Water-Fuel Cell Car Unveiled in Japan

[Tony_SS]

I thought folks said this wouldn't fly, but....

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=8304856&ch=4226714&src=news

[Turbo67camaro]

If it works as advertised, it will be quite entertaining watching the oil and car companies discredit the technology.

[megaladon6]

i think i'll wait until they tell you something about how it actually works. saying it runs on water has been done. running on water has been done, but it usually takes too much energy to split the molucules. and 80kph on one liter would involve impossibly high efficiency. but if it does work it'll be pretty cool.

[Declawed69]

Sounds like some kind of chemical reaction. So what happens when the catalyst runs out?

[Jim Nilsen]

Now that oil is so high priced and the value of alternative energy goes up with it, there must be enough profit to resist being bought out by big oil :twothumbs

They have finally priced gas where they are shooting themselves in the foot.

[MrQuick]

Oh it will work...just wait till they reveal the rest of discovered alien technology

[dogtag]

I think the big breakthrough is comming up with a system that will be self sustainable.
These schemes have a sound sicentific basis and work except for the amount of power needed to operate the device needed to crack the water.
From what I've read it's an astounding amount of power.....that said, if the process can generate enough juice to sustain the process and still have enough left to operate the car they may have hit a home run.

DT

[wayne70]

I don't know if it will change the world . Buuuuut i am sure it will raise the price of water.:crying:

[67 caprice]

GM has built this car already. But we have to wait 10 or 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLKExuHlQMQ&feature=related

[Paul_J]

With the price of gasoline costing almost the same as "bottled" water I guess it's economical! :pat: I'll just stick to tap water.....

I saw a commercial for a Honda hydrogen fuel cell car. It's not a water to hydrogen car and I thing it was just a teaser.

[lowboy]

Oh, just wait. Imagine millions of cars running on water, I promise you the environmentalists will bitch about all the precious water we are consuming. It doesn't matter what we use for energy, they will find a reason to complain.

[megaladon6]

you know what's really ironic? say we switch to H2 powered cars and all they emit is water vapor. well water vapor traps heat, thus causing global warming!!!

[bigvegan]

You know, this article really makes me happy.

For a country that has consistently built superior vehicles for the past generation, it's good to see that they still get to deal with the same kind of bull**** artists and snake-oil salesmen that plague America.

Cracking the water molecule does allow you to burn hydrogen and oxygen as a fuel. The only downside is that it takes MORE energy to crack the water molecule than burning the hydrogen and oxygen provides, making this an extremely inefficient form of transportation.

My favorite comment on this came from http://packbat.livejournal.com/ - "Genepax is pulling a scam, intentionally or not. The only possible way their device could work is by annihilating the entire modern structure of physics and chemistry simultaneously, and destroy them far more thoroughly than general relativity and quantum mechanics destroyed their respective predecessors. Do not even dream of betting against those kind of odds."

Don't get me wrong, if this guy makes it work, he and Japan win.

But I'll bet anyone who wants to take me up on it a six-pack that it's a scam. (Because I'll have plenty of money for beer when I'm fueling my new car with a garden hose.)

[Jim Nilsen]

Oh, just wait. Imagine millions of cars running on water, I promise you the environmentalists will bitch about all the precious water we are consuming. It doesn't matter what we use for energy, they will find a reason to complain.

it will be entertaining to see what happens when they tell the environmentalist that the ony pollution we have to worry about is the noise pollution coming out of their mouths!!!

[Jim Nilsen]

You know, this article really makes me happy.

For a country that has consistently built superior vehicles for the past generation, it's good to see that they still get to deal with the same kind of bull**** artists and snake-oil salesmen that plague America.

Cracking the water molecule does allow you to burn hydrogen and oxygen as a fuel. The only downside is that it takes MORE energy to crack the water molecule than burning the hydrogen and oxygen provides, making this an extremely inefficient form of transportation.

My favorite comment on this came from http://packbat.livejournal.com/ - "Genepax is pulling a scam, intentionally or not. The only possible way their device could work is by annihilating the entire modern structure of physics and chemistry simultaneously, and destroy them far more thoroughly than general relativity and quantum mechanics destroyed their respective predecessors. Do not even dream of betting against those kind of odds."

