| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/18/2006 06:00:01 PM · #1 |
//digg.com/technology/Water_Fuel_-_HHO_Gas
Man we could really save...........think it is true?
Message edited by author 2006-05-18 18:00:36.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:09:39 PM · #2 |
The energy still has to come from somewhere. In this case, it is electrical power used to dissociate water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen. Looks something like this:
2H2O + e ---> 2H2 + O2
where e is electrical energy. The key is, it takes as much energy to dissociate it as what's gotten back when you burn the hydrogen and oxygen (to get water again).
If it took less energy, you'd have a perpetual motion machine.
There are more efficient strategies for powering vehicles. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:10:49 PM · #3 |
| Kirbic is so smart it's sexxxy. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:12:46 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:24:08 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Hey baby ... E=mc^2 |
True, that's the rest mass. More generally, for an object in motion,
E=(mo*c^2)/(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2
where mo is the rest mass. :-) |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:25:26 PM · #6 |
Are you kicking smartsand in my face?
:P |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:26:42 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
E=(mo*c^2)/(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2 |
you've lost me. completely!
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:28:23 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
There are more efficient strategies for powering vehicles. |
Like a steady diet of cabbage, mexican food & beer.
Oh, and a hose would be needed too.
(far less math involved...) |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:29:31 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The energy still has to come from somewhere. In this case, it is electrical power used to dissociate water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen. Looks something like this:
2H2O + e ---> 2H2 + O2
where e is electrical energy. The key is, it takes as much energy to dissociate it as what's gotten back when you burn the hydrogen and oxygen (to get water again).
If it took less energy, you'd have a perpetual motion machine.
There are more efficient strategies for powering vehicles. |
no really, a friend of my cousin's neighbor's uncle's boss had an delivery guy who's daughter's pen pal made a perpetual motion machine. The government won't let her release it though because it threatens their oil wealth. damn government. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:29:37 PM · #10 |
never really understood math ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-05-18 18:30:17.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:30:25 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The energy still has to come from somewhere. In this case, it is electrical power used to dissociate water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen. Looks something like this:
2H2O + e ---> 2H2 + O2
where e is electrical energy. The key is, it takes as much energy to dissociate it as what's gotten back when you burn the hydrogen and oxygen (to get water again).
If it took less energy, you'd have a perpetual motion machine.
There are more efficient strategies for powering vehicles. |
no really, a friend of my cousin's neighbor's uncle's boss had an delivery guy who's daughter's pen pal made a perpetual motion machine. The government won't let her release it though because it threatens their oil wealth. damn government. |
It's The Man bringing us down. damn man. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:43:37 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by biteme:
Originally posted by kirbic:
E=(mo*c^2)/(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2 |
you've lost me. completely! |
This part
(1-(v^2/c^2))1/2
just compensates for mass dilation (the increase in mass of an object that approaches the speed of light). The first part of the equation is exactly what alfresco posted. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:46:41 PM · #13 |
what i don't understand is HHO combine in a molecular level, or is it seperated but showing it like that to acknowledge that it comes from water? I'm asking because i know that if it is seperated from water, you could obtain single Hydrogen molecules by steam-reforming of natural gas. At high temperatures (700¨C1100 C), steam (H2O) reacts with methane (CH4) to yield syngas.
CH4 + H2O CO + 3 H2
and hydrogen could be recovered from carbon monoxide (CO) through the water-gas shift reaction:
CO + H2O CO2 + H2
and oxygen could just be added at a different temperature to keep it from bonding or seperate the two which would hten lead to room problems.
Message edited by author 2006-05-18 18:48:00.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:47:44 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 06:49:31 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by kirbic:
There are more efficient strategies for powering vehicles. |
Like a steady diet of cabbage, mexican food & beer.
Oh, and a hose would be needed too.
(far less math involved...) |
I don't think I wanna smell the emissions from the fart mobile.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 07:09:41 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The energy still has to come from somewhere. In this case, it is electrical power used to dissociate water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen. Looks something like this:
2H2O + e ---> 2H2 + O2
where e is electrical energy. The key is, it takes as much energy to dissociate it as what's gotten back when you burn the hydrogen and oxygen (to get water again).
