-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Water engine
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
It could be a gas consisting of ions... that would explain the high heat. It sounds like it could be a plasma, but the fact that he ignites it seems fishy.
Now, as far as the torch goes, as long as he is using electricity to run the electrolysis, then it doesn't violate the first or second law.
In regards to the car, I would need more details, but suffice it to say I don't buy into ANY device that runs completely on water without needing some other source of energy. That violates both the first and second laws.
R
funboy6942
Lifer
Some should watch this porgram.
From 1995 and want to cvheck out part 2 where the guy extracts the hydrogen and is getting many xxxxx out of it then what is going itnto it and claims to have a vw dune buggy that can also run on water. He was supposedly contacted by key figures and Iraq (I believe it either that or Iran) and offered him billions of dollars to stop on his invention. He also has recieved may threats on his life because of his invention.
Again its part 2 that has him in it. The link has all 3 parts in a row so your going to have to either watch it or move the slider to find it.
From 1995 and want to cvheck out part 2 where the guy extracts the hydrogen and is getting many xxxxx out of it then what is going itnto it and claims to have a vw dune buggy that can also run on water. He was supposedly contacted by key figures and Iraq (I believe it either that or Iran) and offered him billions of dollars to stop on his invention. He also has recieved may threats on his life because of his invention.
Again its part 2 that has him in it. The link has all 3 parts in a row so your going to have to either watch it or move the slider to find it.
This borrows from an earlier post, but let me know how this sounds:
How about using this as a light and relatively small energy storage medium? The idea of an all-solar self sufficient home has been proven to work in some circumstances, but the problem with using this energy for the family automobile is that the heavy and large battery pack can only hold enough energy to go 100 miles or less.
How about a solar home that provides its own power and also uses excess power to create hydrogen for a fuel cell from water? Could that hydrogen not be lighter and take up less space than a correspondingly powerful battery pack?
How about using this as a light and relatively small energy storage medium? The idea of an all-solar self sufficient home has been proven to work in some circumstances, but the problem with using this energy for the family automobile is that the heavy and large battery pack can only hold enough energy to go 100 miles or less.
How about a solar home that provides its own power and also uses excess power to create hydrogen for a fuel cell from water? Could that hydrogen not be lighter and take up less space than a correspondingly powerful battery pack?
tranceport
Diamond Member
So start to finish it is cheaper and more effecient to remove crude oil from ground, convert it to gasoline, and then truck it to gas stations. Then finnally puting it in our vehicals?
Why not take tap water and put it in your car. If I use half water and half gasoline to go the same 300 miles. Then I'm saving $1.50 per gallon.
If I can go 15 miles on a gallon of water... Hell.. I'll bite.
As long as it isn't freaking hybrid price on the car...
A working knowledge of very basic chemistry will answer your question.
Yes, it's much more efficient, right here and right now, to remove crude oil from the ground, refine it, then put it in our cars. Crude oil straight from the ground contains a lot of energy, while water does not.
Until you see water fountains doing this, oil will have the power density advantage.
Burning water will always give you a net loss. You'll gain no energy from it. You'll spend more energy seperating the hydrogen and oxygen from water than burning it will provide.
Oil is stored solar energy.
That does not make the technology bunk.
It just means that it isn't a source of energy.
Obviously to convert to an infrastructure based on this, we would need more electrical power - easily obtainable from sources like nuclear power.[/quote]
The technology mentioned in this article is seperating hydrogen and oxygen from water and burning it in a car engine. That's bunk.
If you mean just using hydrogen, then obviously that has its uses.
NikPreviousAcct
No Lifer
Hydrogen vehicles are completely safe if you're talking about the whole blowing up thing. The "scare" of hydrogen igniting is a crock of sh|t.
NikPreviousAcct
No Lifer
Fuel cell != cylinder rocket
NikPreviousAcct
No Lifer
IIRC, the hindenburg's skin is what kept it burning or something like that.
imported_Tick
Diamond Member
Because the dope they put on the skin was basically rocket fuel.
FoBoT
No Lifer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_%28airship%29#Cause_of_ignition
the rocket fuel skin fabric theory has some flaws. this article says "These experiments, as well as other industrial tests of the coating materials, conclude that the covering materials were combustible but nonflammable."
http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/zf/LZ129fire.htm
the rocket fuel skin fabric theory has some flaws. this article says "These experiments, as well as other industrial tests of the coating materials, conclude that the covering materials were combustible but nonflammable."
http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/zf/LZ129fire.htm
NikPreviousAcct
No Lifer
I don't understand how something can be combustible but nonflammable. Aren't those antonyms?
imported_Tick
Diamond Member
I thought that interesting as well.
FoBoT
No Lifer
it means it can burn, but it isn't easy to get it to burn or it needs something to ignite it
like a rocket motor cannot be lit off by a match, you have to use an ignitor to get it hot enough to burn
or C4, you could throw a chunk of C4 into a campfire and it wouldn't go off, you need an ignitor to get it to blow up
the part in the article that says it would take 40 hours for the fabric to burn is the essence of what they mean, it can burn, but the hindenburg only took 37 seconds to burn, so it wasn't just the fabric that burned, it was the whole thing, hydrogen and fabric and frame and people and engines, etc, etc
like a rocket motor cannot be lit off by a match, you have to use an ignitor to get it hot enough to burn
or C4, you could throw a chunk of C4 into a campfire and it wouldn't go off, you need an ignitor to get it to blow up
the part in the article that says it would take 40 hours for the fabric to burn is the essence of what they mean, it can burn, but the hindenburg only took 37 seconds to burn, so it wasn't just the fabric that burned, it was the whole thing, hydrogen and fabric and frame and people and engines, etc, etc
imported_Tick
Diamond Member
The issue is inital fuel, which very well could have been the skin. The ignitor issues is not of concern, static charges can build up on the surface of a blimp that can approach the levels of lightning.
The technology mentioned in this article is seperating hydrogen and oxygen from water and burning it in a car engine. That's bunk.
If you mean just using hydrogen, then obviously that has its uses.
[/quote]Uh, why?
The fact that it uses more energy to do the electrolysis than you get from the products of the electrolysis doesen't matter as long as you have a viable energy source to begin with.
It would be viable if we switched to a largely nuclear based energy infrastructure.
Granted, it is wasteful.. It would probably be better to just use electric cars at that point, but yeah.
If you have to store hydrogen on board the vehicle, then you have to use some sort of gas cylinder. Under the right conditions, if you knock the valve off that cylinder, or it cracks, or is punctured, the hydrogen can self ignite (it has a negative Joule Thompson coefficient room temperature, meaning it heats on expansion).
I would hardly call hydrogen vehicles completely safe *if* you have to store the hydrogen on-board.
R
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
