/diy/ - Do It Yourself

[Anonymous No.346627]

Discuss?

[Anonymous No.346639]

There's nothing to discuss. It's a bullshit concept that's impractical when compared to more conventional methods.

Case closed.

[Anonymous No.346650]

>>346627
Oxyhydrogen is only good for specific uses. Such as cutting/brazing torches.

[Anonymous No.346660]

>>346627

lrntophysics

first off, there is no such thing as "fuel", as gets used by petroleum people. there is only energy storage. "fuel" comes from somewhere, takes energy to put together.

you can take water apart, into H2 and O, but that takes as much energy (in theory; in practice, much MORE) energy than yo uget whe you recombine (burn) them.

The advantage is, you can store the energy thus packaged as two separate gases, and recombine when yo need to.

or oxy-hydrogen welding, for the particular properties of those two gases combusting.

electrolysis has very particular, specific uses, it is not a general way to "make fuel".

[Anonymous No.346691]

>>346660
you are a silly, retarded bastard. "Fuel is any material that stores energy that can later be extracted to perform mechanical work in a controlled manner" Shut the fuck up and leave. Never come back, you psudointelectual brainless shit stain.

As for water as fuel...it's a perfectly viable option provided you have some sort of energy supply, eg, solar, wind, atomic...something that needs stored. Hydrogen and oxygen can be bottled, used as a fuel source. Or magnagas, which is produced by running electricity through a carbon arc in liquid, water, used radiator fluid, etc.

Now if you're speaking of the old saw of cars that just get water poured into the gas tank and run on it? Nah. I've never seen a design for that actually function.

[Anonymous No.346692]

>>346691
see
>>346639

[Anonymous No.346695]

>>346692
As a method of storage? No. You are both wrong.

efficiency is great, but stability is better. A system that generates burnable fuel that can be reliably stored and transported and used? It's useful. People have created entire home power system out of LPG tanks and electrolysis rigs, they use no batteries and are highly functional.

[Anonymous No.346697]

cant we just build better batteries for electric cars?

[Anonymous No.346703]

>>346695
Id like to know if any /diy/ have actually tried to run a gas generator on hho?

[Anonymous No.346716]

>>346691
i said exactly the same thing, fuel is energy storage. it's not a magical source of energy that comes from nowhere.

H2 doesnt store well as a gas. it leaks through steel. fine as short-term low pressure storage.

why does everyone get so stupid around electrolysis?

[Euler's Ghost !mtAJUVAzzA No.346718]

>>346691

Magnagas is a scam, you are silly for suggesting it.

[Euler's Ghost !mtAJUVAzzA No.346723]

Also for those who didn't pay attention in chemistry:

Water is sometimes written as HOH to denote that water can be expressed chemically as a hydrogen atom bonded to a hydroxide molecule.

HHO is a made-up molecule that uses a made-up chemical bond to create some kind of new wacky H2O molecule that can be used for fuel.

[Pinzfag. No.346746]

No, it is not a fuel.
A fuel is something that provides more energy to you than you have to expend in making it. Hydrogen is way negative in EROEI. Fossil fuel used to be 100:1, now its down to about 11:1. Hydrogen is an *energy carrier*, kind of like a battery, only gaseous. I am WAY on top of this, and I can assure you that Hydrogen is NOT a fuel. Never will be. It takes more energy to make, store, and transport it, than you get out of it, and fundamental laws of physics prevent it from being a fuel (most Hydrogen on earth is stored in water, and it takes more energy to crack the water to MAKE the Hydrogen than you get out of burning the Hydrogen. There is NO way around that - the valence bonding of H and O, and the energy output of re-oxydising H is such that the ratio is, by decree of the universe and the laws of thermodynamics, permanents asymmetric against H as a fuel. We have oceans FILLED with H. cracking it is fairly trivial, but so is the amount of energy per atom gained from burning H. This is high school level physics, but the powers of advertising and the media bullshit machine are intense - nearly as powerful as religion.
This does NOT mean that H is disuseful for specific purposes - like blowing glass. But it's not a fuel, like coal, oil, or uranium...

[Anonymous No.346752]

>>346716
no, you said there was no such thing as fuel.

[Anonymous No.346750]

>>346718
no, it's not a "scam" it's just not a super efficient system. It DOES work, it DOES produce a viable, burnable fuel.