If it took less energy, you'd have a perpetual motion machine.
There are more efficient strategies for powering vehicles. |
Actually it takes more energy to divide the 2H2O into 2H2 + O2 than you get out in combustion of the 2H2, because the disassociation process is not 100% efficient, nor is the combustion of the H2.
I don't know the exact numbers, but, if I remember correctly, gasoline engines are in the 20%-40% efficiency range for returning the energy in gasoline into mechanical energy. That's not accounting for mechanical losses in the driveline, just the engine.
Message edited by author 2006-05-18 19:14:04. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 07:20:52 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The energy still has to come from somewhere. In this case, it is electrical power used to dissociate water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen. Looks something like this:
2H2O + e ---> 2H2 + O2
where e is electrical energy. The key is, it takes as much energy to dissociate it as what's gotten back when you burn the hydrogen and oxygen (to get water again).
If it took less energy, you'd have a perpetual motion machine.
There are more efficient strategies for powering vehicles. |
Actually it take more energy to divide the 2H2O into 2H2 + O2, because the disassociation process is not 100% efficient. |
now that you brought that up, none of the ways that Kirbic or my self posted are not very efficiant. Both take an "out-side" energy source to make "HCC" and that energy is not very cheap, so insted of wasting so much money on something that corporations belive it would not make a great future, they use the most cheap and reliable resource today no matter what happens to the environment, just to make a buck.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 07:26:30 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't know the exact numbers, but, if I remember correctly, gasoline engines are in the 20%-40% efficiency range for returning the energy in gasoline into mechanical energy. That's not accounting for mechanical losses in the driveline, just the engine. |
that's thermo-energy thats used. the rest is wasted and given to the environment along with 87% of other gasses that could be used.
Message edited by author 2006-05-18 19:27:09.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 08:07:06 PM · #19 |
did i say something offending?
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 09:00:01 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The key is, it takes as much energy to dissociate it as what's gotten back when you burn the hydrogen and oxygen (to get water |
This is true. However, what if you got that electricity from renewable sources, such as solar, geothermal or nuclear? Now you got something.
Iceland gets tons of energy from geothermal, and they are getting into hydrogen vehicles, namely the city buses.
-Chad |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 09:24:48 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by cpurser:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The key is, it takes as much energy to dissociate it as what's gotten back when you burn the hydrogen and oxygen (to get water |
This is true. However, what if you got that electricity from renewable sources, such as solar, geothermal or nuclear? Now you got something.
Iceland gets tons of energy from geothermal, and they are getting into hydrogen vehicles, namely the city buses.
-Chad |
Nuclear power is not renewable, it is just very efficient (amount of energy produced per amount of fuel used). However, geothermal, solar, and hydroelectric are not nearly as efficient. So the number of facilities that would be needed to produce the energy to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen would be very large and not very economical at this point. Also, geothermal energy is not as readily available in much of the world as it is in Iceland. Hydroelectric, wind, and solar plants require specific locations in order to work at their peak potential and cost much more per amount of electricity produced than conventional fossil fuel sources. Yes, it's a great idea, but much more work needs to go into it at this point in order to be implemented on such a large scale. That and you would need to store quite a bit of hydrogen to run a car motor and I'm not sure if a car can hold that much of it in a fuel tank. Hence the use of a bus, it's much much larger than a car.
Edit to add: Geothermal energy is very efficient, just that the locations that would be or are suitable to install a geothermal generator are not very common. A specific site with specific geology is needed to install a geothermal generator.
Message edited by author 2006-05-18 21:35:50.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 09:47:01 PM · #22 |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 09:52:47 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by crayon:
1 + 1 = 2 |
Very good crayon, now run along and color or something.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 09:57:14 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by crayon:
1 + 1 = 2 |
Very good crayon, now run along and color or something. |
but I'm still waiting for someone to say I'm sexy for being so smart!
I wanna be smart like kirbic! |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 09:58:00 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by crayon:
1 + 1 = 2 |
Actually....1 + 1 could equal 3...for large values of 1. Just kidding, well kind of kidding anyway. Sorry, off topic.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/26/2025 09:22:58 AM EST.
