|
 |
|
06-23-2008, 09:04 AM
|
#46
|
|
FLAC
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,379
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Bugbyte  ...the nuclear industry made claims back in the 70's about electricity being so cheap that it would cost more to meter it than it would to simply give it away for free. So far, that hasn't turned up on my electric bill.
It probably never was going to be free, but it certainly could have lowered the price of power quite a bit. The anti-nuclear lobby essentially stopped all nuclear development in the early 70s. There hasn't been a new plant in ages, so we never gave it a chance to drop our electrical prices.
Ironically, the 'environmentalists' who did this were responsible for millions of tons of soot and waste being pumped into our environment by petroleum power plants, as well as millions of acres of beautiful land despoiled to mine for coal to power the coal plants because the nukes that would have put them out of business weren't allowed to appear. The founder of Greenpeace came out publicly and apologized recently and has said that he (and his organization) screwed the pooch and he now backs nuclear power.
But the movement has legs of its own now, and the excitable and non-scientific masses (lots of the same folks in the 'hydroxy' crowd, go figure) reject anything with the evil nuclear name.
|
|
|
|
Sponsored links
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
06-23-2008, 09:22 AM
|
#47
|
|
cheap custom title
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ghent - Belgium
Posts: 1,856
|
Quote: Originally Posted by danielkh Some people have a hard time thinking out of the box. Awhile back, I was talking about suplimental wind created electricity on an electric car. What was everyone's first response? "Didn't you take high school physics? A windmill on a car creates more drag than the electricity it creates! Ahahahaha....what a moron. Look at this guy!"
But what they failed to see was that every surface, even a razor blade on it's edge has some drag coeffecient. Now, take some surface that already has drag, say hood, grill, between windshield and roof, and put in a compression tunnel, add a wind turbine on it's side INSIDE this tunnel. or even a series of turbines. Now you haven't increased drag, and you have an electric generator running faster than the car (through compression), and voila! You have suplimental electricity through a wind generator WITHOUT creating more drag. You may not be able to run the car "perpetually". but you will be able to go further than you could without it.
Arrogance isn't always your friend. And suplimental is suplimental even if it only increases effeciency by .000001%.
I wouldn't go so far as calling you a moron - but you forgot one basic element in your logic: if you're able to create a "tunnel" in your car, you would make it more efficient by just letting the air pass through instead of putting any turbine in there...
Still the same problem: the efficiency of conversion between different technologies of energy storage/transport is quite low, so just evading any conversion and minimising consumption is the only way to increase efficiency.
The prius works on the theory that a combustion engine isn't always as efficient as it can be. At low RPM and low loads it is less efficient, so they gain a little bit of efficiency by charging batteries when the engine runs in the best conditions (right rpm) and uses the electric motor for accelerating from low speeds etc...
The prius isn't that efficient if you consider aerodynamics, thin tyres, low weight etc. The hybrid technology is 90% marketing and 10% real improvement.
If the same results were possible with the tech described here, why would they make it so complicated in the prius?
What could help: create the hydrogen yourself (using grid electricity), compress it yourself (this takes energy too!), put it in the car and use as supplemental energy source. Probably more efficient using a fuel cell and electric motor to convert hydrogen into kynetic energy. Probably more efficient to use batteries you charge from the grid to transport the energy...etc etc etc...
But they are all fun projects and the sheer hope for it to make any difference will make you drive more efficiently (less acceleration...etc read up on hypermiling if you don't know what I mean: it can make for spectacular MPG without mods) so the environment and your wallet will be happy 
Good luck!
Last edited by JC-S60; 06-23-2008 at 09:25 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2008, 09:27 AM
|
#48
|
|
FLAC
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,379
|
Quote: Originally Posted by eric_barcus ok i didnt even read ANY of the responces to this thread cause i can tell you that this is EXACTLY<long punctuationless text snipped>
Translation: Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up.
|
|
|
|
|
07-13-2008, 05:16 AM
|
#49
|
|
Maximum Bitrate
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 746
|
Chairboy, Why do you disbelieve that this is possible?