Don't get me wrong, if this guy makes it work, he and Japan win.

But I'll bet anyone who wants to take me up on it a six-pack that it's a scam. (Because I'll have plenty of money for beer when I'm fueling my new car with a garden hose.)

Disbelief will not make something anymore unreal than will belief make it real. My reality and your reality are not the same and the time we live in is not the same either. The theory of relativity puts everyone in a different time and place along with a considerably different amount of intelligence. It is a terrible thing to get old and outdated in your own real time when you can follow the path of others who don't have that resistance. Who do you want to believe in?

[Jim Nilsen]

If we were to go to hydrogen power and start to use water at the same rate as oil then all of the flooding would be lessened and the levels wouldn't rise :hmm:

The thing that worries me the most about rising water levels in the ocean is if Al Gore was to go swimming in it, then I would be really worried. We need to tell Al to keep his fat ass and swelled head out of it and we will all be OK!

[Bad Bird]

Disbelief will not make something anymore unreal than will belief make it real. My reality and your reality are not the same and the time we live in is not the same either. The theory of relativity puts everyone in a different time and place along with a considerably different amount of intelligence. It is a terrible thing to get old and outdated in your own real time when you can follow the path of others who don't have that resistance. Who do you want to believe in?

They are the same reality, IF we are looking at spacetime, which can be modelled by 4D Minkowski space. However, our decompositions of spacetime into space AND time are different, depending on our relative velocities.

:firefire:

Sorry, pseudo-physics-psycho-babble drives me insane.

[Jim Nilsen]

They are the same reality, IF we are looking at spacetime, which can be modelled by 4D Minkowski space. However, our decompositions of spacetime into space AND time are different, depending on our relative velocities.

:firefire:

Sorry, pseudo-physics-psycho-babble drives me insane.

My car is on jackstands, so does that give you an indication that I might want to believe in someone else's:lmao:

Everytime I buy a piece for my car it seems like that reality is in another space and time of it's own !!!!

[TonyL]

My employee has a Corolla that runs on both gas and HHO (browns gas created by water) He's getting over 50 mpg in his car currently. There is much more energy in water than is thought possible. Much more. It has long been said that it takes more energy to get the energy out of water to be useful. This is only partly true. What is forgotten is that the byproduct of that process is *also* burnable. These cars are not running on the hydrogen alone. They are using the HHO and Oxygen created to oxidize the burn. Is there some potential energy lost? sure. But does the process create enough energy to run both the separator and this little car? Yes.

My guy's corolla burns the brown's gas and the gasoline it normally uses. This creates a more efficient burn, and thus a huge increase in mileage. It's not bullcrap. I've seen it with my own eyes. I know what all the science says. I've read the same skeptic sites and done my own research, trying to discredit and discourage my own guy from doing the mod in the first place. Im eating crow now. He's gone over 200 miles on 1/4 tank of gas in his car. His normal range was around 375 miles *PER TANK*.

[Paul_J]

Hey Tony, keep us updated on this Corolla! You're correct that it's hard to weed through all the various sites on the internet pro and con to these technologies so I will be interested to hear it from someone actually doing it. Thanks

[trapin]

None of this is even worth getting excited about. Even if some scientist or company figures out the technology to make water power our vehicles, Big Oil will buy it and then alter it so that only a "certain kind" of water will work for the process.

And who do you think will sell that "special" water? And just imagine what they'll charge for it.

[Jim Nilsen]

Isn't it ironic that the big oil companies are rooted in a place where there is a desert and water is harder to come by.

If this Brown's gas is able to be installed on a car by a regular guy, then guy's like us can do it too and eventually they won't be able to stop us all unless the polititions want to make a law against it and then I think there will be a riot or a walkout on there hands they can't deal with. Mechanics fix the problems these people create and when it comes to helping them out when it comes to this I will ask them which way they came in and help them out of their office with a good swift vote.

[BonzoHansen]

Tony, have any good info/links on that. Maybe I can do that in my beater pickup, just for S&Gs.

[bigvegan]

I don't think it's a conspiracy by the oil companies that will keep Brown's gas from becoming a popular fuel source for vehicles, I think it's the conspiracy from those mean old laws of physics that will keep it off the mass market.

Despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary, this is a total scam.

Changing driving habits probably has more to do with saving gas than any of these fake gadgets.

Wayne Gerdes, the big name in "hypermiling" (the term used for folks who try to get the utmost in MPG), has gotten some pretty fantastic mileage from some not particularly thrifty cars. "During his ownership of these vehicles, he has a lifetime average fuel economy of 48.6 mpg in the Accord and 38.5 mpg in the Ranger."
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=126611.

Me, I'm about to ride my bike to work and leave my car at home today. That way I can stick it to the oil companies and get my fat ass some exercise. Plus, it's a whole lot of fun to have a vehicle you can take at top-speed on city streets (since I'm unlikely to exceed the speed limit even if I try.)

[BonzoHansen]

Me, I'm about to ride my bike to work and leave my car at home today. That way I can stick it to the oil companies and get my fat ass some exercise. Plus, it's a whole lot of fun to have a vehicle you can take at top-speed on city streets (since I'm unlikely to exceed the speed limit even if I try.)Hmm..my bike already has 18 gears...maybe I need to add disc brakes (I've seen them), PT Trek!

My fat belly could use some biking too. Gotta fix the derailer. Why do things like that perpelx me but i can put a t56 in a 77 Z28? LOL@me.
/hijack off/

[Chad-1stGen]

Ok so that thing runs on just about any kind of water including tea.

So does that mean if you run out of fuel and are desperate, could it run on pee?

[69LT1Nova]

Ok so that thing runs on just about any kind of water including tea.

So does that mean if you run out of fuel and are desperate, could it run on pee?

:lol: Yeah, but then you're mileage would be 'piss poor'!! :lmao:

[bigvegan]

BonzoHansen:

My MTB has disk brakes and they are VERY effective. If you put them on, make sure you don't go over the handlebars the first few times you try them.

Here's a pretty straightforward guide to the rear derailleur tuneup - http://www.utahmountainbiking.com/fix/ .

Bike repair is (mostly) child's play compared to working on cars.

My ride to work this morning was approximately 5mph slower than driving, but boy is the world hillier when you're not in a car.

Sorry for the threadjack. You may now continue with the discussion of physics defying mileage saving gadgets.

[6'9"Witha69]

Ok so that thing runs on just about any kind of water including tea.

So does that mean if you run out of fuel and are desperate, could it run on pee?
:lol: Yeah, but then you're mileage would be 'piss poor'!! :lmao::rotfl:

[Tony_SS]

Honda's Hydrogen Fuel car being released:

http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080616/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_honda.html


TAKANEZAWA, Japan - Honda's new zero-emission, hydrogen fuel cell car rolled off a Japanese production line Monday and is headed to Southern California, where Hollywood is already abuzz over the latest splash in green motoring.

The FCX Clarity, which runs on hydrogen and electricity, emits only water and none of the noxious fumes believed to induce global warming. It is also two times more energy efficient than a gas-electric hybrid and three times that of a standard gasoline-powered car, the company says.

Japan's third biggest automaker expects to lease out a "few dozen" units this year and about 200 units within three years. In California, a three-year lease will run $600 a month, which includes maintenance and collision coverage.

Among the first customers are actress Jamie Lee Curtis and filmmaker husband Christopher Guest, actress Laura Harris, film producer Ron Yerxa, as well as businessmen Jon Spallino and Jim Salomon.

"It's so smooth," said Harris, who played villainness Marie Warner on the hit TV show "24" and was flown over by Honda for the ceremony. "It's like a future machine, but it's not."

The FCX Clarity is an improvement of its previous-generation fuel cell vehicle, the FCX, introduced in 2005.

A breakthrough in the design of the fuel cell stack, which is the unit that powers the car's motor, allowed engineers to lighten the body, expand the interior and increase efficiency, Honda said.

The fuel cell draws on energy synthesized through a chemical reaction between hydrogen gas and oxygen in the air, and a lithium-ion battery pack provides supplemental power. The FCX Clarity has a range of about 270-miles per tank with hydrogen consumption equivalent to 74 miles per gallon, according to the carmaker.

The 3,600-pound vehicle can reach speeds up to 100 miles per hour.

John Mendel, executive vice president of America Honda Motor Co., said at a morning ceremony it was "an especially significant day for American Honda as we plant firm footsteps toward the mainstreaming of fuel cell cars."

The biggest obstacles standing in the way of wider adoption of fuel cell vehicles are cost and the dearth of hydrogen fuel stations. For the Clarity's release in California, Honda said it received 50,000 applications through its website but could only consider those living near stations in Torrance, Santa Monica and Irvine.

Initially, however, the Clarity will go only to a chosen few starting July and then launch in Japan this fall.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a statewide network of hydrogen stations, but progress has been slow.

The state has also recently relaxed a mandate for the number of zero-emission cars it aims to have on roads. By 2014, automakers must now sell 7,500 electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, a reduction of 70 percent.

Spallino, who currently drives Honda's older FCX and was also flown in for the ceremony, said he will use the Clarity to drive to and from work and for destinations within the Los Angeles area. The small number of hydrogen fuel stations is the "single limiting factor" for fuel cell vehicles, he said.

"It's more comfortable, and it handles well," said Spallino of Redondo Beach. "It's got everything. You're not sacrificing anything except range."

The world's major automakers have been making heavy investments in fuel cells and other alternative fuel vehicles amid climbing oil prices and concerns about climate change.

Although Honda Motor Co. was the first Japanese automaker to launch a gas-electric hybrid vehicle in the U.S. in 1999, it has been outpaced by the dominance of Toyota's popular Prius.

Toyota announced in May that it has sold more than 1 million Prius hybrids, while both the Honda Insight and the hybrid Accord have been discontinued due to poor sales.

Honda also plans to launch a gas-electric hybrid-only model, as well as hybrid versions of the Civic, the sporty CR-Z and Fit subcompact.

Toyota has announced that it would launch a plug-in hybrid with next-generation lithium-ion batteries by 2010 and a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle later in Japan later this year.

U.S. carmaker General Motors Corp. plans to introduce a Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric vehicle in 2010. It also introduced a test-fleet of hydrogen fuel cell Equinox SUVs.

Honda has no plans for a plug-in electric vehicle. President Takeo Fukui said he does not believe current battery technology is good enough to develop a feasible car.

The company has not revealed how much each car costs to make, and it is unclear when, or if, the car will be available for mass-market sales. Takeo has set a target for 2018, but meeting that goal will depend on whether Honda can significantly lower development and assembly costs as well as market reaction to fuel cells.

[Damn True]

I think the big breakthrough is comming up with a system that will be self sustainable.
These schemes have a sound sicentific basis and work except for the amount of power needed to operate the device needed to crack the water.
From what I've read it's an astounding amount of power.....that said, if the process can generate enough juice to sustain the process and still have enough left to operate the car they may have hit a home run.

DT

That pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics is going to trip that up every time.

[novanutcase]

That pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics is going to trip that up every time.

LOL!!! I hate when that happens!

John

[Damn True]

So do snake oil salesmen.

Quick math:

It'll take about 180kWH of electricity to produce enough H2 to equal the BTU potential of one gallon of gas.

Since electricity averages about $0.09 per kWH it should cost roughly $48 to produce that H2.

Sounds great huh?

[bigvegan]

Damn True, why must you bring reality and critical thinking into our discussions?

Reminds me of a famous Senator Moynihan quote, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

[69LT1Nova]

So do snake oil salesmen.

Quick math:

It'll take about 180kWH of electricity to produce enough H2 to equal the BTU potential of one gallon of gas.

Since electricity averages about $0.09 per kWH it should cost roughly $48 to produce that H2.

Sounds great huh?

Looks like some smarties at Purdue have figured this one out by getting a chemical reaction from aluminum/gallium pellets and H20. No electricity needed to crack the hydrogen from the water! Way cool. Now... we just need to get aluminum/gallium pellets.

