RE: The Future is Wet
Tuesday 17th September 2002
The Future is Wet
Oil and Water don't mix? They're going to - it's the future
Discussion
The argument over the price coming down with production "like they did for mobile phones and PCs" does not stand up. Electronics can be integrated, miniaturised and mass produced but mechanicals can not. If cars had followed computer development you could park a whole fleet of cars on the proverbial pin-head, AND they would do a million miles to the gallon AND accelerate almost instantly. Sorry but the technology does not transfer. No, I do not know how you would get into them either.
In real terms, cars are cheaper *and cleaner* now than they have ever been...
So why should this technology not mature into a viable alternative?
Previous nay-saying about LPG and it's availability in petrol stations has come to naught - there are loads of filling stations sporting autogas - especially on the continent.. the price of the stuff is just low enough to coax ever increasing numbers of repmobilists and penny pinchers in that direction.
Frankly, I don't care if my car is H2 powered in the future.. as long as it goes bloody fast
So why should this technology not mature into a viable alternative?
Previous nay-saying about LPG and it's availability in petrol stations has come to naught - there are loads of filling stations sporting autogas - especially on the continent.. the price of the stuff is just low enough to coax ever increasing numbers of repmobilists and penny pinchers in that direction.
Frankly, I don't care if my car is H2 powered in the future.. as long as it goes bloody fast
quote:
Frankly, I don't care if my car is H2 powered in the future.. as long as it goes bloody fast
Me too. Personally I can't wait to burn rubber listening to the howl of my flat-six on full chat with a gentle trail of water droplets dripping from the exhaust...
That'll stuff the anti-car vegetablists.
The true cost of a gallon of gas is arounf 13 USD, not the 1.80 or so you pay at the pump (in the US). This is when you take into account all the environmental damage that has to be cleaned up (eg Exxon Valdez) and the expense of fighting all the wars necessary to keep the oil flowing.
One way or another, you all pay the true price - 1.50 at the pump, the other 11.50 out of your paycheck in the form of taxes. Maybe if they made it more obvious by just charging you $13/gallon at the pump and reduced your taxes accordingly people would suddenly have a whole new take on this issue.
One way or another, you all pay the true price - 1.50 at the pump, the other 11.50 out of your paycheck in the form of taxes. Maybe if they made it more obvious by just charging you $13/gallon at the pump and reduced your taxes accordingly people would suddenly have a whole new take on this issue.
I think this is the wrong way round.. we don't want massive plants producing hydrogen, then piping it to filling stations for us to be taxed to death to buy it.
Whats needed is a simple water "cracking" device to install into the car itself. Imagine something that could replace the injectors on a car wherby it had water from the fuel rail, quickly split it into hydrogen and oxygen in a nice efficient 2:1 ratio, into the cylinder, induction, compression, exhaust..
And whats used to "crack" water, a high frequency burst of high voltage.. hmm.. much the same as a car coil produces.. of course development of something like this would be culled by the oil companies as they are not in the frame... also how is the government going to tax us on the water... Hmm
Cheers
Matt
Whats needed is a simple water "cracking" device to install into the car itself. Imagine something that could replace the injectors on a car wherby it had water from the fuel rail, quickly split it into hydrogen and oxygen in a nice efficient 2:1 ratio, into the cylinder, induction, compression, exhaust..
And whats used to "crack" water, a high frequency burst of high voltage.. hmm.. much the same as a car coil produces.. of course development of something like this would be culled by the oil companies as they are not in the frame... also how is the government going to tax us on the water... Hmm
Cheers
Matt
quote:
I think this is the wrong way round.. we don't want massive plants producing hydrogen, then piping it to filling stations for us to be taxed to death to buy it.
Whats needed is a simple water "cracking" device to install into the car itself. Imagine something that could replace the injectors on a car wherby it had water from the fuel rail, quickly split it into hydrogen and oxygen in a nice efficient 2:1 ratio, into the cylinder, induction, compression, exhaust..
And whats used to "crack" water, a high frequency burst of high voltage.. hmm.. much the same as a car coil produces.. of course development of something like this would be culled by the oil companies as they are not in the frame... also how is the government going to tax us on the water... Hmm
Cheers
Matt
I remember a programme on Horizon or Cutting Edge or somesuch about 5 years ago.... Ther was a bloke who had invented a water rotor that was drilled with more holes than a swiss cheese and effectively was a perpetual motion machine - it created more energy in hot water output than it took to spin it at some extreme high speed (>20000 rpm IIRC). On the same programe was a bloke who had invented a V8 than ran off water - he used the same high-frequency, high voltage idea to crack water. The implaction at the end of the prog was that this guy was in hiding because he had refused cash for his invention from a big motor company, his patent had been refused after political leverage was used and there was a reward for anyone who managed to take him out.
