Water as fuel for cars by 2010
virig
with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel
cell" automobile produce the energy needed to move…
http://cooldreamcars.googlepages.com/water_fuel_cars_2010
Bob
> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only
> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel
> http://cooldreamcars.googlepages.com/water_fuel_cars_2010
This process to move to "Hydrogen fuel cells" is a sham, fuel cells do
not "produce" energy they convert it. Where will all this hydrogen come
from? There is not enough "renewables" on the electric grid to produce
even the electricity we are utilizing today so if we have a large
increase in demand it will surely come from fossil fuels.
Don't be sucked in by all the hype! Think through the process from end
to end.
--- Rant off --- Back to regular lurking mode....
John Burns
> not "produce" energy they convert it. Where will all this hydrogen come
> from? There is not enough "renewables" on the electric grid to produce
> even the electricity we are utilizing today so if we have a large
> increase in demand it will surely come from fossil fuels.
> Don't be sucked in by all the hype! Think through the process from end
> to end.
Agreed. The only way to do it properly is increase the nuclear / wind /
wave power sector.
--
Who needs a life when you've got Unix? :-)
Email: jo...@unixnerd.demon.co.uk, John G.Burns B.Eng, Bonny Scotland
Web : http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk - The Ultimate BMW Homepage!
Need Sun or HP Unix kit? http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/unix.html
www.Strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible price
Jeff Strickland
"Bob" <rbalbirn...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:yO1gk.270$%b7.93@edtnps82...
> virig wrote:
>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only
>> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel
>> http://cooldreamcars.googlepages.com/water_fuel_cars_2010
>
> This process to move to "Hydrogen fuel cells" is a sham, fuel cells do not
> "produce" energy they convert it. Where will all this hydrogen come from?
> There is not enough "renewables" on the electric grid to produce even the
> electricity we are utilizing today so if we have a large increase in
> demand it will surely come from fossil fuels.
>
> Don't be sucked in by all the hype! Think through the process from end to
> end.
>
> --- Rant off --- Back to regular lurking mode....
I do not know the molecular science involved in stripping out the hydrogen
from pretty much anything, but Fuel Cells are coming. Honda already has a
fuel cell car.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the known universe, so our ability
to use it all up is very slim. We once said that about petroleum, but I
digress. Hydrogen is found in natural gas, and more than half of American
households have natural gas being fed directly into the home, so there is a
significant distribution system in place already. This is a plus. Hydrogen
is also 66% of water, and everybody has water at home. Again, the
distribtion network is largely in place -- assuming a device is needed to
separate the hydrogen and oxygen before putting it into the car. If water
can be put into a car, and the hydrogen can be separated "on the fly"
onboard the car, then the distribution network is done.
As a practical matter, I predict fuel cell technology being employed in a
residential setting. It is clean and renewable. It is also well suited for a
static load. The standard maximum load for a residence is about 15kW when
everything is on. It would be a relatively simple matter to design a fuel
cell with that capacity, and when the load is below that, the excess energy
could be pumped out to the grid where it is then distributed to business and
industry where they have a hard time to generate sufficient electricity for
their operations.
Homeowners get energy credits for the energy the pump out, and then draw the
credits down when they place demands that exceed the capacity of the system
they have -- which should be a very rare event.
Ivan Marsh
> virig wrote:
>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only
>> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel
>> cell" automobile produce the energy needed to move
>
> This process to move to "Hydrogen fuel cells" is a sham, fuel cells do
> not "produce" energy they convert it.
Uh... everything converts energy rather than produce it. Energy cannot be
created or destroyed.
Don't take that as an endorsement of the article... using water for fuel
is idiotic unless you can find a cheap and easy way to produce water.
--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"
Dodgy
<cr...@verizon.net> waffled on about something:
Household gas does indeed contain hydrogen, but as a compound with
carbon.
In fact, so does petrol/gasoline.
They're both hydrocarbons.
The pollution problem isn't with the burning of the hydrogen, that
just results in water. The problem is the carbon. The carbon that has
been safely locked away under the surface of the planet for a million
years. When you burn that, you get carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide
if you don't have enough oxygen about).