Linkage:
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html#tab (http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html#tab)

They list all the advantages/disadvantages to their system and include the math for all doubters.

[Damn True]

Gallium. Neat stuff. Currently costs about $50lb is commonly used in LEDs and at current rate of usage will be practically exhausted by the year 2017.

[6'9"Witha69]

So do snake oil salesmen.

Quick math:

It'll take about 180kWH of electricity to produce enough H2 to equal the BTU potential of one gallon of gas.

Since electricity averages about $0.09 per kWH it should cost roughly $48 to produce that H2.

Sounds great huh?Wouldn't that be about $16.20?

[Damn True]

Shoot, you are correct. I multiplied by three....twice.

The BTU potential of one gallon of gas is 140,000 BTU.

The H2 content in one gallon of water nets 47,000 BTW.

So it takes roughly three gallons worth of H2 to equal the thermic potential of gasoline. It takes 60kWH per gallon @ $0.09 per gallon to complete the electrolysis times 3 gallons.

[69LT1Nova]

Gallium. Neat stuff. Currently costs about $50lb is commonly used in LEDs and at current rate of usage will be practically exhausted by the year 2017.

Yep, LEDs and semiconductor chip doping. $50/lb is for the 100% pure stuff, and the guys at Purdue explicitly stated that they wouldn't need it in pure form. (most of the price of the metal is due to refining, and refining again to get the purity).

Exhausted by 2017? I'd like to see where you pull that figure from.

[69LT1Nova]

Ah, I just wikipedia'ed gallium. I see where Damn True gets his knowledge base. I went to the root article of the gallium statement, and it was made by some quack in Ausberg Germany that thinks the world is going to run out of every metallic resource in the next 10 years. HA! Yeah right.

Best part is that the gallium in the Purdue test is NOT consumed, the aluminum is. The aluminum is used as a sacrificial annode thereby converted into alumina, and the gallium is untouched. Recycling anyone?

[TonyL]

Shoot, you are correct. I multiplied by three....twice.

The BTU potential of one gallon of gas is 140,000 BTU.

The H2 content in one gallon of water nets 47,000 BTW.

So it takes roughly three gallons worth of H2 to equal the thermic potential of gasoline. It takes 60kWH per gallon @ $0.09 per gallon to complete the electrolysis times 3 gallons.

Forgive my ignorance, but does the calculation you're using for potential BTUs of gasoline accound for a perfect, efficiant burn? Cars don't burn all the gasoline they inject.

Things like pressure, temp and oxidation have an effect too I'd guess.
All Im saying is that while gasoline is potentially a better fuel, is it being used to its fullest potential?

Since H2 and HHO are produced in the breakdown of water, HHO burns better than just H2, thanks to the oxygen.

[DJW32]

Tony,
Can we get a link for the corolla guys conversion?

[Damn True]

Ah, I just wikipedia'ed gallium. I see where Damn True gets his knowledge base. I went to the root article of the gallium statement, and it was made by some quack in Ausberg Germany that thinks the world is going to run out of every metallic resource in the next 10 years. HA! Yeah right.

Best part is that the gallium in the Purdue test is NOT consumed, the aluminum is. The aluminum is used as a sacrificial annode thereby converted into alumina, and the gallium is untouched. Recycling anyone?

Actually I got it from a semiconductor industry trade paper about 6mos ago. I should have been more clear. The stuff isn't going to be "used up" by 2017. But most of the places where it is currently mined will be economically unviable. Similar to placer gold in CA. There is still craploads of it in the low sierra mountains. But it's no longer economically viable to mine it here due to labor & environmental costs and the fact that all the easy pickins (the stuff near the surface) is all but gone so the rest has to be shaft mined.

Similar with Gallium. It is becoming increasingly expensive to mine under the current paradigm. It is my understanding that it is expected to be economically unviable sometime around 2017.

I was unaware that the refined form was not required for the process you linked to. I made my statment more to illustrate that there is no such thing as a "free lunch" with regard to energy. We've been looking for perpetual motion and free energy for centuries.