You are not creating energey from nothing. All it is is pulling the atoms out of water and using them for fuel. Maybe current electrolisis is not effiecent enough but maybe some of these guys are on to something.
They make welders out of this technology already. It does use 220VAC to run.
http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/generator
From what ive read they claim to be able to resonate the electrolis process to seperate the hydrogen and water faster. I donbt think you will believe it even if you see it working.
Maybe eric_barcus will show us some videos of his setup?
I'm still sceptical of it working. But scientest have been disproved over and over again to find out what they thought was impossible, is possible.
We use to think the world was flat. We thought Pluto was our 9th planet, (which sucks, i still think it counts as the 9th planet!)
Plenty more things have been proven to be possible that were not thought possible in the past. Only time will tell.
Didn't they recently say that the big bang theory is possibly the most acurate explanation of how we all started. (not that that means anything, who really cares about something that happen trillions of years ago.)
Anyways, thats my 2 cents. I need this to work so my tahoe will get better MPG 
|
|
|
|
|
07-13-2008, 07:22 AM
|
#50
|
|
cheap custom title
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ghent - Belgium
Posts: 1,856
|
Quote: Originally Posted by pRoFiT Chairboy, Why do you disbelieve that this is possible?
You are not creating energey from nothing. All it is is pulling the atoms out of water and using them for fuel. Maybe current electrolisis is not effiecent enough but maybe some of these guys are on to something.
They make welders out of this technology already. It does use 220VAC to run.
http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/generator
From what ive read they claim to be able to resonate the electrolis process to seperate the hydrogen and water faster. I donbt think you will believe it even if you see it working.
OK, how much electricity does it use and how does that compare to the energy available in gas form? THAT's the key.
Quote:
Maybe eric_barcus will show us some videos of his setup?
I'm still sceptical of it working. But scientest have been disproved over and over again to find out what they thought was impossible, is possible.
We use to think the world was flat. We thought Pluto was our 9th planet, (which sucks, i still think it counts as the 9th planet!)
Plenty more things have been proven to be possible that were not thought possible in the past. Only time will tell.
I'm convinced we will discover plenty of new energy sources, but I doubt man will discover them on some internet forum
Quote:
Didn't they recently say that the big bang theory is possibly the most acurate explanation of how we all started. (not that that means anything, who really cares about something that happen trillions of years ago.)
There are a lot of mathematics behind that (just like discovering the earth is round) and exactly there all these internet hoaxes don't "add up" heh..
Quote:
Anyways, thats my 2 cents. I need this to work so my tahoe will get better MPG
I want this to work as much as you, but just wanting it isn't going to make it happen Worse, all this crap on the internet confuses us into spending more money!
That's my 2 cents (and I'm willing to ignore exchange rates so they are equal value )
|
|
|
|
|
07-13-2008, 11:42 AM
|
#51
|
|
Newbie
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 26
|
Quote: Originally Posted by JC-S60 I wouldn't go so far as calling you a moron - but you forgot one basic element in your logic: if you're able to create a "tunnel" in your car, you would make it more efficient by just letting the air pass through instead of putting any turbine in there...
Still the same problem: the efficiency of conversion between different technologies of energy storage/transport is quite low, so just evading any conversion and minimising consumption is the only way to increase efficiency.
The prius works on the theory that a combustion engine isn't always as efficient as it can be. At low RPM and low loads it is less efficient, so they gain a little bit of efficiency by charging batteries when the engine runs in the best conditions (right rpm) and uses the electric motor for accelerating from low speeds etc...
The prius isn't that efficient if you consider aerodynamics, thin tyres, low weight etc. The hybrid technology is 90% marketing and 10% real improvement.
If the same results were possible with the tech described here, why would they make it so complicated in the prius?
What could help: create the hydrogen yourself (using grid electricity), compress it yourself (this takes energy too!), put it in the car and use as supplemental energy source. Probably more efficient using a fuel cell and electric motor to convert hydrogen into kynetic energy. Probably more efficient to use batteries you charge from the grid to transport the energy...etc etc etc...
But they are all fun projects and the sheer hope for it to make any difference will make you drive more efficiently (less acceleration...etc read up on hypermiling if you don't know what I mean: it can make for spectacular MPG without mods) so the environment and your wallet will be happy
Good luck!
Just as a general statement to the thread, it would be ignorant to think that using your cars energy to split a molecule then burn it would be effecient.
bad gas mileage is most effected by braking. A H1 Hummer gets more than 20mpg traveling a 30mph without having to stop. But when your in stop and go traffic thats what kills it. You lose so much energy into braking.
But using turbines has possibilities (not probabilities). By using the turbines to convert kinetic energy into electric energy. Then using that energy to power you from a stopped position can improve fuel economy by leaps and bounds. There was a university in Ohio that experimented with this and eventually returned decent results. However as of right now at least the "couple hundred dollar conversion kit" is not going to be available anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
07-13-2008, 09:52 PM
|
#52
|
|
Admin. Don't bug or I'll byte.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Corning, NY
Posts: 4,691
|
Quote: Originally Posted by pRoFiT Chairboy, Why do you disbelieve that this is possible?
You are not creating energey from nothing. All it is is pulling the atoms out of water and using them for fuel. Maybe current electrolisis is not effiecent enough but maybe some of these guys are on to something.
They make welders out of this technology already. It does use 220VAC to run.
http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/generator
The science behind this is what the internet guys refuse to believe. Here's the basic theory:
You cannot pull more energy out of something than is put into it.
When you create hydrogen using electricity, it will take more electrical energy to split the hydrogen than you can yield from the hydrogen when you burn it. The electrical energy comes from burning gasoline. Therefore, you burn more gasoline than you replace by the hydrogen.
Scientifically, this is the principal of the conservation of energy and it has yet to be disproved. So, the burden is on the hydroxy types to disprove it. Because of the scientific validation of this claim, one should be very, very skeptical of it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. This is an extraordinary claim.
|
|
|
|
|
07-16-2008, 02:41 AM
|
#53
|
|
Maximum Bitrate
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 746
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Bugbyte The science behind this is what the internet guys refuse to believe. Here's the basic theory:
You cannot pull more energy out of something than is put into it.
When you create hydrogen using electricity, it will take more electrical energy to split the hydrogen than you can yield from the hydrogen when you burn it. The electrical energy comes from burning gasoline. Therefore, you burn more gasoline than you replace by the hydrogen.
Scientifically, this is the principal of the conservation of energy and it has yet to be disproved. So, the burden is on the hydroxy types to disprove it. Because of the scientific validation of this claim, one should be very, very skeptical of it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. This is an extraordinary claim.
Bugbyte, Come on really. If you pull oil from the ground and convert that to gass then burn it. is that not the same. You took energy to get the oil out of the ground. then you took energy to convert to gasoline. but it is still efficent enough to put into cars. The only reason the price is so high for america is because the government wont let us use the reserves we have and the green freaks wont let us pull it from the ocean floors.
If water has the chemicals in it to a use as a fuel we would not be making more energy then we used to make it because the energy is already in the water and we didn't make it (we did not make water). If we burn hydrogen we dont say we used more energy to ignite it then we get back from burning hydrogen, do we?
It really comes down to if there is an electrolis technique that is effiecent enough to pull the hydrogen and oxygen (that is in water already) apart and use to create a fuel.
Not creating more enegery then using. using energy that is already there.
Like an engine that generates electricity through the altenator then uses that energy to power a radio, lights, and the big one...ignite the gas and keep it burning.
A diesel engine doesn't even need a spark plug to keep it running, it uses a glow plug. how is that possible!
No laws are being broken here. But, Just because its a scientific law doesn't mean it cant be broken.
Another thing that bugs me. Everyone is scared about hydrogen blowing up. it still needs to be compressed like gass to explode. the stupid hindenburg was built with explosive material and thats why it went up so fast. it did not explode. it was just a ball of flames. i think gas fumes would do the same thing if you caught it on fire.
|
|
|
|
|
07-16-2008, 03:03 AM
|
#54
|
|
Fusion Brain Creator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Colorado, but Canadian!
