Direct electrolysis hydrogen cooker?

Hi everybody!

Well, getting out of the rocket stoves and RMH forums, for a question.

I searched the internet a bit on the subject. And i didn't find much.

Does a direct electrolysis hydrogen cooker exist.

I mean, solar panels  wires, going directly in water may be with a switch, then the H² and O is directed directly to the burner?

I don't fully understand what instantaneous power is required to boil tatters for example. But with 4 or 5 m² of panel, it might be possible?

Any idea?

Thanks a lot.

Max.

One of those things that sounds good in therory but practically sucks.
Hydrogen is difficult to handle un like methane more likely to explode ( think WWi zepplins )   and you would need specialised equipment to burn , your local gas cooker wont do. Thats why hyrdrogen fuel cars have not taken off in a big way .  

David  

I imagine it would also be very inefficient. Every time you convert energy from one form to another, you unavoidably lose some of the energy.

Probably easier to build a methane generator like in this video:




EDIT - Ignore what I said about a methane generator being "easy". Sure is cool though.

Matt Coston wrote:I imagine it would also be very inefficient.

I agree but more power to those who would experiment.

Satamax Antone wrote:solar panels  wires, going directly in water may be with a switch, then the H² and O is directed directly to the burner?

I don't see much promise in hydrogen being a consumer option soon but you might consider a Bedini Wheel as a cloudy day alternative to photo-voltaic.

All the same, DIY steam turbines driven by pyrolysis appeal more to me: heating, biochar, electricity and carbon sequestration bundled in one cool system.

It is certainly an interesting experiment, but not very practical.
If a solar cooker is not an option, then an induction plate connected to sufficient solar panels is probably the next option. But I would not like to depend on direct sunshine for cooking.

I have seen it done. It was elaborate. Big propane type tanks to store it. A pump was needed to pressurize it for storage. But, he had gas for life to run anything. Anytime the sun was shining, we was making and storing energy.

Not sure this is any more inefficient over battery storage. Its probably better.  I would suspect it is less $$ to maintain over batteries just from the point of battery cost and replacement.

I supposes you've tried this, Satamax, but for those reading this thread who may not have...  Here is a way to get audio-visual info about doing this sort of thing — both demonstrative basic experiments and full-on home-level systems.  Go to Youtube, enter these terms:  home hydrogen production

Good luck.

wayne fajkus wrote:I have seen it done. It was elaborate. Big propane type tanks to store it. A pump was needed to pressurize it for storage. But, he had gas for life to run anything. Anytime the sun was shining, we was making and storing energy.

Not sure this is any more inefficient over battery storage. Its probably better.  I would suspect it is less $$ to maintain over batteries just from the point of battery cost and replacement.

Actually batteries are significantly cheaper (both initial purchase and maintenance) and much more efficient.

The guy that built the "hydrogen house" did it to prove the concept, but the initial cost was in the hundred of thousands of dollars, I think he has it down to around $100K now.  That is still 3-5x as much as an off-grid setup with batteries.

Plus the system STILL uses batteries.  PEM fuel cells only work well at a constant load, they don't handle surges.

Joel Bercardin wrote:I supposes you've tried this, Satamax, but for those reading this thread who may not have...  Here is a way to get audio-visual info about doing this sort of thing — both demonstrative basic experiments and full-on home-level systems.  Go to Youtube, enter these terms:  home hydrogen production

Good luck.

I have seen this one.

My old bike now junk use to run partially on water. The reason I am able to save more than 40% petrol is because the hydrogen acts as primer that ignites the petrol quickly and more efficiently. If I have to go full HHO that will require adding alternator.From what I've seen so far cooking with HHO is not advisable. My flame arrestor failed once while experimenting with HHO welder luckily I use baking soda catalyst so the splash on me didn't hurt. Yep use baking soda saturated solution do not believe in what you tube and other popular websites they are mostly crap. How do I knew that baking soda is best catalyst. Well I captured the gas produce by the electrolyzer in small plastics using various catalyst and ignited them. baking soda explodes big time.  

As suggested above use induction cooker instead direct from your panels

DO NOT STORE HHO YOUR SYSTEM SHOULD CONTAIN THE LEAST AMOUNT OF IT THAT MEANS USE THE SMALLEST HOSE AND BLUBBERS SHOULD CONTAIN THE LEAST OF IT. HHO IS DANGEROUS BE CAREFUL.

How about using the ev system to heat up a digester to make methane and store that

Hmm...
It requires between 1.5 and 2 kw of electricity to generate 1kw worth of hydrogen in the best industrial plants which are far more efficient then a diy rig. That is without compression or storage losses which are large. Efficiency of charge controllers and batteries are greater then 80%. So Solar and battery storage come out the clear winner. A fun experiment nonetheless worthy of effort. I will not delve into the HHO pool as mentioned above suffice it to say I believe in the laws of physics.
Cheers, David B.

I rather like the idea.  I've seen a lot about HHO gas being generated for use in automotive internal combustion engines.  What I like about your Hydrogen cooker idea is that with a little bit of water and electrolyte, you can generate HHO gas to burn.  Flip a switch and your solar panels go from doing work, or charging storage batteries, to generating HHO gas for a burner.  However, as has been pointed out, it would probably be a lot more efficient to use that electricity to power a heating element and cook your food with that.  While it certainly can be done, it most likely is impractical.