Re: Anyone following this? Another hoax?
- From: "Dusty" <RV_phixer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:36:48 -0700
G'day all;
....
Will Sill wrote:Well, first off, it wasn't *I* that wanted to know about that
I see where "Dusty" <RV_phixer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wanted
to
know if anyone is "following" the Keelynet page of fantasies.
Nope. My BS detector went to overload on reading this blurb:
subject. I'm already pretty well informed about what's
euphemistically known as "Brown's Gas".
Yes. It's real. Yes, it will burn. Yes, you can do things with
it. However, it's a gimmick, not a solution. At best it becomes a
vehicle for separating a fool from the contents of his wallet (read:
we're looking for "investors" on this "sure-thing").
The problem is that water, when separated in one of those (and
related) devices, turns into a stoichiometric mix of H2 and O2.
Interesting stuff. It'll burn, and it'll make heat & light. But
it's damned dangerous. I've had folks tell me that it'll ignite
just by looking at it cross-eyed. You have to use flame arresters
and water traps to keep the flame you're using from flashing back
into the generator tank. Cuz when it does, things tend to go
"BOOM!" loudly, and everybody within range gets peppered with
sulphuric acid and flying debris.
The problem is that unlike burning H2 in air--where it performs as a
poor quality "fuel" (NB: hydrogen is NOT a fuel, it's a vehicle for
transferring energy, so I'm using that term a bit euphemistically
here), burning the gas achieved from that device becomes a net loss
of energy. The amount of energy you get back is the sum of the
amount of energy it took to pry the H & O molecules apart to make
the gas, less the heat & light lost to the process when you burn
them again, plus the losses due to the separator device, and so on.
So that processes uses cheap electricity to make expensive gasses,
that don't get cheaper when you recombine 'em.
However, one of the most interesting things about that gas was how
combining them resulted in a vacuum if the container was sealed. We
did manage to get a sort of vacuum driven, linear engine running for
a bit (made out of glass, of all things). But while an interesting
experiment, it turned out to be--as expected--a net loser, energy
wise...
As for that car reputed to have gotten the mileage claimed; I've not
had a chance to examine how they did that. Cuz just using simple
math, such results should not be possible. Now, while it's entirely
possible that I've missed some important new wrinkle or development,
until I get to test it myself...you can color me skeptical...
Now excuse me while I pour some more freshly brewed bio-diesel into
the big Ford and go out and tear up some real-estate so I can hear
that turbo whine...(:-o)!
L8r all,
Dusty
....
.
- References:
- Anyone following this? Another hoax?
- From: Lone Haranguer
- Re: Anyone following this? Another hoax?
- From: Dusty
- Re: Anyone following this? Another hoax?
- From: Jim W
- Anyone following this? Another hoax?
- Prev by Date: Re: Slow slide on a Newmar
- Next by Date: Re: OT- Your Taxes at Work
- Previous by thread: Re: Anyone following this? Another hoax?
- Next by thread: Re: Anyone following this? Another hoax?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