The usual source of the pure hydrogen fuel that fuel cell vehicles
require is water. It can be fresh water, or sea water, take your pick.
The basic process is electrolysis, where you have two electrically
conductive plates immersed in the liquid, and then you apply an
electrical charge to them. This in effect rips the oxygen and hydrogen
atoms apart from each other, oxygen heads to one plate, hydrogen to
the other, and up they both bubble. To be honest the process is so
simple you could so it at home. The trick is to arrange the plates so
you keep the gasses separate. The last thing you want to store is a
perfect 2:1 hydrogen:oxygen mixture! (Perfect explosive mixture, just
add a spark!).
The problem is the electricity required to pull the hydrogen free from
the oxygen, you've got to get it from somewhere!
If that somewhere happens to be a gas, oil or coal power station, you
haven't actually reduced any pollution, you've just moved it down to
the other end of the power cable! The same is true of purely electric
cars, the owners might be sitting there feeling smug, but I doubt
they've thought for two seconds where electricity comes from.
Only when you know your electricity has come from a green source such
as solar, wind, hydro or wave, can you feel completely smug and green.
I haven't included nuclear, as although it doesn't pump out tons of
CO2, it does produce some pretty nasty waste!
End of science lesson.
Dodgy.
--
MUSHROOMS ARE THE OPIATE OF THE MOOSES
Dodgy
waffled on about something:
Surely you mean cheap and easy way to produce hydrogen?
They exist, you can do it with a couple of paperclips, a glass of
water and a 9v battery... The problem is the electricity required to
do it.
If you did mean water, then maybe as a Brit I cannot comprehend your
problem, we're surrounded by the stuff!
Ivan Marsh
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:19:53 -0500, Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com>
> waffled on about something:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:30:54 +0000, Bob wrote:
>>
>>> virig wrote:
>>>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only
>>>> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel
>>>> cell" automobile produce the energy needed to move
>>>
>>> This process to move to "Hydrogen fuel cells" is a sham, fuel cells do
>>> not "produce" energy they convert it.
>>
>>Uh... everything converts energy rather than produce it. Energy cannot
>>be created or destroyed.
>>
>>Don't take that as an endorsement of the article... using water for fuel
>>is idiotic unless you can find a cheap and easy way to produce water.
>
> Surely you mean cheap and easy way to produce hydrogen?
No... the article is about getting hydrogen from water, so I'm talking
about water.
An alternative method of producing hydrogen would make the water
unnecessary.
> They exist, you can do it with a couple of paperclips, a glass of water
> and a 9v battery... The problem is the electricity required to do it.
>
> If you did mean water, then maybe as a Brit I cannot comprehend your
> problem, we're surrounded by the stuff!
Humans need fresh water to live, if we're "burning" it in fuel cells and
spraying it all over the highways then it's a pretty rare commodity.
Ivan Marsh
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:37:13 -0500, Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com>
> Surely you must know that fuel cells don't burn water but rather produce
> it.
That's why it says "burning" in quotes. And fuel cells DO NOT produce
water. The oxygen and hydrogen in water are separated and them
recombined... energy is being released by the separation.
But, as of yet, there is no closed system fuel cell technology for cars so
water is exhausted by the vehicle out the tail pipe onto the road...
therefore the water is essentially lost.
daytripper
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:01:35 -0500, Ver...@my.home wrote:
[...]
>> Surely you must know that fuel cells don't burn water but rather produce
>> it.
>
>That's why it says "burning" in quotes. And fuel cells DO NOT produce
>water. The oxygen and hydrogen in water are separated and them
>recombined... energy is being released by the separation.
That's totally incorrect, the inputs to a fuel cell are Hydrogen Gas and
Oxygen Gas - not water. Water is a byproduct, not the energy source.
The energy produced by a hydrogen fuel cell occurs by separating protons and
electrons from hydrogen (gas) molecules in the presence of an oxygen (gas)
enhanced catalyst. These electrons are then routed through a power producing
device (read: motor), after which they are returned to the cell and recombined
with the protons . Water is a convenient byproduct of this process -
convenient in the sense that there is an electrolytic membrane that needs to
stay "wet" for the fuel cell to function.
Here's a quicky tutorial on the topic - so you won't make so many glaring
mistakes in the future...
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell2.htm
hth ;-)
Ivan Marsh
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:06:44 -0500, Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com>
> I think you should look up the actual design of a fuel cell. You might
> be surprized. Or enlightened. Or both.
I think you should read the OP and stay on topic. A fuel cell that runs on
gas isn't a water powered fuel cell.
If you'd like to discuss the current hydrogen fuel cell technology I'd be
glad to but that has nothing to do with the topic.
As far as I know the OP is talking about technology that doesn't exist
yet.. or is at most in the highly experimental stages... where it will
probably stay since it would appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics.
None the less... water is not a very reasonable alternative fuel source.
Ivan Marsh
> Absolutely. It's also interesting to see how Ivan seems to think that
> the "energy is released by the separation". It's an actually energy
> consuming, not energy producing process to separate H2 and O2 from
> water. Thank God for that! Imagine if the separation of water into O2
> and H2 would actually be an exothermic process! Life would surely
> become very interesting on this planet. It would be a very risky
> proposal to drop something in the ocean, and catalyze that exothermic
> "separation"....Just one nasty fart in my canoe could set off the
> cataclysm! My wife seems to think my farts can set off anything
> combustible, but by Jolly, even she wouldn't believe I could be that
> nasty and burn water...
Do you enjoy being a smart ass when we aren't even talking about the same
thing?
Arrogant and stupid are always an interesting combination.
Ivan Marsh
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:42:00 -0500, Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com>
> I think you should heed your own advice in your sig, and "remain
> calm...we're here to help you"
If you can't have a discussion without being an arrogant, condescending
prick when you're not even staying on subject you can go fuck yourself.
> You made some pretty bizarre statements in your posts. And if you think
> that "energy is being released by the separation", as you posted above,
> that violates more then a few laws of thermodynamics in itself. And no,
> I don't think it would be a good use of my time to discuss fuel cell
> technology with somebody who obviously has no clue about what he's
> mumbling about.
The fuel cell the OP is talking about is a design claimed to work by a few
people that can't possibly work. This discussion wasn't about real fuel
cells in the first place.
So, you know what? If you're not going to read the source material in the
OP then STFU.
Ivan Marsh
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:51:24 -0500, Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com>
> I've been accused of being arrogant before. But being stupid? I just
> leave that to yourself. You are obviously doing a fine job of it so far.
> At least I know how a fuel cell works. And I have the credentials to
> prove it. Where are yours?
Nothing in this thread had anything to do with real hydrogen fuel cells
and the workings of the design I was talking about is claimed to work
exactly as I described it.
It's always a sign of great intelligence when someone has to change what
an argument is about in order to win it.
daytripper
Nice try, but you're wrong again. Re-read the originally linked article upon
which this thread is based (an article that appears to be a poor translation -
beginning with the title - from another language, perhaps German) and you
*might* realize there was absolutely nothing in there that claimed a
water-as-fuel fuel cell could or would exist...
http://cooldreamcars.googlepages.com/water_fuel_cars_2010
Go ahead - read it again - and stop making a fuel of yourself ;-)
dizzy
>Nothing in this thread had anything to do with real hydrogen fuel cells
>and the workings of the design I was talking about is claimed to work
>exactly as I described it.
>
>It's always a sign of great intelligence when someone has to change what
>an argument is about in order to win it.
Whatever. You show your limited mental capacity with this statement
you made:
"The oxygen and hydrogen in water are separated and them
recombined... energy is being released by the separation."
Where, exactly, is net energy (to move the car) extracted from the
above process?
Michael Yeager
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:30:54 +0000, Bob wrote:
I heard that. Here in Florida, the local governments have started a
move to outlaw (in effect) St Augustine grass lawns in new
subdivisions and are looking at ways to convince people with existing
lawns to move to a more water independent grass. St Augustine makes
for a beautiful lawn but it does require a certain amount of
irrigation and that is why the local governments are looking to
eliminate it, to save water. Forget the fact that they are apporving
LARGE new subdivisions to be built every day, they apparently aren't
going to be a strain on our already strained water supply. I'll bet
it's a similiar situation a lot of other places...
h...@h-gee.co.uk
Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still running
and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running on water.