It is NOT a super-efficient fuel that consumes less energy than it produces. It requires far more electrical energy than it produces, and it is absolutely NOT safe to store.

But it does work, you can take water, run an electrode and lots of juice through it, stick the other end in a engine, and have it run.

It works. I've help build a system that does it, and burned energy out of it.

[Pinzfag. No.346753]

>>346750
Not safe to store?
Nigga I have tanks of hydrogen in my garage right the fuck now.

[Pinzfag. No.346755]

>>346752
Trees are fuel because you get more energy out of the wood afer you cut it down than you expended YOUR PERSONAL SELF growing the trees. The ground and sun payed into its energy over a long period of time, all you have to do is cut it down and burn it.
THAT is fuel.

[Anonymous No.346757]

>>346753
Magnagas is a mix of oxygen and hydrogen. Not hydrogen. Instead of electrolysis where there's a positive and negative electrode, magnagas is the result of a electric ark force-separating the liquid...instead of hydrogen off one electrode and oxygen off another, it's both, in one bottle..eg, one spark and boom.

[Pinzfag. No.346769]

>>346757
Well you should have specified. I just went through days and days of research looking for ways to compress pure oxygen into bottles. Cheapest compressor I could find that would do it is the RIX microboost which retails for around 4000~
Cappable of doing hydrogen too but you you said, you never ever ever compress flammable ANYTHING in the presence of pure oxygen into bottles.
Yeah, would have to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen to do any sort of storage in any container.
You can get a full size 230 cubic foot K tank filled to 2200psi with pure hydrogen at any welding supplier for 30 fucking dollars though. Its a goddamn steal.

[Anonymous No.346775]

>>346769
You ain't never gonna compress hydrogen with anything you can afford my boi.

The guy up there that said hydrogen doesn't store in steel tanks?

He wasn't joking.

If you don't have a couple ten-grand you won't even be able to store it for a week without it all literally disappearing on you.

[Anonymous No.346780]

look you stupid ass fuck retards... theres already a fucking catalyst that turns WATER into Hydrogen and OXYGEN... a fucking bastard of MIT developed it and it works at standard temperature and standard presion...fuck MIT assholes and aint to expensive...so this ass fuck already saved the world, fuk MIT....... yes the hydrogen storage is a stupid shit is worth less......EVEN THOUGH.... SOLAR ENERGY is the way.... he still have sun for million years, the fucking problem is that rigth now the stupid ass fuck solar panels are to fucking expensive...again, solar panels is not the way, we have to do artificial photosyntesis, THATS THE WAY....

[Anonymous No.346782]

Chemist here:
Let's recap on some science you should have all known out of high school...

In the simplest sense, to get energy out of some chemical process you convert a chemical from a less stable form into a more stable form.

Water is the most stable form of hydrogen and oxygen on earth.

You can store energy in the form of gaseous hydrogen and oxygen and combust the two to produce water and extract the energy.

Doing this sort of thing is limited by 1: the efficiency of the process of producing the constituent gases and 2: the efficiency of the energy extraction system involved in combustion.

Electrolysis is quite inefficient. Internal combustion engines are also extremely inefficient. In terms of converting energy into motion, for example, an average motor vehicle is about 12% efficient.

It's an interesting thing to realize that fossil fuels contain solar energy stored by organisms over millions of years by photosynthesis, which only burn because of energy stored by other organisms in the form of atmospheric oxygen over the course of billions of years.

The earth originally had no atmospheric molecular oxygen to speak of. Oxidative metabolism and indeed life as we know it is only possible because of energy stored in the atmosphere during that first phase of life...

Ultimately, the Earth's greatest source of energy is radiation from the sun. Most of the free chemical energy of the Earth (produced by the explosion of the predecessor to the sun) was consumed shortly after the formation of the Earth, which is why the planet is rather molten and gooey inside still, after 4.5bn years.

The next time you think people are screwing you out of all this free energy around you, think about the billions of years it took just to store the energy in the atmosphere that makes your metabolism possible.

[Anonymous No.346783]

>>346769
I did. When refering to "magnagas" discussing "magnagas" I was specifying "magnagas"

[Anonymous No.346790]

>>346782
Sooo "hey, use solar, even though that's even less efficient on a on demand basis"?

