Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-13-08, 08:34 AM   #1
Nightshade
Humvee of bikes =Worksman
Thread Starter
 
Nightshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 5,363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Water Power??

Most here know that H2O is water. It's the "H" part that can power
a car or a cutting torch if it were easy to get at cheaply.

This man may be on to something if the oil compaines and the
gov't doesn't shut him down or bury what he's found......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HF__Qlhtnws

Let's hope there is great success to be had.
__________________
My preferred bicycle brand is.......WORKSMAN CYCLES
I dislike clipless pedals on any city bike since I feel they are unsafe.

Originally Posted by krazygluon
Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred, which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?
Nightshade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-08, 02:51 PM   #2
bragi
bragi
 
bragi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: seattle, WA
Bikes: LHT
Posts: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tightwad View Post
Most here know that H2O is water. It's the "H" part that can power
a car or a cutting torch if it were easy to get at cheaply.

This man may be on to something if the oil compaines and the
gov't doesn't shut him down or bury what he's found......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HF__Qlhtnws

Let's hope there is great success to be had.
I hope this is for real, but I suspect one of the following is more likely:

1. It takes more energy to carry out the electrolysis than the energy you get from burning the hydrogen;
2. It's a hoax. (The claim that he went many miles on a few ounces of water is especially suspicious.)
bragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-08, 03:03 PM   #3
Doug5150
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IL-USA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tightwad View Post
Most here know that H2O is water. It's the "H" part that can power
a car or a cutting torch if it were easy to get at cheaply.

This man may be on to something if the oil compaines and the
gov't doesn't shut him down or bury what he's found......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HF__Qlhtnws

Let's hope there is great success to be had.
It's not new, and he didn't invent it.
It's most commonly called a water torch, or a "Brown's gas" torch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
~
Doug5150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-08, 03:41 PM   #4
gerv 
In the right lane
 
gerv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Des Moines
Bikes: 1974 Huffy 3 speed
Posts: 9,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bragi View Post
I hope this is for real, but I suspect one of the following is more likely:

1. It takes more energy to carry out the electrolysis than the energy you get from burning the hydrogen;
2. It's a hoax. (The claim that he went many miles on a few ounces of water is especially suspicious.)
Seems like the #1 might be a real possibility. But seems like there may be some hope that it could succeed.

Quote:
The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. The efficiency is a measure of what fraction of electrical energy used is actually contained within the hydrogen. Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat, a useless by-product. Some reports quote efficiencies between 50% and 70%[1] This efficiency is based on the Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen. The Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen is thermal energy released when Hydrogen is combusted. This does not represent the total amount of energy within the Hydrogen, hence the efficiency is lower than a more strict definition. Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis as being between 80% and 94%.[2]. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency is more like 25%40%.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis
gerv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-08, 05:31 PM   #5
NYU SOM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bragi View Post
1. It takes more energy to carry out the electrolysis than the energy you get from burning the hydrogen;
Correct. In fact, it's the second law of thermodynamics. The first law says you can't create or destroy energy, you can only get it to change form. There has to be an energy input in this system. For example, you could have a nuclear power plant make electricity. You use that electricity to split water into H2O into H2 and O2, you can then burn the H2 along with O2. If each step is 100% efficient then the energy you get from burning the H2 and O2 together is the same amount of energy that the nuclear power plant generated.

Unfortunately the second law of thermodynamics says that you can't be 100% efficient.

This guy appears to say that he splits the water using electrolysis, that requires electricity. Perhaps he could plug the car in at night and use a giant battery on the car, but the energy has to come from somewhere.

In the case of gasoline the energy is stored in the chemical bonds, gasoline is at a higher energy state than CO2 and O2, by converting gas into these components you convert energy from a chemical energy to mechanical energy and heat. Water is already at a lower energy state than H2 and O2, therefore water can't be used as a form of energy.

There is no free lunch.
NYU SOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-08, 02:01 PM   #6
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,511
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYU SOM View Post
Correct. In fact, it's the second law of thermodynamics. The first law says you can't create or destroy energy, you can only get it to change form. There has to be an energy input in this system. For example, you could have a nuclear power plant make electricity. You use that electricity to split water into H2O into H2 and O2, you can then burn the H2 along with O2. If each step is 100% efficient then the energy you get from burning the H2 and O2 together is the same amount of energy that the nuclear power plant generated.

Unfortunately the second law of thermodynamics says that you can't be 100% efficient.

This guy appears to say that he splits the water using electrolysis, that requires electricity. Perhaps he could plug the car in at night and use a giant battery on the car, but the energy has to come from somewhere.

In the case of gasoline the energy is stored in the chemical bonds, gasoline is at a higher energy state than CO2 and O2, by converting gas into these components you convert energy from a chemical energy to mechanical energy and heat. Water is already at a lower energy state than H2 and O2, therefore water can't be used as a form of energy.