[Tony_SS]

Taken from Realoldspower from a similar thread:


All this talk about "where are we going to get all this electricity?!?!!" is just another good reason to go nuclear. Hydrogen may or may not be viable as a form of fuel, but if it leads to a better solution, its worth exploring, just like hybrid technology.

It puzzles me how everyone is so quick to point out the faults (IE energy losses, etc) as if any alternative to gasoline should be self sustaining, and create perpetual motion. Sure, that'd be nice, but it isn't likely to happen any time soon. There will be no magic solution, it will be some sort of compromise.

Any time you switch a form of potential energy from one form to another, you will experience some sort of net energy loss. There are few things that are able to obtain 100 percent efficiency, and I don't think we should expect that from any form of alternative fuel.

[dogtag]

That quote is "right on".
I was discussing hydrogen with a group I hang out with and the first thing that's brought up is the "Hindenburg".
I agreed with them and commented that perhaps the explosion would have been allot smaller if the Dirigible were filled with gasoline instead.

Sure, hydrogen is explosive but in a car it will be transported in a steel tank and not hanging from a bladder underneath.
I'm betting on electricity to power our new cars. We have a Prius and find it to be a fantastic car. It cost us 120 bucks to drive from Seattle to Sacramento and BACK with three people and luggage.
And that's today's prices....(paid 3.75 a gal, average)
If this same car with the same technology can be fitted with a hydrogen fuel cell, we've gotter whipped. IMHO

DT

[James OLC]

The fatal flaw in any of the alternative fuel programs is that once any of these technologies become "main stream", they will no longer be powered by an inexpensive fuel source. One of the main issues is that we (the worlds population) continue to consume resources (all resources) at an alarming rate.

Right now we are upset about the source of oil and gas because that is what powers our cars and heats our homes.

If you built a car that ran on water and we consumed 3 times as much water as gasoline what do you think would happen to the cost of water. And not just as a fuel, as... well... water.

If you utilize a consumable catalyst (say aluminum or gallium) what do you think is going to happen to the cost of the mineral? It's going to go up as economically available stocks are mined and consumed and only more expensive to recover deposits remain.

Batteries? Forgetting the obvious disposal issues (that's the next generations problem), they still require material and energy to build - both of which will become more expensive when demand increases.

Heck, if cars could run on pee, you only got so much to give so what are you going to be willing to pay the guy next to you when you're dry and he's finishing off a pint? And then what - protests at the brewery because the beer brewers are increasing their prices as demand skyrockets?

Whatever the solution is going to be for this, conservation, efficiency, and responsible consumption have to be factored into the equation. WE have to use the oil and gas lesson that we are learning now as a model for the next non-renuable resource that we choose to use. History, as they say, is destined to repeat itself if we do not.

[bigvegan]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present the latest in alternative energy powered pro-touring vehicles.

It runs on water (and lunch), gets terrific mileage, and is guaranteed to garner attention anywhere you drive it.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

http://www.pedalcarusa.com/Mustang_Pedal_Cars.htm

At less than $300 a pop, quite a deal, and unlike the brown's gas scams, these actually work.

(Seriously, we're going to be using gasoline for the foreseeable future. Some of us may start riding our bikes to work, some may buy Priuses and use the weekend cars on the weekend, some may just drive less, so if we put enough of a dent in demand, the price will go back down. If the recession in America goes global, and China makes a fiasco of the Olympics in a month and a half, the cutback on oil usage could be worldwide. But we all know what we can do to spend less at the pump, and it doesn't involve snake oil or brown's gas.)

[novanutcase]

The fatal flaw in any of the alternative fuel programs is that once any of these technologies become "main stream", they will no longer be powered by an inexpensive fuel source. One of the main issues is that we (the worlds population) continue to consume resources (all resources) at an alarming rate.

Right now we are upset about the source of oil and gas because that is what powers our cars and heats our homes.

If you built a car that ran on water and we consumed 3 times as much water as gasoline what do you think would happen to the cost of water. And not just as a fuel, as... well... water.

If you utilize a consumable catalyst (say aluminum or gallium) what do you think is going to happen to the cost of the mineral? It's going to go up as economically available stocks are mined and consumed and only more expensive to recover deposits remain.

Batteries? Forgetting the obvious disposal issues (that's the next generations problem), they still require material and energy to build - both of which will become more expensive when demand increases.

Heck, if cars could run on pee, you only got so much to give so what are you going to be willing to pay the guy next to you when you're dry and he's finishing off a pint? And then what - protests at the brewery because the beer brewers are increasing their prices as demand skyrockets?

Whatever the solution is going to be for this, conservation, efficiency, and responsible consumption have to be factored into the equation. WE have to use the oil and gas lesson that we are learning now as a model for the next non-renuable resource that we choose to use. History, as they say, is destined to repeat itself if we do not.

Agreed! Essentially the law of supply and demand! Water is abundant on this planet but what percentage of it is potable and usable for cars?

John

[Young Gun]

cool idea but until we have the infrastructure for it, its useless...

[James OLC]

cool idea but until we have the infrastructure for it, its useless...

That is a huge issue again with all of the (potential) alternatives - the infrastructure either does not exist or is nowhere near adequate.

And unfortunately, nobody is going to build this for free...

[absintheisfun]

That pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics is going to trip that up every time.


Not to argue, just my $.02 on science...

1. Remember that at one point in time it was KNOWN, not believed that the world was flat

2. It was KNOWN, not believed that the earth was the center of the universe--it was all-out Blasphemy to say otherwise!

3. It was KNOWN, not believed that the atom was the smallest piece of matter.



Remember that even science admits that the scientific laws are not certain--they are just the best answer/reason for an happening--until it is proved otherwise.

If it honestly is possible to create a fuel source I can drink and or put in my car, I'm all for jumping on the bandwagon...but until then I'll be pumping away at the crude...

[Damn True]

Not to argue, just my $.02 on science...

1. Remember that at one point in time it was KNOWN, not believed that the world was flat

2. It was KNOWN, not believed that the earth was the center of the universe--it was all-out Blasphemy to say otherwise!

3. It was KNOWN, not believed that the atom was the smallest piece of matter.



Remember that even science admits that the scientific laws are not certain--they are just the best answer/reason for an happening--until it is proved otherwise.

If it honestly is possible to create a fuel source I can drink and or put in my car, I'm all for jumping on the bandwagon...but until then I'll be pumping away at the crude...

That miracle fuel already exists. Veggie oil. You wouldn't want to drink much of it (might be bad for your seat covers), but you could.

[bigvegan]

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

Al Gore's home uses almost 20x the energy of the average American home.

Maybe someone ought to send him some of those water powered engines.

It's surprising really, you'd think with all the hot air that man generates they could hook him to a turbine and reduce his electricity cost to zero.

[Bad Bird]

Not to argue, just my $.02 on science...

1. Remember that at one point in time it was KNOWN, not believed that the world was flat

2. It was KNOWN, not believed that the earth was the center of the universe--it was all-out Blasphemy to say otherwise!

3. It was KNOWN, not believed that the atom was the smallest piece of matter.

Remember that even science admits that the scientific laws are not certain--they are just the best answer/reason for an happening--until it is proved otherwise.



That is the thing with science. New discoveries do not necessarily invalidate older ones. The idea that the Earth was round GLOBALLY was not allowed to invalidate the fact that the Earth is flat LOCALLY. Special Relativity (Fast) and Quantum Mechanics (Small) do not invalidate Newton's Laws, as long as they are used in realm of slow moving objects, and large objects, respectively.

The other two ideas were not science at all, as they were "opinions" and did not follow the Scientific Method.

I *really* don't think we are going to get rid of the Laws of Thermodynamics, but I'm not a fan of the word "law" in this context. Nothing in science can be proven absolutely. It is all too easy to show that the laws of physics are easily broken, despite Star Trek stating the opposite.

I love this board (PT.com), I can actually have intelligent debates here, unlike most other boards.

