| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/18/2008 10:10:00 AM · #26 |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 10:25:20 AM · #27 |
With hands that big his body violates the laws of physics!
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 10:26:11 AM · #28 |
While I am a bit skeptical that a chemical reaction can affect an element at the atomic level, (this would be somewhat akin to alchemy), it is at least better than the mechanical constructs of many others.
It doesn't rely on perpetual motion, as water is the feed stock, it is just claiming to use less energy to disassociate the hydrogen from the oxygen, than is gained by recombining them to get the heat.
It may turn out that his chemical is not so much a catalyst, as a part of the fuel. Who knows. What does make me most skeptical is the, "they are all out to get me" tone he takes towards skeptics. All too often it is the mark of the con-artist. If it is a con, it seems to be a pretty good one. One of the best since cold fusion. If not, could be good source of new energy.
While I wouldn't send this guy money, I'm interested to see how it all turns out. |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 10:38:18 AM · #29 |
Entries in the SAE Supermileage competition routinely get thousands of miles/gallon.
Message edited by author 2008-07-18 10:39:05. |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 12:24:21 PM · #30 |
Remember...my discussion was not that it is not possible to get 10, 20, 100 or 1000 miles per(volt or Watt), it was that the batteries could not "recharge" themselves forever.
I checked the net and found that true fuel cell cars that run as fast and far as a gas powered car are being tested. However, the development cost is over one million dollars. Consumer Reports says that fuel cell cars may be on the market by 2018 at a cost of about $84,000 in today's dollars.
Check the write-up here.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Entries in the SAE Supermileage competition routinely get thousands of miles/gallon. |
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 03:10:12 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Remember...my discussion was not that it is not possible to get 10, 20, 100 or 1000 miles per(volt or Watt), it was that the batteries could not "recharge" themselves forever.
I checked the net and found that true fuel cell cars that run as fast and far as a gas powered car are being tested. However, the development cost is over one million dollars. Consumer Reports says that fuel cell cars may be on the market by 2018 at a cost of about $84,000 in today's dollars.
Check the write-up here.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Entries in the SAE Supermileage competition routinely get thousands of miles/gallon. |
|
Aside from the production cost of fuel cell vehicle, you need to figure out how to roll out the supporting infrastructure of hydrogen refueling stations. A fuel cell car will not do you any good if you run out of juice 300 mi from the nearest station. The cost to set up the network of stations, fuel delivery, storage will dwarf the vehicle cost. |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 03:25:06 PM · #32 |
There's an old saying:
"Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door."
Build the car and the rest will follow.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 03:27:06 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Jammur:
There's an old saying:
"Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door."
Build the car and the rest will follow. |
History has shown that not to be true.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 03:37:33 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Jammur:
There's an old saying:
"Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door."
Build the car and the rest will follow. |
History has shown that not to be true. |
It was certainly true enough when the internal combustion engine replaced the horse.
Progress takes time, but once the need is demonstrated its amazing what greed can accomplish.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 04:03:30 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Jammur:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Jammur:
There's an old saying:
"Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door."
Build the car and the rest will follow. |
History has shown that not to be true. |
It was certainly true enough when the internal combustion engine replaced the horse.
Progress takes time, but once the need is demonstrated its amazing what greed can accomplish. |
There are many products brought to market, superior to existing products, yet they failed.
You can't build the car and expect the rest to magically appear. You also can't build the infrastructure and expect the car to appear. They would have to be done together to succeed.
The development of that car represents a significant investment. In order for that investment to make money, it has to sell. If it's not possible to drive because there's no place to refuel, just how many people do you think will buy one? Would you? That infrastructure will take years to develop a fraction of the penetration that the current gasoline infrastructure has today. Do you really think the auto companies are willing to wait a decade or so for that infrastructure to get developed before they start to make money? |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 04:04:20 PM · #36 |
That's right. The article said that one of the issues on fuel cells is how to get the hydrogen. The "fill up" station is the least of your worries. Storage of the hydrogen for "pumping" into your car would not be the problem...however...
....GETTING the hydrogen is an issue. The cheapest way to get hydrogen is to strip it from NATURAL GAS. However, this releases CO2 into the air and we know we don't want that !
And before saying "let's get the hydrogen from water"...look at the following paragraph:
Hydrogen proponents like to point to the electrolysis of water as another (and inexhaustible) hydrogen source. Despite the promise, there are problems with that approach. For example, electrolysis consumes a lot of electricity to free up hydrogen that then has to undergo expensive processing and transport, only to be turned back into electricity via the fuel cell. By one estimate you've wasted three quarters of the energy that was initially available just to get it to the car. And right now, the least-costly electricity comes from fossil-fuel-burning power plants.
So you see...moving to a new type of car or energy source is not an easy or efficient process !
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Remember...my discussion was not that it is not possible to get 10, 20, 100 or 1000 miles per(volt or Watt), it was that the batteries could not "recharge" themselves forever.
I checked the net and found that true fuel cell cars that run as fast and far as a gas powered car are being tested. However, the development cost is over one million dollars. Consumer Reports says that fuel cell cars may be on the market by 2018 at a cost of about $84,000 in today's dollars.
Check the write-up here.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Entries in the SAE Supermileage competition routinely get thousands of miles/gallon. |
|
Aside from the production cost of fuel cell vehicle, you need to figure out how to roll out the supporting infrastructure of hydrogen refueling stations. A fuel cell car will not do you any good if you run out of juice 300 mi from the nearest station. The cost to set up the network of stations, fuel delivery, storage will dwarf the vehicle cost. |
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 04:17:33 PM · #37 |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 04:23:28 PM · #38 |
| Back when I worked at RS we took a remote control truck that was defective and tried to see if we could propel it forward with two magnets and it worked. We mounted two rectangle magnets parallel to each other at a slight V angle then using the magnets repentant to each other it pushed the truck forward. Since the magnets were mounted and could not be moved the energy pushed the truck forward. At that time we just said "wow" and though nothing more about it. I don't think something along this line would work in reality taking in account for friction, weight, and other elements. But worth thinking about. |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 04:27:55 PM · #39 |
I may be wrong but isn't that how a "maglev" train works?
edit: and someone here told me that it takes tons of electricity to get the magnents to work...and where do we get the electricity?
Originally posted by SDW:
Back when I worked at RS we took a remote control truck that was defective and tried to see if we could propel it forward with two magnets and it worked. We mounted two rectangle magnets parallel to each other at a slight V angle then using the magnets repentant to each other it pushed the truck forward. Since the magnets were mounted and could not be moved the energy pushed the truck forward. At that time we just said "wow" and though nothing more about it. I don't think something along this line would work in reality taking in account for friction, weight, and other elements. But worth thinking about. |
Message edited by author 2008-07-18 16:30:19. |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 04:30:06 PM · #40 |
| If I understand correctly the more fixed magnets are exercised the more magnetism they lose and eventually become inert. Anyone is welcome to correct me on that though. :) |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 04:31:01 PM · #41 |
I think that is why you would need "electromagnents" mentioned above !
Originally posted by togtog:
If I understand correctly the more fixed magnets are exercised the more magnetism they lose and eventually become inert. Anyone is welcome to correct me on that though. :) |
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 04:42:58 PM · #42 |
OK, two things stick out about that article. One:
Originally posted by ABC News:
Since hydrogen can be made from plain water and produces only electricity and water vapour when burned, its backers see it as a prime candidate.
But producing it from water takes electricity. According to 2005 data from the International Energy Agency, 67 per cent of the world's electric power still comes from non-renewable sources such as coal, gas and other fossil fuels.
Two-thirds of electricity in volcanic Iceland is already derived from renewable sources - its plentiful rivers and waterfalls and the geothermal heat that boils beneath its crust.
This has allowed the country to break new ground in hydrogen testing, with the world's first commercial hydrogen refuelling station in 2003 and the first hydrogen-powered rental cars last year.
"It has a very exotic energy system where hydrogen could make sense," said Dolf Gielen, senior energy analyst at the International Energy Agency's Energy Technology Office. |
Emphasis added.
Iceland is not the US. Most of the electricity in the US comes from non-renewable sources, like coal. Since the process for extracting hydrogen is very inefficient, in the US, you'd be creating far more pollution than you'd avoid. It may not be coming from you car's tailpipe, but it's being produced all the same.
Two:
Originally posted by ABC News:
Mr Skulason says Icelandic New Energy made a forecast seven years ago for how long it would take Iceland to convert fully.
"We're maybe somewhere between 12 and 18 months behind schedule. So if you think about a 50-year timeframe, that's very little," he said.
Full conversion will take time. It will need changes to infrastructure, affordable hydrogen cars - they are currently as much as five times as expensive as conventional ones - and, in Iceland's case, a viable shipping technology.
"Hydrogen may work for whale-watching, but it is challenging for most shipping applications because of the long distances travelled and therefore significant amounts of hydrogen storage volume needed," said the IEA's Mr Gielen. |
As far as full conversion to hydrogen power, the article mentions being 12-18 months behind on a 50 year timeframe. That's for a relatively small country, uniquely suited to pursue the technology. 50 years is a long time to wait for a return on a big investment, that's not to mention the added complexity of making such a change here in the US. At this point, I doubt it's possible within this century.
Message edited by author 2008-07-18 16:45:54. |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 04:46:12 PM · #43 |
Excellent info !
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
OK, two things stick out about that article. One:
Originally posted by ABC News:
Since hydrogen can be made from plain water and produces only electricity and water vapour when burned, its backers see it as a prime candidate.
But producing it from water takes electricity. According to 2005 data from the International Energy Agency, 67 per cent of the world's electric power still comes from non-renewable sources such as coal, gas and other fossil fuels.
Two-thirds of electricity in volcanic Iceland is already derived from renewable sources - its plentiful rivers and waterfalls and the geothermal heat that boils beneath its crust.
This has allowed the country to break new ground in hydrogen testing, with the world's first commercial hydrogen refuelling station in 2003 and the first hydrogen-powered rental cars last year.
"It has a very exotic energy system where hydrogen could make sense," said Dolf Gielen, senior energy analyst at the International Energy Agency's Energy Technology Office. |
Emphasis added.
Iceland is not the US. Most of the electricity in the US comes from non-renewable sources, like coal. Since the process for extracting hydrogen is very inefficient, in the US, you'd be creating far more pollution than you'd avoid. It may not be coming from you car's tailpipe, but it's being produced all the same.
As far as full conversion to hydrogen power, the article mentions being 12-18 months behind on a 50 year timeframe. That's for a relatively small country, uniquely suited to pursue the technology. 50 years is a long time to wait for a return on a big investment, that's not to mention the added complexity of making such a change here in the US. At this point, I doubt it's possible within this century. |
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 05:27:41 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Most of the electricity in the US comes from non-renewable sources, like coal. Since the process for extracting hydrogen is very inefficient ... |
This is true at present. However, if you check up this Solar Energy Roundup at Science Friday you'll see that the potential for shifting electric generation to a combination of photo-voltaic and solar-thermal is not that far off, and requires only off-the-shelf* technologies. Creating hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis isn't that inefficient, and of course it makes a completely non-polluting, portable fuel.
*Solar-thermal electric generator with parabolic mirror developed 1915
*Hydrogen fuel cell developed 1839 |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 05:33:18 PM · #45 |
| This kinda fits the topic...Oops! |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 05:35:08 PM · #46 |
But did you see this:
"For example, electrolysis consumes a lot of electricity to free up hydrogen that then has to undergo expensive processing and transport, only to be turned back into electricity via the fuel cell. By one estimate you've wasted three quarters of the energy that was initially available just to get it to the car."
That's pretty close to being inefficient.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Most of the electricity in the US comes from non-renewable sources, like coal. Since the process for extracting hydrogen is very inefficient ... |
This is true at present. However, if you check up this Solar Energy Roundup at Science Friday you'll see that the potential for shifting electric generation to a combination of photo-voltaic and solar-thermal is not that far off, and requires only off-the-shelf* technologies. Creating hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis isn't that inefficient, and of course it makes a completely non-polluting, portable fuel.
*Solar-thermal electric generator with parabolic mirror developed 1915
*Hydrogen fuel cell developed 1839 |
edit to correct misspelling of "but"...I had bud....
Message edited by author 2008-07-18 17:39:06. |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 05:41:15 PM · #47 |
This is somewhat off topic but it is also completely on topic so I apologize...
Several months ago on a home improvement show they had a solar powered house. However it appeared from what I understood not hearing the whole story, that instead of having a battery bank to charge up, it instead used the solar to produce electricity then used that to convert rain water into hydrogen and oxygen which were stored, compressed somehow it appeared, in tanks, then when power was required, the hydrogen and oxygen would be recombined producing optional heat for the home. They did not explain why they went this way instead of with more standard lead-acid batteries.
Has anyone heard of a system like this?
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 05:49:19 PM · #48 |
| Yeah, tog. The idea is probably that hydrogen fuel cells are more 'green' than using a big battery, which are hazardous to dispose of and keep. |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 05:50:01 PM · #49 |
Seems like it was using electricity from the solar panels to strip Hydrogen off of "rain"...this process is "electrolysis".
From your discription I don't know how hydrogen was used to heat the home. Was it "burned" to produce heat or did they use the hydrogen in a "fuel cell" to produce electricity?
Originally posted by togtog:
This is somewhat off topic but it is also completely on topic so I apologize...
Several months ago on a home improvement show they had a solar powered house. However it appeared from what I understood not hearing the whole story, that instead of having a battery bank to charge up, it instead used the solar to produce electricity then used that to convert rain water into hydrogen and oxygen which were stored, compressed somehow it appeared, in tanks, then when power was required, the hydrogen and oxygen would be recombined producing optional heat for the home. They did not explain why they went this way instead of with more standard lead-acid batteries.
Has anyone heard of a system like this? |
Message edited by author 2008-07-18 17:50:43. |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 05:52:13 PM · #50 |
Very cool, I forgot about the disposal!
Not sure about if it used a fuel cell, they were kinda hush hush about exactly what it did, spoke about it like it was general knowledge, I had when they do that. All the pipes went into a gray colored box I believe, could have been either I guess. |
|
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: 07/27/2025 06:20:26 AM EDT.