Posts: 7,442
|
To get hydrogen without a huge steam factory, you need electrolysis. If you want to power an electrolysis machine from the gas powered motor, (via the alternator), and then inject it back into the system and burn it which in turn makes energy and runs the electrolysis and so on, it wont work. It wont give you efficiency.
You need to create hydrogen outside the car, and put it in a tank and use it on the road. But then the question is the cost of getting this hydrogen to use. So you can use a solar powered electrolysis machine, which currently exist for about $4000, and producce enough during the day to power 1 vehicle about 25 miles. Which is ok for some, but usually you will need a commercial centre that distributes hydrogen like this, or you will need to run it off the grid. Since most of the electricity in the US is created through messy fossil fuel plants, you may drive a hydrogen car, but you are still using fossile fuel.
The only way to get an efficient hydrogen car, is not by a hybrid gas/hydrogen, but with a full electric.
A 100% hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is about 40% efficient. Better than a gas car, but still an electric vehicle is in the 90% range.
Dont know why they dont just put up some more Nuclear plants, to power hydrogen plants and convert to fuel cells... Clean, safe, and cheap.
|
|
|
|
07-16-2008, 06:50 AM
|
#55
|
|
cheap custom title
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ghent - Belgium
Posts: 1,856
|
Quote: Originally Posted by pRoFiT Bugbyte, Come on really. If you pull oil from the ground and convert that to gass then burn it. is that not the same. You took energy to get the oil out of the ground. then you took energy to convert to gasoline. but it is still efficent enough to put into cars. The only reason the price is so high for america is because the government wont let us use the reserves we have and the green freaks wont let us pull it from the ocean floors.
If water has the chemicals in it to a use as a fuel we would not be making more energy then we used to make it because the energy is already in the water and we didn't make it (we did not make water). If we burn hydrogen we dont say we used more energy to ignite it then we get back from burning hydrogen, do we?
It really comes down to if there is an electrolis technique that is effiecent enough to pull the hydrogen and oxygen (that is in water already) apart and use to create a fuel.
Not creating more enegery then using. using energy that is already there.
Like an engine that generates electricity through the altenator then uses that energy to power a radio, lights, and the big one...ignite the gas and keep it burning.
A diesel engine doesn't even need a spark plug to keep it running, it uses a glow plug. how is that possible!
No laws are being broken here. But, Just because its a scientific law doesn't mean it cant be broken.
Another thing that bugs me. Everyone is scared about hydrogen blowing up. it still needs to be compressed like gass to explode. the stupid hindenburg was built with explosive material and thats why it went up so fast. it did not explode. it was just a ball of flames. i think gas fumes would do the same thing if you caught it on fire.
There is a big difference between oil and water. Oil (even crude) is a fuel, water is not. Look at it this way: at the start of the process you have water. After burning hydrogen the result is water. The energy needs to come from somewhere.
With oil, the result is mostly CO2. The original source of oil, but needing a very long and energy consuming (solar energy, pressure from gravity) process to get there.
To understand, just try to make full circle with any energy "source".
I put source but actually they are mostly methods of transport and storage of energy...
Joa
|
|
|
|
|
07-16-2008, 11:14 AM
|
#56
|
|
Admin. Don't bug or I'll byte.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Corning, NY
Posts: 4,691
|
Quote: Originally Posted by pRoFiT Bugbyte, Come on really. If you pull oil from the ground and convert that to gass then burn it. is that not the same. You took energy to get the oil out of the ground. then you took energy to convert to gasoline. but it is still efficent enough to put into cars.
No, it is not the same. You have to look at the entire cycle. Basically, oil right out of the ground can be used as a fuel. That means its chemical composition permits a ready release of energy -usually in the form of heat, most often through combustion.
The energy and ready chemical composition of that fuel came from the millions of years of plant decay and geologic pressures that turn it into petroleum. Refining that petroleum is straightforward - just use *more* petroleum. It's not a closed system. You add energy to refine crude oil into a higher octane mixture for gasoline.