Scary stuff.
quote:
quote:
I think this is the wrong way round.. we don't want massive plants producing hydrogen, then piping it to filling stations for us to be taxed to death to buy it.
Whats needed is a simple water "cracking" device to install into the car itself. Imagine something that could replace the injectors on a car wherby it had water from the fuel rail, quickly split it into hydrogen and oxygen in a nice efficient 2:1 ratio, into the cylinder, induction, compression, exhaust..
And whats used to "crack" water, a high frequency burst of high voltage.. hmm.. much the same as a car coil produces.. of course development of something like this would be culled by the oil companies as they are not in the frame... also how is the government going to tax us on the water... Hmm
Cheers
Matt
I remember a programme on Horizon or Cutting Edge or somesuch about 5 years ago.... Ther was a bloke who had invented a water rotor that was drilled with more holes than a swiss cheese and effectively was a perpetual motion machine - it created more energy in hot water output than it took to spin it at some extreme high speed (>20000 rpm IIRC). On the same programe was a bloke who had invented a V8 than ran off water - he used the same high-frequency, high voltage idea to crack water. The implaction at the end of the prog was that this guy was in hiding because he had refused cash for his invention from a big motor company, his patent had been refused after political leverage was used and there was a reward for anyone who managed to take him out.
Scary stuff.
Should I now run for cover...
err ... there is another explanation for why he has gone in to hiding ... because he was talking total bollocks.
It can not take less energy to split a water molecule than is released by recombining the hydrogen and oxygen to form water once again. It isn't an oil company conspiracy, the nature of the universe is conspiring against you. No free lunch I'm afraid.
It can not take less energy to split a water molecule than is released by recombining the hydrogen and oxygen to form water once again. It isn't an oil company conspiracy, the nature of the universe is conspiring against you. No free lunch I'm afraid.
The problem is ages old: CARB (California Air Resources Board) is nothing more than a bunch of bureaucrats who enjoy their power--this is even worse than the typical tree-hugging idiots with a cause, who at least think they're doing the right thing.
The members of CARB aren't trying to solve a problem. They're simply caught up in their own power and trying to get their way. This was made clear when GM explained to them that with current technology, it is far more feasible to make cars similar to current models and with similar engines, but using a fuel (such as hydrogen or other natural gas) that pollutes far less than gasoline--the hydrogen powered BMW 750h is a perfect example, but other manufacturers have made prototypes as well--yet they insist on the so-called zero-emission vehicle, which is incorrectly named.
This is usually an all electric vehicle, which performs poorly, costs far too much when compared to other cars, and has very little range, and most people don't seem to want, as opposed to the cars mentioned above, which being production based, are far more cost effective and similar to what people already own and continue to buy.
While it's bad enough that electric powered cars are a very expensive answer to the question nobody asked (except Ed Begley Jr. and a few other tree huggers), calling it zero emission is incorrect because the emissions produced to create the electricity that recharges those cars cannot be ignored, not to mention the pollution created by the lead-acid batteries when they're no longer any good.
Since CARB didn't want GM to confuse them with actual facts (facts are an increasingly smaller commodity that fewer and fewer people seem to understand or even acknowledge these days) they filed suit in civil court against CARB for unnecessarily wanting to force them to spend countless amounts of money on technology that doesn't look promising in the near future for an extremely expensive product that very few people want, but which CARB wants to force down consumers' throats.
Furthermore, keep in mind that GM has put more money into research of electric cars than anyone else, and even they don't think it's promising for the near future. Unfortunately, other manufacturers have not had the courage to join GM in this action, even though (or maybe because) they all have something to gain from it if it goes their way.
The members of CARB aren't trying to solve a problem. They're simply caught up in their own power and trying to get their way. This was made clear when GM explained to them that with current technology, it is far more feasible to make cars similar to current models and with similar engines, but using a fuel (such as hydrogen or other natural gas) that pollutes far less than gasoline--the hydrogen powered BMW 750h is a perfect example, but other manufacturers have made prototypes as well--yet they insist on the so-called zero-emission vehicle, which is incorrectly named.
This is usually an all electric vehicle, which performs poorly, costs far too much when compared to other cars, and has very little range, and most people don't seem to want, as opposed to the cars mentioned above, which being production based, are far more cost effective and similar to what people already own and continue to buy.
While it's bad enough that electric powered cars are a very expensive answer to the question nobody asked (except Ed Begley Jr. and a few other tree huggers), calling it zero emission is incorrect because the emissions produced to create the electricity that recharges those cars cannot be ignored, not to mention the pollution created by the lead-acid batteries when they're no longer any good.
