Hydro/Electro Repost

[Steeplerot]

Video Link


I heard rumors since I was a kid about the "shelved" engines that run off of water, but did someone in the patent office finally let go of it?

What this guy is doing in his garage may possibly be the new era. Or not.

I have read enough slashdot stories over the years of diamond machines and cold fusion, I will believe it when I pee in a gas tank to get to work.

 

[Zorba]

You did notice that it said "Water + Electricity". He is using electricity to split the water molecular. After a quick lesson in thermodynamics you will realize that it takes more energy to split the water molecular than you will ever get from burning it - based on the second law. The torch was pretty cool though.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Zorba
You did notice that it said "Water + Electricity". He is using electricity to split the water molecular. After a quick lesson in thermodynamics you will realize that it takes more energy to split the water molecular than you will ever get from burning it - based on the second law. The torch was pretty cool though.

He should use solar panel + batteries to split the water.

*didn't watch the video*

 

[Steeplerot]

You are right, pretty dumb to list hydro, I was thinking more along the lines of dams or tidal harnesses, this is hydro, kinda.

Stranger things have happened.

"You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I have no time for such nonsense." - Napoleon on steam power

 

[Trevelyan]

Water is not an energy source, so no, it will not replace nuclear, coal, or other fossil fuels. Try again.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Water is not an energy source, so no, it will not replace nuclear, coal, or other fossil fuels. Try again.

Hmm, seems someone did not watch the video in OP.

 

[glenn1]

The torch was pretty cool though.

this article (see page 4) explains it pretty well.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: glenn1

The torch was pretty cool though.

this article (see page 4) explains it pretty well.

Good read, basically what I think it said was that the tource shouldn't actually work worth crap, because HHO has a very low heating value.

 

[zephyrprime]

Please don't post non-news like this. It's just high school electrolysis. And the difficulty of hydrogen for vehicles is storage, not splitting. Also, why would you bother to electrolysize water to form hydrogen to burn on a car when you could just run directly off the electricity source that is being carried around on the car?

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Zorba
You did notice that it said "Water + Electricity". He is using electricity to split the water molecular. After a quick lesson in thermodynamics you will realize that it takes more energy to split the water molecular than you will ever get from burning it - based on the second law. The torch was pretty cool though.

He should use solar panel + batteries to split the water.

*didn't watch the video*

Doesn't help much as all your doing is storing the electricty as hydrogen and oxygen instead of in a battery. It may get you bit more storage efficiency but it doesn't get you around the fact that best you can generate is less than 300W/m^2.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Video Link


I heard rumors since I was a kid about the "shelved" engines that run off of water, but did someone in the patent office finally let go of it?

What this guy is doing in his garage may possibly be the new era. Or not.

I have read enough slashdot stories over the years of diamond machines and cold fusion, I will believe it when I pee in a gas tank to get to work.

Steeple why do you hate nuclear?

Is it that you don't understand a piece of Uranium the size of your pinky contains more energy than 3 55 gallon drums of oil.

Or are you confused when trying to rate the risks from nuclear power - the fact that while radioactive waste is more dangerous than say CO2 if we compare an equal amount of both, but that we generate about a billion times more CO2 than nuclear waste. The nuclear waste from all the reactors in the country would occupy a space about the size of a football stadium. The CO2 covers the entire planet. Guess which one is worse.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Please don't post non-news like this. It's just high school electrolysis. And the difficulty of hydrogen for vehicles is storage, not splitting. Also, why would you bother to electrolysize water to form hydrogen to burn on a car when you could just run directly off the electricity source that is being carried around on the car?

Really the video is kinda vauge, you have a link? Like I said in OP, I am skeptical of the whole thing, what the deal with this then? I guess I missed mr. wizard that day or something.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Video Link


I heard rumors since I was a kid about the "shelved" engines that run off of water, but did someone in the patent office finally let go of it?

What this guy is doing in his garage may possibly be the new era. Or not.

I have read enough slashdot stories over the years of diamond machines and cold fusion, I will believe it when I pee in a gas tank to get to work.

Steeple why do you hate nuclear?

Is it that you don't understand a piece of Uranium the size of your pinky contains more energy than 3 55 gallon drums of oil.