In the case of electrolysis you are manufacturing your own fuel rather than relying on nature and gravity to provide the energy. That means you have to generate the energy, in the form of electricity. That electricity is generated by your alternator (and stored in your battery) which is powered by...wait for it...the gasoline in your tank.
Effectively, you have an oil powered hydrogen extractor in your car.
Quote: Originally Posted by pRoFiT No laws are being broken here. But, Just because its a scientific law doesn't mean it cant be broken.
Agreed. But scientific laws are derived from theories that are tested through repeated and varied experiments which can prove or disprove the hypothesis they are based on. It doesn't become a law until the scientific community is pretty sure it is true. That's why claiming that the law is wrong requires not only proof, but the claim must be both repeatable and consistent before it can be accepted.
Let's take a different approach. Let's conduct the following thought experiment:
Suppose that the electrolysis process extracts enough hydrogen to provide MORE energy than the gasoline required to power the electrolysis process. Over time, you should be able to store the excess hydrogen and power your car off of more and more hydrogen, right? At a certain point, you would find that you no longer need to fill the tank with gasoline. In fact, you could use the hydrogen that you created from the electrolysis process to power the electrolysis process. The only thing you would need to add more of is water.
Since no one is making that claim, the electrolysis process must create less energy than it uses, thus the conservation of energy law is not broken. The only question to ask oneself at that point is: "how much energy is being added by the hydrogen vs. the energy required to extract it?" Convert that to dollars and there's your savings in gas money.
I have see zero scientifically validated experiments that answer this question. Only opinion and assertion.
Let's pretend, though, that the answer is, "a meaningful amount." Say, it adds 25% to your gas mileage. If that were true, then we should apply this same process to hydrogen fueled vehicles to make them more efficient too, right? By that, I mean we if we had a car that had a hydrogen engine in it and a hydrogen gas tank, we could use some of the hydrogen in the tank to power an electrolysis process that would use water to refill the tank with hydrogen, right? We could probably make it more efficient by capturing the exhaust of the hydrogen engine (water) and not have to carry as much water with us either!
Why don't they do that? Certainly, one of the problems with hydrogen as a fuel is that in order to carry enough of it to have the same range as a gasoline powered automobile, the tanks either have to be huge or you have to compress it and store it as a liquid at temps way below zero. If this process works, it would help increase range and require you to carry less hydrogen.
I suspect the answer is that you simply can't generate meaningful amounts of hydrogen through the electrolysis process. It's better to simply burn the hydrogen directly than to waste it trying to generate more of it. And I think the answer is the same for gasoline powered vehicles, too.
2K1 is right. The best bet for cars is to figure out how to store electricity. We can figure out all kinds of ways to generate electricity without oil. If we want to use that electricity to extract hydrogen, that's great, but we shouldn't think of it as an 'efficient' process. It is probably more efficient to put the electricity to work directly.
|
|
|
|
|
07-16-2008, 04:42 PM
|
#57
|
|
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 54
|
There's just no convincing the ignorant.
PM me an address one of you "believers" and I'll mail you a thermodynamics textbook. Hell, I'll even put Post-its on the chapter on the First Law, and the description of a Closed System.
|
|
|
|
|
07-16-2008, 05:32 PM
|
#58
|
|
Raw Wave
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 2,542
|
You guys are just jealous. 
|
|
|
|
|
07-16-2008, 10:17 PM
|
#59
|
|
Fusion Brain Creator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Colorado, but Canadian!
Posts: 7,442
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Tidder You guys are just jealous.
I know I am... I want to be able to break the law of conservation of energy too like all these people. 
|
|
|
|
|
07-18-2008, 03:35 AM
|
#60
|
|
Maximum Bitrate
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 746
|
Anyone see the electro magnetic engine that is self sustaining? Hmm i cant find it.
Damn Check this one out, i dont know but if possible this would be sweet.
Or this EVM technology. an electric motor outputting kilowatts of free energy? 40% more power out then needed to run.
This first one would be great. i would have to see it in person. The second one would be nice for the house. no more electric bill.
I know water and oil are not the same. but they both have the capabilities to be used for energy.
|
|
|
|
|
Sponsored links
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57 AM.
| |