[Turbo67camaro]

Philosophy of Science teaches us that scientific advances come from altering or disproving what we think is currently accurate. It is all about thinking outside the box, and keeping an open mind.

I love the analogy about, at one point in time, most everyone knew the world was flat.

Anyone who jumps right to a conclusion that it can't be done, should study Philosophy of Science.

In this case, it all comes down to whether or not they found a new way to crack water efficiently. Have they done so in a way that is also mass producable and sustainable ? I don't know I'm too busy building a car right now.

But, I do know its very important to never say never.

Time and time again people through history have said "oh that can't be done", only to be proved wrong after we've learning something new that changes the game.

[bigvegan]

Yes, but as a wise man once said, "You shouldn't be so open minded that your brain falls out."

These Brown's Gas converters / electrolysis / hydro-boost systems don't work, because it takes MORE energy to convert the water into hydrogen and oxygen than your car's alternator produces.

Can you crack the water molecule efficiently?

Nobody's demonstrated an ability to do so so far.

Given that this would be a HUGE benefit to just about every internal combustion engine, you'd expect to see some peer reviewed scientific articles on the processes involved.

Sure, perhaps at some point we'll see someone develop a catalyst that can break apart a water molecule and allow hydrogen and oxygen to be burned as fuel with a net positive energy output, but until that point, working on the tried and proven methods of increasing fuel efficiency and not getting ripped off by scam artists is probably the best bet.

[Damn True]

Riddle me this.

You have a lightbulb hooked to a battery, the battery is hooked to a solar panel and the whole shebang is in an otherwise dark closet. Assume the battery is fully charged when you close the door.

How long will the lamp remain lit?

[James OLC]

Riddle me this.

You have a lightbulb hooked to a battery, the battery is hooked to a solar panel and the whole shebang is in an otherwise dark closet. Assume the battery is fully charged when you close the door.

How long will the lamp remain lit?

Depends on how often you check on it to make sure it's working...

:hammer:

[Jim Nilsen]

Riddle me this.

You have a lightbulb hooked to a battery, the battery is hooked to a solar panel and the whole shebang is in an otherwise dark closet. Assume the battery is fully charged when you close the door.

How long will the lamp remain lit?

If you have a solar panel hooked to a battery,the battery is hooked to the light and you put it outside in the morning how long will the light work when it gets dark?

It took a long time for people to believe in a solar panel as a way to backup your power and now it's everyday.What changed? the order they did the efficiency test I guess ?

It's a whole new world and I keep hearing that big oil buys all of the tech and then I hear that it can't exist. I don't know who to believe anymore but I do know I can believe what I see and what is a reality for some. It sure looks real from what I have seen on some videos. These people aren't smart enough to scam you and it is so low tech that they can evidently pull it off . ?

So is that Corolla still running Tony?

It will truely be amazing if this stuff really lives up to even 25% of what it says for the money spent, even if it just changes your driving habits until it's paid for itself.

The verdict is still out for me but I am always curious and ever since I put a Borg Warner electronic igniton on my stock distributor and everyone said it wouldn't work as good as points back in the day I have learned to have a little blind faith as long as it is entertaining a good cause.


:cheers:

[James OLC]

The old "law of conservation of energy" - can't seem to get around that one either.

however

that particular law does leave the door open for non-terrestrial solutions...

[79PonchoUK]

Why isnt LPG used more? (autogas?)

Do you not have it un the US? We have 6 stations in my small city alone, but it's still really uncommon on cars. I only know 2 people who use it.

The price of LPG is literally half that of 'gas/petrol'.

That makes it similar to my V8 getting 35-40mpg. (accounting for LPG not quite being as volume-efficient as the liquid stuff)

[James OLC]

LPG/LNG is an issue because North America is a net importer and unlike the oil market (which is very global) LNG contracts vary greatly from place to place. That means that while LNG supplies are abundant in Northern Europe and Australia (who are net exporters) the LNG stocks which are shipped are (typically today) delivered to Asia and the far east.

Through most of 2008, North American gas prices have been about half of those elsewhere in the world so those that have the option are selling into those higher priced markets.

If anything, LNG supplies will decrease in North America until gas prices increase.