There is no free lunch
.
A good explanation. I think people forget that gasoline (petroleum) is actually solar power. Plants used the solar power input, over the course of millions of years, to put those chemical bonds in place. Millions of years to store it, and we will need only about 200 years to release it all!
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-08, 11:15 AM   #7
Elkhound
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Charleston, WV
Bikes: Trek Mountaineer modified with a NuVinci; Montegue Paratrooper folding mountain bike; Greenspeed recumbent; Surly Big Dummy with Stokemonkey
Posts: 1,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have heard it suggested that electricity from solar or wind can be used to extract hydrogen from water, the hydrogen to be burned at night, or on calm days. I don't have the technical knowledge to say if this is feasable or not.
Elkhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-08, 11:29 AM   #8
StephenH
Uber Goober
 
StephenH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas area, Texas
Bikes:
Posts: 11,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
So he uses water and electricity. Electricity isn't free, so it's not like he's getting something for nothing. And yes, electrolysis uses more energy than what you can get back out by burning the hydrogen again.

Yes, you can use solar or wind energy to produce hydrogen. Only problem is the cost. That and storing the hydrogen.
__________________
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
StephenH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-08, 12:47 PM   #9
TuckertonRR
Senior Member
 
TuckertonRR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Philadelphia PA
Bikes:
Posts: 572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hydrogen "power" is a fantasy. Forget about it. For more info, read the chapter on hydrogen in the Long Emergency. Anybody with a physics degree knows it's BS
TuckertonRR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-08, 12:52 PM   #10
rhm
multimodal commuter
 
rhm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ, NYC, LI
Bikes: 1940s Fothergill, 1959 Allegro Special, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1974 Fuji "the Ace", 1976 Holdsworth 650b conversion rando bike, 1983 Trek 720 tourer, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...
Posts: 15,725
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuckertonRR View Post
Hydrogen "power" is a fantasy. Forget about it. For more info, read the chapter on hydrogen in the Long Emergency. Anybody with a physics degree knows it's BS
Hey, some of us with humanities degrees know it too!
rhm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-08, 12:54 PM   #11
Doug5150
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IL-USA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkhound View Post
I have heard it suggested that electricity from solar or wind can be used to extract hydrogen from water, the hydrogen to be burned at night, or on calm days. I don't have the technical knowledge to say if this is feasable or not.
This is possible, but it's not economical.
The efficiency loss from separating the water by electrolysis is considerably greater than if you just used the electricity to charge a battery to run an electric vehicle in the first place.
~
Doug5150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-08, 01:20 PM   #12
TuckertonRR
Senior Member
 
TuckertonRR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Philadelphia PA
Bikes:
Posts: 572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhm View Post
Hey, some of us with humanities degrees know it too!
Hey, I've got an mba and I do!
TuckertonRR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-08, 01:53 PM   #13
Hobartlemagne 
Spelling Snob
 
Hobartlemagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Plano, Texas
Bikes: Panasonic DX4000, Bianchi Pista
Posts: 2,862
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
His patent will be bought and taken out of the market- just like the
guy who invented the battery for the EV-1.
__________________

The first rule of flats is You don't talk about flats!
Hobartlemagne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-08, 09:10 PM   #14
Smallwheels
Senior Member
 
Smallwheels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: I'm in Portland Oregon
Bikes: Xootr scooter
Posts: 1,381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This guy uses radio waves to make salt water burn. I found it because my products affect cancer cells. I was searching for other information about cancer cures and found this story; http://youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM&feature=related
Smallwheels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-08, 09:47 PM   #15
bragi
bragi
 
bragi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: seattle, WA
Bikes: LHT
Posts: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post
This guy uses radio waves to make salt water burn. I found it because my products affect cancer cells. I was searching for other information about cancer cures and found this story; http://youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM&feature=related
This just means it's even more inefficient than straightforward electrolysis. Every time you change energy from one form to another, you lose a certain percentage along the way (see above post on thermodynamics). The more steps you have, the less viable it becomes. (Unless you're converting the energy into a form that's usable, e.g., potential energy from water stored behind dams being converted to kinetic energy and then into electricity.)

I'm fairly sure that the guy in the video knows all this as well; he's clearly not stupid. Whether or not he's ethical is unknown.
bragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-08, 09:57 PM   #16
Bikepacker67
Banned
 
Bikepacker67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ogopogo's shoreline
Bikes: LHT, Kona Smoke
Posts: 4,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Frankly, if humans were to find a truly viable alternative to FF's, it would only mean that we would continue to expand our population and, of course, accelerate resource extraction (water/minerals/soil/natural habitats/etc.) which inevitably leads to environmental collapse.

Any way you slice it, the **** Saps are living beyond the means of the planet.
Bikepacker67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-08, 10:06 PM   #17
Smallwheels
Senior Member
 
Smallwheels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: I'm in Portland Oregon
Bikes: Xootr scooter
Posts: 1,381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Salt water is cheap!

It doesn't need to be mined or pumped out of deep underground wells. It doesn't matter if it takes a little more energy to convert it. All of us could afford to spend the money on the salt water to get the energy.

