Oxyhydrogen Generator Development: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Against== | ==Against== | ||
*It works well, but is expensive - [http://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/some-simple-truths-about-hydrogen-and-hho.92243/] | *It works well, but is expensive - [http://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/some-simple-truths-about-hydrogen-and-hho.92243/] | ||
*"Inferior to acetylene" apparently on flame temperature - see below Fig. 4 at [https://archive.org/stream/oxyacetyleneweld00swinrich/oxyacetyleneweld00swinrich_djvu.txt] | |||
=Sources= | =Sources= | ||
Revision as of 06:08, 21 January 2016
The Question
- Given that on-demand hydrogen can be generated anywhere, why is it so unpopular for on-demand generation of cutting gas? The big guys [1] say that is expensive.
However, if a 50 lb bottle of acetylene is $100 - and electricity is 10 cents per kilowatt hour - we have $100 would cover 1000 hours of such cutting. Assuming that it takes 5kW to generate a cutting flame at 85% electrolyzer efficiency - that is enough for 200 hours of cutting on the equivalent of one tank of acetylene. One tank of acetylene lasts no more than 24 hours in cutting, so oxyhydrogen appears to be a factor of 10 cheaper. See supporting reference - [2]
Why nobody oxyhydrogen cuts?
Arguments For
- "As you know when it comes to oxy-fuel applications the "Holy Grail" is Hydrogen - See more at: http://www.harrisproductsgroup.com/en/Expert-Advice/Articles/Oxy-Hydrogen.aspx#sthash.1fs1Ja4y.dpuf "
- Welding Engineer, p. 31 - oxyhydrogen cutting is significantly faster (2x) than oxyacetylene - for large cuts. [3]
- Welding Engineer, p. 39 - acetylene takes significantly more oxygen to burn than oxyhydrogen. This appears to make the economic advantage of oxyhydrogen more than 10x that of oxyacetylene
Against
- It works well, but is expensive - [4]
- "Inferior to acetylene" apparently on flame temperature - see below Fig. 4 at [5]