Or are you confused when trying to rate the risks from nuclear power - the fact that while radioactive waste is more dangerous than say CO2 if we compare an equal amount of both, but that we generate about a billion times more CO2 than nuclear waste. The nuclear waste from all the reactors in the country would occupy a space about the size of a football stadium. The CO2 covers the entire planet. Guess which one is worse.

I have no problem, it is just outdated, and we have better things we should be working on then old dirty tech like that, it is long past time to move on to building infrastructure for more long term friendly solutions.

 

[shimsham]

nuclear power isnt outdated, but the methods to harness and deal with the waste are. pick up an issue of sciam from december 05 to read up on new techniques that harness 99% of the power by recycling the plutonium waste and using it for more fuel. only 1% wasted, and only has to be stored for 500 yrs, as opposed to 10000.

not the perfect solution, but would help until we can figure out what is the best.

 

[imported_Scourge]

To the OP: A good idea is to use the "Search" function before you post. Just a friendly suggestion.

 

[Steeplerot]

And it is thinking like that that stops the needed research and rollouts of what we already know (and the improvements made when put into effect through use)

Nuke power is not outdated for lining the pockets of large multinationals, hence all the propaganda about it.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
And it is thinking like that that stops the needed research and rollouts of what we already know (and the improvements made when put into effect through use)

Nuke power is not outdated for lining the pockets of large multinationals, hence all the propaganda about it.

sciam is propaganda now? finding more efficient, safer, and environmentally friendly sources of power is towing the corporate line?

the whole reason for this research and developement is to ease the current dependancy on fossil fuels and the effect they have on global warming. thats surely not the concern of those multinationals, is it?

i guess the article on new hybrid developments (regenerative braking, sending unused power back to the grid for rebates, etc) was propaganda, too? put out by big oil, no less im sure.

how about you actually research and read up on something before making such judgements? is that really so hard?

propaganda, indeed. but not by sciam or its authors.

edit: just cant spell anything right today. need some sleep.

 

[Steeplerot]

Speaking of the rash of nuke propaganda in the past few years now that "corporate" is the cool thing to sell out to.

The brakes thing is a great idea actually.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Speaking of the rash of nuke propaganda in the past few years now that "corporate" is the cool thing to sell out to.

what?

The brakes thing is a great idea actually.

so you deem that a good idea while tossing out nuclear power when you havent read either article?

 

[judasmachine]

sounds great, but obviously has it's problems. i'd like to see nuke tech used while we perfect other forms, or power down to begin with.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Water is not an energy source, so no, it will not replace nuclear, coal, or other fossil fuels. Try again.

Hmm, seems someone did not watch the video in OP.

Yes I did, I've seen it before. It doesn't take a video to explain BASIC. LAWS. OF. THERMODYNAMICS.

H2O -> H H O -> H2O will never, never, never give you energy. It will ONLY take energy. It takes more to break apart water (in this case, in the form of electricity) than you will ever get from combusting hydrogen into water.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Zorba
You did notice that it said "Water + Electricity". He is using electricity to split the water molecular. After a quick lesson in thermodynamics you will realize that it takes more energy to split the water molecular than you will ever get from burning it - based on the second law. The torch was pretty cool though.

QFT

Seriously it scares me how many people in Americas who have graduated high school and college and still don't understand simple things like this.

 

[Steeplerot]

Ok, so is it total bunk? He says he drove so many miles on a small amount of water. I know physics enough to know there is no free ride.

A good sign Germany has shut down its oldest nuclear reactor as part of the country's plan to phase out nuclear power by 2020.

And we go backwards, we are falling behind in everything it seems.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Ok, so is it total bunk? He says he drove so many miles on a small amount of water. I know physics enough to know there is no free ride.

He might be able to power a car from batteries + gasoline which convert water into its parts and combusts it, but it basically doesn't make a difference at all... he's still driving a car powered by electricity and gasoline.

The water is pointless here. Hybrids are already using electricity + gasoline to drive.

 

[imported_Scourge]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Ok, so is it total bunk? He says he drove so many miles on a small amount of water. I know physics enough to know there is no free ride.

A good sign Germany has shut down its oldest nuclear reactor as part of the country's plan to phase out nuclear power by 2020.

And we go backwards, we are falling behind in everything it seems.

Yeah. While China and India(Our two closest competition economically speaking) ramp up production of nuclear power plants. I don't see France or Japan getting rid of it anytime soon either.


We're sure falling behind that modern utopia Germany. Sheesh. Whatever shall we do?