What I wonder about is how expensive are the radio wave generators and can they be shielded to prevent the excess radio waves from escaping and microwaving us.

Once the fuel burns it turns back into water and rejoins the hydrologic cycle.

Imagine having a ocean going motor boat with such a power unit. As long as the radio wave generator was working you could motor forever.
Smallwheels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-08, 10:35 PM   #18
Bikepacker67
Banned
 
Bikepacker67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ogopogo's shoreline
Bikes: LHT, Kona Smoke
Posts: 4,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post
Salt water is cheap!

It doesn't need to be mined or pumped out of deep underground wells. It doesn't matter if it takes a little more energy to convert it. All of us could afford to spend the money on the salt water to get the energy.

What I wonder about is how expensive are the radio wave generators and can they be shielded to prevent the excess radio waves from escaping and microwaving us.

Once the fuel burns it turns back into water and rejoins the hydrologic cycle.

Imagine having a ocean going motor boat with such a power unit. As long as the radio wave generator was working you could motor forever.

MMMmmmmmmm... FREE LUNCH!
Bikepacker67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-08, 10:43 PM   #19
StephenH
Uber Goober
 
StephenH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas area, Texas
Bikes:
Posts: 11,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
"What I wonder about is how expensive are the radio wave generators " More to the point, it's just going to use more electricity than what you get out of it, regardless of the equipment cost.
__________________
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
StephenH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-08, 09:30 PM   #20
bragi
bragi
 
bragi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: seattle, WA
Bikes: LHT
Posts: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post
Salt water is cheap!

It doesn't need to be mined or pumped out of deep underground wells. It doesn't matter if it takes a little more energy to convert it. All of us could afford to spend the money on the salt water to get the energy.

What I wonder about is how expensive are the radio wave generators and can they be shielded to prevent the excess radio waves from escaping and microwaving us.

Once the fuel burns it turns back into water and rejoins the hydrologic cycle.

Imagine having a ocean going motor boat with such a power unit. As long as the radio wave generator was working you could motor forever.
You seem determined to miss the point...
bragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-08, 09:41 PM   #21
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,511
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
If we could bring the discussion back to the terrestial plane....

Yes, electrolysis is inefficient, but that doesn't mean it's no good. Consider that solar is probalby the most promising "new" source of power. It's relatively cheap, very clean, totally renewable and "almost there" technologically. The big drawback to solar is storage. Hydrogen is one of several solutions being considered. None are close to 100 % efficient, and (as somebody pointed out) it's physically impossible to devise a fully efficient storage system. However, a 50 or 60 % efficient system would be a lot better than what we've got now. I mean, isn't 50 % of something better than 100 % of nothing?

This endless quibbling about the so-called drawbacks of alternative energy is anything but productive. I guarantee, in a very short time a 50 % efficient system is going to look very attractive.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-08, 09:53 PM   #22
damnable
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Aus
Bikes:
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
There are other ways to produce hydrogen without directly using electricity.

Have a look at this which I found a while ago. It's only in small scale research stage but it's pretty pure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9vniN54Aok
damnable is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-08, 03:01 AM   #23
CaptainCool
``````````````
 
CaptainCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: san jose
Bikes:
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
The big drawback to solar is storage. Hydrogen is one of several solutions being considered.
Yes. This. Hydrogen is not an alternative to gasoline; it is an alternative to batteries.
CaptainCool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-08, 09:36 AM   #24
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,511
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCool View Post
Yes. This. Hydrogen is not an alternative to gasoline; it is an alternative to batteries.
That's a very good way to put it.

Solar power generation technology is probably advanced to the point that it could provide all of our daytime electrical needs within just a few years. Nighttime needs--that's another question all together.

Electricity will definitely be the basic power for automobiles in the future. There are no more magic juices to operate cars with. How the electricity will get into the cars is an open question. It might be hydrogen, biofuels, plug-in batteries, or something we haven't even heard of yet. Whatever it is, the electrical power input will be greater than the power output where the rubber meets the road. The system will not be 100 % efficient. Therefore, it's ridiculous when other people here quibble against hydrogen (or whatever) because it's "inefficient." Of course it's inefficient--that can't be changed, it's a fact of life.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-08, 10:02 AM   #25
Nightshade
Humvee of bikes =Worksman
Thread Starter
 
Nightshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 5,363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
If we could bring the discussion back to the terrestial plane....(snip)
This endless quibbling about the so-called drawbacks of alternative energy is anything but productive. I guarantee, in a very short time a 50 % efficient system is going to look very attractive.
For now, millions of people expect different results by doing the same thing. "They" have a very
hard time wrapping their mind around the notion that burning something isn't the only way
to get energy. Science knows that there are other ways to propel objects but have yet to find a
a way to do so on a mass scale.

It wouldn't hurt to get rid of the intenal combustion engine either.
__________________
My preferred bicycle brand is.......WORKSMAN CYCLES
I dislike clipless pedals on any city bike since I feel they are unsafe.

Originally Posted by krazygluon
Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred, which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?
Nightshade is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:34 AM.