Since CARB didn't want GM to confuse them with actual facts (facts are an increasingly smaller commodity that fewer and fewer people seem to understand or even acknowledge these days) they filed suit in civil court against CARB for unnecessarily wanting to force them to spend countless amounts of money on technology that doesn't look promising in the near future for an extremely expensive product that very few people want, but which CARB wants to force down consumers' throats.
Furthermore, keep in mind that GM has put more money into research of electric cars than anyone else, and even they don't think it's promising for the near future. Unfortunately, other manufacturers have not had the courage to join GM in this action, even though (or maybe because) they all have something to gain from it if it goes their way.
OK,
I don't want to spoil your party, but simple Chemistry applies here:
yes, cracking water into Hydrogen and Oxygen and then burning the two together to get water is possible. And it can be done quite easily
BUT
It takes more energy to "split" water then is gained from burning them together. Hence, an engine which burnes the by-products of water would need another engine (say, a nice petrol engine) to split water.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only moved.
I would not be worth doing. And pollution? Well, the individual car would be cleaner, but we'd need a whole lot more power stations to cope....
That said, the burning of petrol in an Internal combustion engine is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO inefficient. if anyone can think of a better (read: more efficient) way of burning petrol and air and harnessing the movement, let me know. The oil companies would pay millions just to stop the idea from being patented...
A million miles on 1 gallon should'nt be impossible, if we can harness the energy of petrol more efficiently.
I don't want to spoil your party, but simple Chemistry applies here:
yes, cracking water into Hydrogen and Oxygen and then burning the two together to get water is possible. And it can be done quite easily
BUT
It takes more energy to "split" water then is gained from burning them together. Hence, an engine which burnes the by-products of water would need another engine (say, a nice petrol engine) to split water.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only moved.
I would not be worth doing. And pollution? Well, the individual car would be cleaner, but we'd need a whole lot more power stations to cope....
That said, the burning of petrol in an Internal combustion engine is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO inefficient. if anyone can think of a better (read: more efficient) way of burning petrol and air and harnessing the movement, let me know. The oil companies would pay millions just to stop the idea from being patented...
A million miles on 1 gallon should'nt be impossible, if we can harness the energy of petrol more efficiently.
The idea of running hydrogen powered vehicles shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Even if you used fossil fuel generated electricity to split the water in the first place there are localised environmental benefits, i.e lower urban polution. And as always, if you could find a zero emission method for generating electricity, then you could have cars which could sensibly be called zero emission too. How about the Saudis build the worlds biggest solar furnace and start exporting hydrogen?
quote:
OK,
I don't want to spoil your party, but simple Chemistry applies here:
yes, cracking water into Hydrogen and Oxygen and then burning the two together to get water is possible. And it can be done quite easily
BUT
It takes more energy to "split" water then is gained from burning them together.
.
......
.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only moved.
Err, without being too picky.. thats a major contradiction you've just produced..
In "simple chemistry" theory the energy obtained from the burning is exactly equal to the energy spent for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.
quote:Errrmm... no.
That said, the burning of petrol in an Internal combustion engine is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO inefficient.
[snip]
A million miles on 1 gallon should'nt be impossible, if we can harness the energy of petrol more efficiently.
Petrol engines run at an efficiency in the region of 20-25% - diesels closer to 40%. So there is a very real ceiling on how much energy can be derived from burning hydrocarbons. With heat loss & noise loss in engines, which are impossible to eliminate, or indeed to reduce much more than some manufacturers have managed, we're reaching the real limits of efficiency for the internal combustion engine.
As you said, there may be another way, but even if there is, it would not be a way that would liberate anything more than twice the energy from petrol than a current engine does.
You have to start looking at cutting out weight and ancilliary systems.... think airbags, PAS, A/C, electric windows.. yes - the Elise is the veggie car of the future
quote:
quote:
OK,
I don't want to spoil your party, but simple Chemistry applies here:
yes, cracking water into Hydrogen and Oxygen and then burning the two together to get water is possible. And it can be done quite easily
BUT
It takes more energy to "split" water then is gained from burning them together.
.
......
.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only moved.
Err, without being too picky.. thats a major contradiction you've just produced..
In "simple chemistry" theory the energy obtained from the burning is exactly equal to the energy spent for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Not true. Molecules have differnet energy levels according to their states- water as ice has less energy then water as a liquid, and both have less energy then water as a gas.
To split water, you need to "give" the molecules energy (from that petrol engine, for example) so that they can split and become gasses. Now, armed with this extra energy, they can then be "burned" together, releasing this energy (to drive the car) and returning to their previous state. No pollution, but its am impossible cycle.
Petrol is similar: It has been created over millions of years, and has "stored" this energy. Then, when it is burned this "stored" energy is released and it returnes to its nautral state- CO2, H2O etc etc .
I hope this helps.
I must get out more...
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff