't good. It is worse than a conventional car, which is p. 2, first figure.
The approximate efficiency of a hybrid car is shown on p. 7.
Earlier I watched the video and since it was so long (1:30h) I took notes for quicker reference later on. Notes were quickly taken on the spot and might not necessarily be accurate, so beware.
Quote
- [0:00:00] Flame temperature testing. Looks cold < 120 C
- [0:07:00] Now testing with piece of metal, a Ti plate. Burned hole but temperature isn't exceeding 250C
- [0:10:50] Melting the plate, but plate is less than 500C in hottest areas
- [0:16:35] Now going to test with W rod. Vaporizing at 200+ C, apparently
- [0:21:20] Shoh mentions that temperature of the flame was checked at two major university, but temperature there was recorded to be 3000+ C
- Discussion in japanese with Ohmasa follows
- [0:27:00] Bob Greenyer tries to explain that Suhas was making W glow under water
- [0:30:00] Test with a handheld spot pyrometer. 23C at the nozzle. Max temperature 180C
- [0:35:00] Egely discusses that it was disintegrating and glowing very brightly, evaporating. Turning into smoke and plasma
- [0:36:00] Others are testing with more pyrometers to check results. Rod gives max 337C, but color temperature much higher. Similar results as Optris
- [0:39:00] Going to test CO2 gas?
- [0:42:00] Shoh mentions that Ohmasa cannot accept that results tested at famous university are wrong
- [0:43:00] Now testing Ohmasa gas+LPG 10%. Hottest part of flame <100C, about same temperature as before. But titanium seems to be getting hotter and not melting.
- [0:46:00] 900C and not melting. Changing Optris range to higher range. By eye it's 800-900C
- [0:47:22] Testing if it makes metal go soft on flat area
- [0:49:00] Plate more slowly cooling. Feels hot even a while.
- [0:51:20] Testing W rod. 275C at tip, but glowing? Difference in electrical response for EVOs of the material?
- [0:54:00] Printouts show spectral lines from Ohmasa gas frames from University test
- [0:55:00] Another printout shows meaured temperatures in the several thousands C
- [0:56:00] Shoh explains again that Ohmasa cannot accept that results from prestigious University are wrong
- [0:57:15] Egely thinks that university temperature results were recalibrated
- [0:58:30] Shoh says that Greenyer can do test, but he advises against advertising the results (paraphrasing)
- [Bob Greenyer acting up]
- [1:00:00] Egely says that gas might have incredible properties. Unlikely that tungsten vaporizes like that from normal gas.
- [1:01:00] Shoh patiently explains to Ohmasa their POV.
- [1:02:20] Ohmasa makes a point that it's a matter of testing method and that one has to make sure first that basic measurements with known references are correct
- [1:03:50] An engineer explains that it could be due to measurement system differences. They expected the measurements to agree to each other, but in the end they use different measuring systems
- [1:04:30] Egely says he has PhD in nuclear reactor engineering, and he sees that the University based calibrations on known textbook calibration lines, so it's their mistake (for non-normal physics according to Greenyer). The light is white, so it's a full blackbody spectrum
- [1:06:40] Ohmasa understands what they're saying but whether the Optris is correct or not is a different matter
- [1:08:30] Ohmasa doesn't want others to say that University is wrong. Basic measurements need to be checked with the Optris
- [1:09:30] Shoh explains to Ohmasa previous results with the 10% LPG gas mixture
- [1:11:00] Shoh says that Ohmasa allows data to be shared, but also to please make sure that Optris is correct (with other measurements)
- [1:12:00] Now teflon test. Trying to get through Teflon with melted metal through Ohmasa gas.
- [1:13:10] Made sure it's Teflon. Short anecdote about Shoulders
- [1:14:00] Using pure Ohmasa gas or it will melt
- [1:15:00] Now going to melt Teflon. if flame is 3000 C it should melt.
- [1:16:10] Made it go soft but didn't melt immediately. Apparently reporting hotter than flame?
- [1:17:20] Not cooling down? Because as it's an insulator, charge can't come off?
- [1:18:30] Weirdness. Still glowing brightly through thermocamera. Egely says it could be the carbon dust on top of it that is hot.
- [1:20:00] Now going to get Titanium plate and heat teflon with it
- [1:21:00] Greenyer says that the carbon residues on his finger apparently made it feel hot and he went to the bathroom to wash it
- [1:22:20] Now teflon cutting test with Ohmasa gas-heated Ti plate. Not going through even though it's glowing bright
- [1:23:00] Small explosion also occurred on Ti plate
- [1:24:20] Apparently proved Shoulders right?
- [1:25:30] Egely suggests melting copper to make similar test. Trying with copper coin
- [1:27:30] Now melting coin with Ohmasa gas
- [1:28:15] Coin melted and glowing but no damage on teflon strip
- [1:28:50] Egely never seen anything like this
- [1:29:30] Copper softened and melted
That is what ohmasa did as well https://www.chemistryworld.com…n-economy/3010618.article
Where was this suggested?
Very interesting paper by the way; would deserve its own thread.
The paper link from Nature has free-to-access supplementary material and videos:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0404-4
The press release on Eurekalert has an embedded video showing the difference with/without magnet:
Much more active discussion on ECW.
But, for those who don’t go there often I have tested a couple items from the Omasa lab visit.
1) Successfully burned through a pure tungsten rod with a cheap oxy-propane torch (cannot possibly get as hot as the melting point of tungsten.) The metal smoked and evaporated away, leaving very sharp points at the cut, just like the video. Substantial amounts of tungsten trioxide were formed near the cut on the rod, which could be evaporated away completely by adjusting the flame position.
1b) A test with propane-air was unable to burn the tungsten appreciably, but did leave a very thin layer of yellow tungsten oxide (tungsten trioxide).
2) Used an IR pyrometer on the oxy-propane flame, emissivity set at 0.95 like in the video. Peak carbonizing flame temp reported was 85 C, and a clean flame was 50 C. (I don’t currently have a hydrogen source) .This is because a gas is not a suitable target for LWIR thermometry. Gasses (flames are gasses) emit in discrete wavelengths (broadening with temperature a bit), and almost no radiation is emitted in the LWIR band for oxyhydrogen or oxy-propane. The flame is also fairly transparent, so the background temperature of solid objects is ‘seen’ by the pyrometer (or Optris) through the flame.
3) Cannot find my titanium bolts, so will purchase a small piece of titanium somewhere and melt/burn it with the oxy-propane torch soon.
4) Will attempt to rig up something to test the IR pyrometer results on burning tungsten and titanium. I expect similar values to those seen in the video where Omasa Gas was used... but we will see... Several references show that the integrated emissivity of tungsten in the 8-14 um band is about 0.4 in the 1800 C range. (Tungsten light bulb filaments seem to be often coated with HfO2 in order to increase the emissivity.)
5) Flir emissivity reference sheet shows burnished brass in the 8-14 um band is 0.4, and 0.5 for oxidized brass. This indicates that the torch tip is almost certainly at least twice as hot as suggested in the video.
Paradigmnoia Great observations.
Seems they are prank videos.
Humor.
I have been very actively commenting on those publications about Ohmasa gas. Within the threads, a very interesting 2011 publication in Physics Procedia titled "Water Electrolyzers and the zero point energy" by Moray B. King was brought to the reader's attention by a poster dubbed "The Director". Here I am attaching the issue pdf, I strongly recommend its reading. It proposes an interesting hypothesis that made a lot of sense to me since I have been for years aware of the ideas of Ruggero Santilli and his "magnecules". The hypothesis posed by King is that electrolyzers of water create not only H2 and O but also a form of charged gaseous water clusters that are responsible of all the odd behaviors of the so called HHO, Brown's or Ohmasa gases, in direct proportion of the amount of the gaseous water clustered each technology is capable to form, which is a function of several characteristics of the electrolyzer used. Ohmasa's gas is probably very rich in this gaseous water species and thus it has much more of the odd qualities.
The summary:
This paper was motivated by the apparent success of the researchers and hobbyists in the “HHO
community.” They have been demonstrating unusual energy anomalies and have been trying to explain
them in terms of hydrogen production. Those that are scientifically trained realize that hydrogen cannot
account for what is claimed, and thus the discussion groups on the web are engaged in vituperative
argument. In a sense, both sides are right: hobbyists appear to be demonstrating energetic anomalies and
hydrogen is not the source.
The hypothesis offered is that the single-duct electrolyzers are producing charged water gas clusters,
which is the dominant energetic component instead of hydrogen. The electrolyzers that yield the largest
energy anomalies appear to make more charged water clusters and less hydrogen. From the study of the
disclosures by many inventors, the following characteristics seem to make favorable electrolyzers:
1. Clean, rough electrode surface
2. Small gap between the electrodes
3. Circulate or vibrate the water
4. Minimum electrolyte (typically potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide)
5. Driving electrolyzer with pulsed DC square waves
6. High voltage spike on the leading edge of the square wave
7. Recycling the exhaust water back to the electrolyzer
Turbulent water flow through narrow inter-electrode gaps appears to augment the energy content of
the emitted gas.
One of the points in the paper is that the flame of the burning of this gas is relatively cold, 130°C, which is consistent with what Bob Greenyer measured with the Optris, albeit I don't know how the guys that report that temperature that King quotes performed the measurement (I e-mailed them asking, hope they answer).
I think this is a good read, it is a sort of review of HHO gas claims, but for me the bottom line is that perhaps we have been wrong all the time to assume that brown's gas is just H2 and O, but perhaps the gaseous water cluster (which would be another embodiment of the EVOs ) is what has all the interesting properties.
I can relate this ideas to Santilli's magnecules, Shoulders, and even to Graneau and his overunity water arc explosions.
Santilli always insisted his magnegas was capable of being attracted by magnets, and I bet that Ohmasa gas also does, but no one has tried or looked into it.