[Anonymous No.346792]

>>346782
hey you stupid ass fuck nigga YOU DIDNT ANSWER THE FUCKING OP QUESTION....screw you

[Anonymous No.346795]

>>346790
More like 'unless you're running on fusion or fission power, you're ultimately already running on solar'.

Our technological methods of extracting power from solar radiation are inefficient and insufficient to meet demand (especially with reliance on rare earth elements), but so are the biological means.

What I'm saying is, we're ultimately energy-negative right now. We're extracting stored chemical energy from the earth that was put there by living things. I'm also saying that none of that fucking energy was stored in water.

[Anonymous No.346796]

>>346795
ok you nigga, so WHATS THE WAY, im fucking telling you we have to diversify....solar, sea , biomass, PURE FUCKING renewable energy....AVOID NUCLEAR, is never fucking safe and you can screw the hole earth... people OUR PLANET IS A DAMN SPACECRAFT, FUCKING UNDERSTAND IT, the earth wont go first, we will....

[Anonymous No.346807]

>>346792
There was no question to answer. Check your reading comprehension.

>>346796
My $0.02 for the next best energy source is either fusion power or non-photovoltaic solar. Nuclear fission isn't dangerous in modern powerplant designs. It's dangerous in the present-day because nobody will allow new powerplants to be built, so everything is still running on 1975 technology. Digging up and refining the nuclear fuel for fission power however, IS destructive. Sadly, deuterium for fusion is a non-renewable resource on Earth, but if I remember correctly, we're sitting on enough for quite a bit of time, and the result is nice, noble Helium.

Why do I waste my time on idiots?

[Anonymous No.346818]

>>346807

this thread died aborning -- 'water as fuel' always brings out the idiots. just let it float to page 15...

[Anonymous No.346836]

for non vehicular use, using water to store energy is actually quite efficient...Provided you have sufficient water.

It's called a river. You build this thing that goes across it, with these little things that spin when water goes over it.

stored energy in water. Want to store energy through processes that don't involve clouds? Build a big ass water tank and make a pump.

[Anonymous No.346841]

>>346836

huh. this must be one of those secret technologies the government doesn't want us to know about. figures.

[Anonymous No.346873]

So much crap in this thread.

The problem is NOT energy generation nor even cost effective energy generation. The difficulty is energy storage. Hydrogen (eg in Brown's gas HHO) tends to leak out of the containers and is a bitch to compress HOWEVER it is easily the best fuel once we solve the storage issues. You can then burn it in the prsence of oxygen or recombine it in a fuel cell to provide electricity.

[Anonymous No.346911]

Pardon my bad chem knowledge but why not keep hydrogen in stable form and extract it on demand.
I am very bad at this but I remember sodium + water does give out H+ but I don't know anything about efficiency, the amount of sodium needed to have a good quantity of hydrogen or how to turn back NaOH to Na

[Anonymous No.346915]

not wanting to waste too much time on this with all the disinfo.
ill say this.
truck bed with a top over it covered in solar would pump 12 volt at 50 amp and keep it topped.
said truck uses 12 volt 50 amp to produce gas on demand.
gas is several several liters a minute- enough to run the truck at a high rpm and move it.
theres a truck on youtube doing it without the panels- i just threw those in because it would be perfect.

suckem naysayers

[Anonymous No.346924]

>>346915
A truck bed covered in photovoltaic solar will not generate 600watts (12 volt 50 amp). It's more like 60watts.

600watts will not produce enough gas to drive a truck. It will take more like 25,000watts.

[Anonymous No.346933]

>>346924

For cruising I'd say 5kw is reasonable, maybe up to 10kw for a full size truck.

But yeah, that's still a far stretch from roughly 50 sq feet of solar cells.

>Sunlight provides roughly 1kw / sq meter (that's raw energy).
>That's roughly 91w/ sq foot.
>At a mild 15% efficiency that's 13.65 watt/foot.
>or roughly 682 watts out of 50 sq ft.

You'd be way better off covering a house roof and getting an electric car and charging it from the stored power.
>40x20 roof would yield almost 11kw of power.

[Anonymous No.346986]

>>346915
lololol

[Anonymous No.347001]

>____ isn't fuel because [insert bullshit reason here]

Jesus fuck, you people are pant-on-head retarded.

Anything can be "fuel" if you use it to power something. It doesn't matter at all how efficient that fuel it, it is still fuel.

Did you know that even ice cream is fuel? How you might ask? Because you can eat it and power your body.

Oxyhydrogen, wood, gasoline, methane, etc are all types of fuel. Fuel is merely an energy storage medium.

Hell, I can take ice cream use it to fuel my body. My body can take the excess fuel and store it as fat. Then I can use the fat as fuel to power my muscles and body when working out every day on my bicycle electric generator. The energy from that work out gets stored in a 12v deep cycle battery. After a few days of exercise, I can power my entire PC and entertainment system with the energy stored in the battery; energy that was originally ice cream.

Oh, it's not all that "efficient" a system, but I love ice cream and I don't want to be fat. I can't bicycle in the snow and rain and I don't want to pay extra money for my power bill. So the system works well for me despite all the obvious energy losses in the system.

HOWEVER, an HHO system using a car's alternator to perform on-board electrolysis to make oxyhydrogen for fueling the car is retarded. If you had another source of energy for the electrolysis, like on-board solar panels then the system would be better, especially if you are not trying to store it.

>>346746
You are a fucking moron.

>>346697
You are very sensible.

[Anonymous No.347012]

>>346924
>truck bed covered in PV cells

I'm not saying you are incorrect, but let's calculate that. (all googled variables).

Fullsize truck bed = 4' x 8' = 32 square feet = 2,972.87 watts of direct sunshine.

Average PV cell efficiency = 15%

15% of 2,972.87 watts = 445.9305 watts

So, you can expect 445 watts from average PV cells covering an entire fullsized pickup truck bed.

One googling example,

>The San Jose-based company Sunpower produces cells that have an energy conversion ratio of 19.5%, well above the market average of 12–18%.[20] The most efficient solar cell so far is a multi-junction concentrator solar cell with an efficiency of 43.5%[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Current_developments

>The most efficient solar cell so far is a multi-junction concentrator solar cell with an efficiency of 43.5%

That's awesome. If you had those covering a truck bed you'd be getting about 1,293.19 watts.

[Anonymous No.347014]

>>347012
>445 watts

12 volts / 445 watts = 37.08 amps

However, optimal is something like 2.2v or is it 5.2v per HHO cell? I don't remember. If you had the system lowered down to the optimal voltage you could do a lot better. It's make an awesome solar-powered portable torch.

[Anonymous No.347033]

>>347014

OMG WTF -- if you had 500watts of power from solar in a vehicle, youd run it past a battery and DRIVE THE MOTOR DIRECTLY! i mean wtf, this makes no sense... wow this thread is predictably utter nonsense.

inb4 daylight only -- so's electrolysis! and for 100's to KW range, battery storage is dead simple.

electrolysis people are all fucked in the head. it's just a physical process, not magical. sheesh.

[Anonymous No.347046]

>>346746
are you fucking retarded holy shit
it takes as much energy to make shit as you get out of it wether you like it or not you fucking idiot l2 physics

[Anonymous No.347049]

>>347033
>OMG WTF -- if you had 500watts of power from solar in a vehicle, youd run it past a battery and DRIVE THE MOTOR DIRECTLY!

Yeah, that is exactly what some people do already,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_car

However, 500watts won't be very good for powering a standard vehicle. There's not enough amps in that to do it. You'd need to use that to charge up a battery array. Once fully charged then you could run a standard vehicle that has an electric motor.

Most of the solar cars produce a lot more than 500 watts. The bigger ones produce 2KW for about 2HP, which is still not going to do very well powering a standard vehicle directly. Which is why standard electric vehicles rely on a battery array.

[Anonymous No.347053]

>cars spit out "harmless" water in some crazy future fuel system
>end result is massive erosion over all roads and highways

God, it's like the idiots who say we should use natural gas because it burns clean. Never minding the fact that extracting the gas turns that area into a toxic hell.

[Anonymous No.347068]

>>347053
Agreed.

I like a better approach. One where we reduce the amount of energy needs in the first place. Like instead of trying to get better fuel mileage, how about structuring One's life in a way to use less fuel by not needing to use it in the first place? A simple example like getting jobs closer to home as a big start. Or, turning out lights at home you actually don't need to use. Or, opening a window instead of running the AC. Or, designing and building things that use less in the first place (like a house that uses passive solar). Or, ride a bicycle.

Instead it seems like we want to buy more, use more, go further, etc and get it for free or near-free. I wish we could live like that without consequences.

[Anonymous No.347069]

>>347068
I wish I could live near work without my quality of life decreasing.

[Anonymous No.347071]

>>347069
How did you get into a situation like that?

[Anonymous No.347074]

>>347071
I took a job in town. I don't want to live in town. I've moved 3 times since I started this job.

[Anonymous No.347086]

>>347069
How exactly does living near work decrease your quality of life? Millions of people live in towns and cities and carve out a perfectly acceptable quality of life.

[Anonymous No.347093]

>>347086
He probably can't wrap his mind around being able to make enough money from his current location. Many people are mentally locked into a certain mindset about what constitutes a job for making money and how to make money.

I don't live in a town or city either and I'll not give up my country residence. However, I need to make enough money to support my way of life. So, I learned how to cut expenses through simple measures and started my own business and farm. I do what I love doing and I'm getting money to do it. I live where I want to live and I don't have any commute to any workplace at all. Obviously, my situation isn't commonplace, but it is an example, one method of many.

[Anonymous No.347155]

Id rather not, The guy that built the water powered buggy was killed by the oil company's.

[Anonymous No.347183]

>>347033
>OMG WTF -- if you had 500watts of power from solar in a vehicle, youd run it past a battery and DRIVE THE MOTOR DIRECTLY!
Yes, yes you could. But it would be better to use some of that power to charge batteries to provide surge current during acceleration, or to keep the car going when it gets cloudy.

[Anonymous No.347187]

>>347086
Not the guy you're talking about, I work in Manhattan. I live in the suburbs and I have a dog, a yard, and a car. If I lived in Manhattan I would have to get an apartment, pay quite a bit of money for it, pay out the ass to park my car (Yeah I know I wouldn't need a car if I lived in the city but it's a classic car and I've put too much work into it to get rid of it) and I'd no longer have a yard or a workshop.
I'm not giving up my job, either. It pays well and it was bloody hard to get.
It might be an acceptable life-- but I can guarantee I'd be far from happy.

[Anonymous No.347216]

Report this thread you fuckwits.

[Anonymous No.347237]

>>346627
>>346627
>>346627
>>346627
entire thread tl;dr

What I have come to find out from taking chemistry classes is not using regular water as fuel, but using sodium hydroxide(salt water) as the fuel source. Cars need combustion, to run. A man, I forget the name published and patented a paper on how to do this, but he was bought out for millions. It has to do with radio wave frequencies, and a certain frequency will cause the sodium to combust.

[Anonymous No.347571]

[Anonymous No.347619]

>>347237
Clearly, you know almost nothing about chemistry.

[Anonymous No.347627]

>>347237
The salt is the electrolyte to allow better conductivity. Electrolysis turns water into hygrogen and oxygen (oxyhydrogen for short since they are mixed).

[Anonymous No.347642]

>>347619
hows that?

[Anonymous No.347677]

>>347237

this is one of the most profoundly ignorant, and stupid, posts i've seen here on /diy/ and it is predictably in a 'water fuel' thread.

there's so much wrong and stupid it's hard to even begin addressing.

you may not believe this, but it is actually possible to understand the processes involved. millions have done it. the knowledge was worked out over the last few centuries. it can be found in things called "books". and has nothing to do with people "bought out for millions" on youtube videos.

this is rivalling that other thread about repairing a light fixture that turned into amerifag/eurofag whose electricity is better hurrdurr.

[Anonymous No.347678]

>>346697
Being done. Graphene improves battery storage and charge times by a factor of 8 and they are now looking at carbon nanotubes to improve the electrodes. We could be looking at a 20 fold increase in battery capacity within 10 years - this changes the whole game to make electric cars very viable not to mention all the other deviices powered by batteries.

[Anonymous No.347695]

all the negative commenters seem so bent on disproving its hard not to believe they are disinfo.

[Anonymous No.347707]

>>347695
Well the one guy thinks sodium hydroxide is "salt water", clearly we should listen to his intelligent idea.s

[Anonymous No.347712]

also, one should consider the destruction of regular (non modified) combustion engine by hydrogen disease, or diffusion in metal, wich causes cracks in cylinder heads. especially valve seat area at high temperatures

[Anonymous No.347781]

>>347677
>>347677
Man, you're so smart. Thanks for the input fag. what you've just said ... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Anonymous No.347792]

>>347781
New world order thought police confirmed.

[Anonymous No.347836]

>>347678
it would be wonderful if they can get graphene or carbon nanotubes to consumers within ten years. Imagine what smartphones would be like, and their strength. For some reason I doubt it will happen that quick though

[Anonymous No.347877]

>>347001
would it be possible to hook up enough alternators to a single electric motor so that enough energy would be produced to run the motor, and possibly have excess electricity produced?
Say 1 motor connected on the same axle as 5 alternators?

[Anonymous No.347883]

>>347877

no, that is not possible. a motor connected to a generator will not run itself! seriously, you need to read a bit about modern science and physics.

[Anonymous No.347889]

>>347883
but what about a motor connected to 5 generators? or 10,100? The power used to turn the shared axle would never exceed the power generated?

[Anonymous No.347890]

>>347889

Not only would it not exceed it, you would lose quit a bit to the conversion of energy, friction and inefficiencies in the various components.

[Anonymous No.347922]

>>347792
He said NaOH is a salt. It's fucking drain cleaner you. He was trolling the HHO thread, not being helpful

[Anonymous No.347925]

>>347883
>modern science and physics
"modern" in this context means something that was understood at least 100 years ago: You can't get something for nothing.

[Anonymous No.347945]

>>347925
lol i have an idea.
also lol at whos lizarding this thread. peerblock is such a tattle'er.

ok so. lets do the fucking math on this so we can have something tangible instead of hurrs and durrs. then we can argue afterwards. AND HAVE NUMBERS TO ARGUE WITH!

so. lets think of a car. lets start with a ford festiva, something that gets around 50mpg, older model like 89.


Someone figure out what the hho gas intake would have to be in liters per minute.
We will need to figure out the idle and the higher rpms as well.
We need to figure out what the best cell design would be and its maximum output, as well as it voltage and amperage ratings.
The festiva doesnt have alot of surface area on top of the roof so we need to figure that out and how much voltage you could get out of putting solar on it. This would be to charge the batteries used for electrolysis. The solution used would be distilled water and household lye. Nickle cobalt is supposed to be a catalyst to the reaction that adds 15%-20% more efficiency in the electrolysis process so we need to account for that if we can find some numbers to use.
>inb4 burns too hot.
no, lets say we have ceramic coated pistons and injectors to keep the heat from the hydrogen and oxygen irrelevant.

Ok? lets figure this out.

capatacha- inc., weedicl

[Anonymous No.347946]

>>347889
In closed system you can never have more energy than you started out with.
One motor connected to one generator will lose energy due to inefficiencies in the motor and generator. Adding more alternators would seemingly produce more power, but in actually, having so many would make the shaft harder to turn so the motor must consume more energy.
You can never have more than 100%efficiency. Never. All energy has to come from somewhere, we can't create energy, merely change its form. A gasoline generator takes energy stored in fossil fuels and converts it into expanding gas and heat in the cylinders of the engine, then into motion with the pistons and drive axle, then into electricity in the generator. No energy created, just energy changed and some of it wasted as heat. That's why all these perpetual motion generators are nothing but scams. Can't create energy.

[Anonymous No.347955]

>>347946
What does closed system mean?

[Anonymous No.347959]

>>347945
>>347945
also probably end up using alternator or supplementing with it.

you know the reason you car can use your stereo, ac or heater, headlights, and anything else hooked into the cigarette lighter? the alternator keeps everything and the battery full at all times when operating properly. The alternator also produces like 50 volts at (forgot but depends) amperage and is dropped down to 14-12 volts to charge the battery and run things, the rest of the voltage is wasted heat.

so what if we tapped before the regulator and used a dc pulse in the electrolyser

[Anonymous No.347963]

>Ordinary guy discovers FREE ENERGY of SPINNING ELECTRICAL SECRET CPU FAN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1l_0J8g6w0

[Anonymous No.347961]

>>347945
>>347959
this is me both times

[Anonymous No.347965]

>>347963
ugh, if its imhotep then its meh.
the fan is a pain in the ass to make. it pulses dc so its good for fixing old batteries but it takes like 2 weeks.
the only over unity you get is 15% from the lil spinning fan.

if its a different one with magnets its fake and gay.

[Anonymous No.347969]

>>347965
No, it's from "GREENPOWERSCIENCE" and is 100% legit. You have to watch it.

