See video - Water Energy powers Cars

[77r 0]

As I said before you got started with your rant : (to Ryoder) "In all fairness, You could be right, but I'm sure there's a lot more to it IF he got it to work. " Until one of you inspects his engine in person, your speculation based on physics reasoning (albeit better than mine) is still speculation. New discoveries are made everyday and don't expect me to discount it simply because someone makes a good argument against it. No one in this thread has proven anything yet, despite some sound physics reasoning as to why they don't think it works. I don't know if it works or not, I don't really care, but as stated earlier, a video like the one I posted gets discussion started. I'm not the issue here. And I'm not pretending that something else happened. As I've said, the stance I have is that someone needs to prove their position before they discount something. And Ryoder and others responded to that statement I made accordingly. Which is how you've been off topic, because you've been fixating on one little statement that like I said was addressed long ago, and which was not argued with by me. My 'grasping' at hydrogen fuel cell technology was simply a response to your adamant insistence that a car cannot be run off of water, which is obviously composed of hydrogen which could make something like the guys car feasible if he found a way to extract it from water. It isn't always necessary to be a tight @$$. Discussing the hypothetical(and quite possibly feasible) is not sacrilege to sound physical reasoning. Having a lack of imagination, or an intolerance of it is what stiffles innovation.

Quote

[dorbie] "I'm done here. REALLY, my last post. I'm off to argue with my goldfish".

Good, you finally see how pointless this all is. At least with your goldfish you'll be able to walk away feeling like you were right in your own hubris arguing a non issue as self appointed memory for the forum. Kudos

[ryoder 1,590]

I am so jealous of Dorbie. I've never elicited so much passion from a chick in the forums.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[77r 0]

Quote

I am so jealous of Dorbie. I've never elicited so much passion from a chick in the forums.

Don't be jealous of dorbie. He just had his BS rabble rousing called on which has sent him off to take his frustration out on his goldfish.

[billvon 3,118]

>Running a car off of Hydrogen is not bogus.

It can certainly be done; it just doesn't have many advantages. Low range, greater danger, non-availability of hydrogen to name a few.

>Namely is it worth it to expend the energy to make it work vs. can a car
>run off of water/hydrogen, which it has been proven it does.

Well, cars can't run off water; there's no usable energy in water. (With the exception of steam cars - but you have to boil the water first using some other energy source.) "Water cars" aren't really the same as "hydrogen cars."

[77r 0]

Quote

>Running a car off of Hydrogen is not bogus.

It can certainly be done; it just doesn't have many advantages. Low range, greater danger, non-availability of hydrogen to name a few.

>Namely is it worth it to expend the energy to make it work vs. can a car
>run off of water/hydrogen, which it has been proven it does.

Well, cars can't run off water; there's no usable energy in water. (With the exception of steam cars - but you have to boil the water first using some other energy source.) "Water cars" aren't really the same as "hydrogen cars."

I think I have the whole hydrogen/water thing coming out of my ears at this point. lol. And I appreciate most everyone's input in this posting.

No one knew the Atom could be split for a time too, so unlikely things shouldn't be completely dismissed is all I was getting at earlier. I never purported to have evidence to the contrary, but invited proof against what seemed to be a very interesting piece of news. Ryoder and others clarified a few things. Turned into a good discussion (for the most part).

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

As I said before you got started with your rant : (to Ryoder) "In all fairness, You could be right, but I'm sure there's a lot more to it IF he got it to work. " Until one of you inspects his engine in person, your speculation based on physics reasoning (albeit better than mine) is still speculation.

Oh sweet jesus you're still at it!

Dude, back the fuck down, ok?

You posted something you didn't understand, you attacked the first person who did understand it, and then you argued for two pages that you didn't attack that person, that you did understand what they said, and now you repeat your initial misunderstanding!

Seriously, a clever engine cannot bypass chemistry - and regardless of that, his device isn't new, it was first invented decades ago. Google Brown's gas.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Oh sweet jesus you're still at it!

Dude, back the fuck down, ok?

No, I'm The Dude; she's a chick, for chrissake! Doesn't anyone else read profiles?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[77r 0]

I would hardly call it an attack. It was more like a challenge to prove something wrong. But ok. We backed down hours ago btw as far as I know.

[willard 0]

Quote

>Running a car off of Hydrogen is not bogus.

It can certainly be done; it just doesn't have many advantages. Low range, greater danger, non-availability of hydrogen to name a few.

>Namely is it worth it to expend the energy to make it work vs. can a car
>run off of water/hydrogen, which it has been proven it does.

Well, cars can't run off water; there's no usable energy in water. (With the exception of steam cars - but you have to boil the water first using some other energy source.) "Water cars" aren't really the same as "hydrogen cars."

If it were affordable I would convert my Focus to hydrogen fuel cell power. I have the advantage of living only 10 miles from Ohio State campus where I take classes, and they also have Ohio's first hydrogen refueling station. Storing hydrogen onboard is as safe as storing gasoline, just different dangers. One big problem is, and will continue to be, the cost of the fuel cells.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Quote

Oh sweet jesus you're still at it!

Dude, back the fuck down, ok?

No, I'm The Dude; she's a chick, for chrissake! Doesn't anyone else read profiles?

I call everyone dude! Anyway, Ana? Could have been an acronym?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,118]

>Storing hydrogen onboard is as safe as storing gasoline, just different dangers.

I don't think that's true. You need very large high pressure tanks (3000-4000 PSI) to store enough hydrogen to get an equivalent range to a gas car. Rupturing a gas tank results in a spill but no serious incident unless there is also a fire. Rupturing a 4000psi 200cu ft tank in the back of the car will kill you.

In addition, hydrogen will combust over a very wide range of fuel/air mixtures compared to a gas like methane. So a fireball is a lot more likely after an accident.

Doesn't mean it can't be safe enough, but I don't think that it's as safe at our current state of technology.

[willard 0]

Quote

>Storing hydrogen onboard is as safe as storing gasoline, just different dangers.

I don't think that's true. You need very large high pressure tanks (3000-4000 PSI) to store enough hydrogen to get an equivalent range to a gas car. Rupturing a gas tank results in a spill but no serious incident unless there is also a fire. Rupturing a 4000psi 200cu ft tank in the back of the car will kill you.

In addition, hydrogen will combust over a very wide range of fuel/air mixtures compared to a gas like methane. So a fireball is a lot more likely after an accident.

Doesn't mean it can't be safe enough, but I don't think that it's as safe at our current state of technology.

Yes, to get the same range as a traditional gas powered car the pressures would have to be very high. But for someone like myself who only drives 20 miles a day, the range provided by a smaller & lower pressured tank is sufficient.
Trucks roll up and down our roads every day all over the country carrying cylinders of highly flammable gases. I can't recall ever hearing of one in which the cylinders blew up.
Remember also that gasoline fumes create a big bang, then the liquid takes a long time to burn off. Hydrogen would burn off relatively quickly, in a matter of a few seconds.
An episode of "Myth Busters" tested the theory of a bullet causing an oxygen bottle to explode. Though the tank was puntured and the gas escaped the tank did not explode despite their best efforts.
My opinion remains that though the dangers are different, hydrogen can be stored on board just as safely as gasoline.

Just for kicks...Remember where the gas tanks used to be in pickup trucks until the early 70's?
I don't think Ralph Nader would let 'em get away with that now!

[billvon 3,118]

>But for someone like myself who only drives 20 miles a day, the
>range provided by a smaller & lower pressured tank is sufficient.

I agree with you there. (For that range, of course, an EV or PHEV is also an option.)

>Hydrogen would burn off relatively quickly, in a matter of a few seconds.

Agreed there as well. But all the energy contained within the hydrogen is released in those few seconds, resulting in hundreds of megawatts of instantaneous heat - which isn't very survivable.

>I can't recall ever hearing of one in which the cylinders blew up.

Hmm, I've seen several evacuations (and a few very dramatic videos) due to LNG/LPG tankers exploding in a fire after a crash.

[ryoder 1,590]

Years ago I recall reading about a development involving storing H using a hydride technique. IIRC it involved pumping the H into a low-pressure tank of pellets which absorbed it, then while driving the tank was warmed to force the pellets to release the H. I seem to remember they even had some re-fitted economy cars demonstrating the concept. Perhaps Plymouth Horizons or something like that?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[willard 0]

Quote

>But for someone like myself who only drives 20 miles a day, the
>range provided by a smaller & lower pressured tank is sufficient.

I agree with you there. (For that range, of course, an EV or PHEV is also an option.)

>Hydrogen would burn off relatively quickly, in a matter of a few seconds.

Agreed there as well. But all the energy contained within the hydrogen is released in those few seconds, resulting in hundreds of megawatts of instantaneous heat - which isn't very survivable.

>I can't recall ever hearing of one in which the cylinders blew up.

Hmm, I've seen several evacuations (and a few very dramatic videos) due to LNG/LPG tankers exploding in a fire after a crash.

Don't want to see vids of LPG tankers burning. My bro pulls one that carries 11,500 gal. I asked him if he's worried about an explosion. He said, "Nope! If anything happens I'll never know it."

In my present situation I could actually get by very well with a solar/wind powered unit to produce hydrogen and compress it. Too bad it would cost a small fortune.

An extra benefit of H2 vehicles is that they are many times more efficient at getting the energy from the fuel put to the ground than are internal combustion engines, meaning the total BTU content of the fuel carried can be many times less for the same range.

[billeisele 130]

wow - go out of town for a few days and ya miss all the fun

i'm in the energy business and can't tell you how many BS devices we have tested and proven to be junk

but the water fuel thing is real, just install a big ass tank of water with a nozzle pointed rearward, pressurize it with air then pop the cork, your car will go a long way, great G's too, then just stop and refill with water, add air and off ya go again

H2 fueled cars via a fuel cell work great as long as someone else pays for it all, the economics are just not there yet, if you are producing H2 from air with electricity the electricity you use to produce the H2 will do more work then the H2

but if you use solar to run an electrolysis device then it might make sense, again if you don't have to pay for the fuel cell

this is almost (probably) as silly as ethanol, bet nobody told you there is a 10-20% loss in mileage with ethanol, the pollution created to make ethanol (still being researched and debated) appears to be greater than the reduction in pollution from using ethanol, don't be a lemming, do the math, look at what corn costs now versus pre-govt ethanol tax incentives, the benefactors are big business and corn farmers
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336.htm

if you want to learn about H2 storage check the Savannah River Site website, they are spending a ton of your cash on this
http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2004299/ms2004299.pdf
hydrides, nanotubes or something else we don't even know about may be the answer for cost/space effective H2 storage

some of this stuff may make sense in CA or other areas where a kWh costs ~15 cents but in the southeast where a residential kWh is 8-9 cents and a high load factor non-residential customer pays 4-5 cents the economics are just not there

the problem with replacing gasoline is that the energy contained in one gallon is extremely high, it will be difficult to find a way to economically compete with gas

gotta go it is my turn on the bike pump, pressurizing for the drive tomorrow

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.