[Anonymous No.347972]

>>347965

[Anonymous No.347990]

>>347955
Nothing enters or leaves, no external influences. That is, your motor/alternator setup isn't connected to a power source.

[Anonymous No.348039]

This thread is far too long and utterly retarded to read, but I'm curious... Did any of the solar power niggers in here google insolation? Also if there has been some mention of nuclear energy you are a bunch of hippies who's time would be better spent playing with your mothers' hairy vag.

[Anonymous No.348084]

>>348039
>didn't read the thread
>makes up a bunch of bullshit assumptions about the thread

Dude.

[Anonymous No.348123]

>>348084
Welcome to 4chan.

[Anonymous No.348180]

>>348084

actually, this thread is so filled with nonsense, any bullshit assumptions anyone could make about it are probably true.

[Anonymous No.349008]

someone

[Anonymous No.349093]

>>347945
>>347945
continued
Specs of Ford Festiva L, model year 1989, version for North America U.S. with 3-door hatchback body type, FWD (front-wheel drive) and manual 4-speed gearbox. Basic www.automobile-catalog.com specs and characteristics: petrol (gasoline) engine of 1323 cm3 / 81 cui displacement with advertised power 43 kW / 58 hp / 58 PS ( SAE net ) / 5000 and 99 Nm / 73 lb-ft / 3500 of torque. Dimensions: this model outside length is 3570 mm / 140.5 in, it’s 1605 mm / 63.2 in wide and has wheelbase of 2291 mm / 90.2 in. The officially claimed value of a drag coefficient Cd = 0.35 . Standard wheels were fitted with the tires size: (check standard and alternate tire sizes). Reference vehicle weights are: official base curb weight 775 kg / 1708 lbs . How fast is that car ? Performance: top speed 156 km/h (97 mph) (theoretical); accelerations 0- 60 mph 12.9 s; 0- 100 km/h 13.8 s (a-c simulation); 1/4 mile drag time (402 m) 19 s (a-c simulation). Fuel consumption and mileage: official: 38/40 mpg (U.S.), 6.2/5.9 l/100km, 45.5/47.9 mpg (imp.), 16.2/17 km/l EPA ratings , average estimated by a-c: 7.3 l/100km / 38.8 mpg (imp.) / 32.3 mpg (U.S.) / 13.7 km/l, average estimated combined driving range of this car is 522 km / 324 miles.

[Anonymous No.349096]

>>349093
>>349093
continued
How many liters of hho does it take to be equal of one drop of gasoline?

Gasoline is approximately 31.7 MJ/L. Drop sizes are extremely variable, depending on both the liquid and the dropper. Typical sizes are anywhere from 20 µL to 100 µL. If I take 50 µL as a typical drop, then 1.59 kJ/drop.

The volume of a gas is only meaningful if pressure and temperature is specified. Using "normal" conditions of 101.325 kPa and 0 °C, energy content of H2 is 10.8 kJ/L, but HHO gas would be 7.2 kJ/L. Thus a liter of HHO is about equivalent to 4.5 drops of gasoline.

Above uses Lower Heating Values from a DoE fuels data sheet for analysis. As electrolyisized, HHO will mostly likely be warmer than 0 °C, and have lower energy content. Use ideal gas law to calculate correction factor.

>no i didnt write this or do the math so correct it if its incorrect. Which being 4.5 instead of being 0.0011 or something along those lines, i would expect it to be incorrect math.

[Anonymous No.350546]

bump of life

[Anonymous No.350562]

>>349096

you're makign it complicated. for round numbers (5% or so) back-calculate from realistic gasoline MPG to somethign like BTUs/hour or BTUs per tank or whatever, and look up BTUs per unit volume H2. Its not rocket science.

you'll realize quickly the economics of the thing.

[Riduzione consumi benzina con HHO No.350574]

For the italian people i seee this:
http://www.maxicross.it/nuovo-sito/HHO-fatto-in-casa.html
It's good?

[Anonymous No.350576]

>>350574
like this?

[Anonymous No.350577]

>>350574
it's like an italian DIY for hho...seams nice!

[Anonymous No.350595]

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

[Anonymous No.350599]

>>346755
by your retarded definition of fuel, those are not fuel either, because something.someone put more energy into it then you get out of them.
Your definition of fuel is a completely self-centered unscientific one.