--
Sir Hugh of Bognor
The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.
Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!
Hugh Gundersen
h...@h-gee.co.uk
Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK
Ivan Marsh
> Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still running
> and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running on water.
Prove it.
Scott Dorsey
Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:53:11 +0100, hsg wrote:
>
>> Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still running
>> and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running on water.
>
>Prove it.
www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024 once
and I can attest that it is actually real.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Ivan Marsh
> In article <pan.2008.07.24....@yahoo.com>, Ivan Marsh
> <ivan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:53:11 +0100, hsg wrote:
>>
>>> Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still
>>> running and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running
>>> on water.
>>
>>Prove it.
>
> www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024 once
> and I can attest that it is actually real. --scott
That's steam, not water. Steam is a gas.
Ivan Marsh
...and for that matter steam isn't even the fuel in this case, whatever is
heating the water is the fuel.
Ron
> Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still running
> and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running on water.
The Stanley Steamer burns something to heat that water. Water does not
act as fuel.
Scott Dorsey
Water doesn't make a very good fuel. You can burn it, but it takes energy
to do so. Consequently burning water is not a very useful process by
itself (although German submarines used hydrogen peroxide, which is the
end product of burning water, as a fuel).
h...@h-gee.co.uk
Steam is not a gas
Steam is hot water
Oxygen and Hydrogen are gasses not water.
Water is a fuel after being heated it powers the vehicle.
However if you are saying by direct link water is a fuel its only a fuel for
living organisms whereas the fuel you are implying that is water is really
hydrogen gas which is NOT water only a part of water.
So suck on that.
h...@h-gee.co.uk
As I have previously said the FUEL you and others are talking about is HYDROGEN
not WATER.
h...@h-gee.co.uk
And most either use it to clean the lavatory / toilet or to bleach hair and I've
known it to be used to soften the rubber on dragster slicks to increase grip .
azm...@gmail.com
somethin similar with the topic. Search to http://offto.net/Fuelplus_2
Thank you.
Ivan Marsh
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:25:56 -0500, Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:06:58 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> In article <pan.2008.07.24....@yahoo.com>, Ivan Marsh
>>> <ivan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:53:11 +0100, hsg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer
>>>>> still running and in the UK there are still a few traction engines
>>>>> running on water.
>>>>
>>>>Prove it.
>>>
>>> www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024 once
>>> and I can attest that it is actually real. --scott
>>
>>That's steam, not water. Steam is a gas.
>
> Steam is not a gas
>
> Steam is hot water
I assure you steam is a gas.
> Oxygen and Hydrogen are gasses not water.
Oxygen and Hydrogen are atoms. Both can be in a gaseous, liquid or solid
state.
> Water is a fuel after being heated it powers the vehicle.
No. Steam, heated by a burning fuel is used to push pistons just as the
hydraulic fluid in a hydraulic system is not fuel.
> However if you are saying by direct link water is a fuel its only a fuel
> for living organisms whereas the fuel you are implying that is water is
> really hydrogen gas which is NOT water only a part of water.
>
> So suck on that.
That was some seriously ignorant stuff you just spewed.
Floyd Rogers
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:51:44 +0100, hsg wrote:
>> Steam is hot water
>
> I assure you steam is a gas.
Agreed. Steam is the gaseous form of H2O.
>> Oxygen and Hydrogen are gasses not water.
>
> Oxygen and Hydrogen are atoms. Both can be in a gaseous, liquid or solid
> state.
In the free state, Hydrogen and Oxygen are almost always found in their
Molecular
form of H2 and O2.
Just trying to be precise, here.
Pedantically yours, FloydR
Scott Dorsey
>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:25:56 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>> www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024 once
>>> and I can attest that it is actually real.
>>
>heating the water is the fuel.
It's true that the Watt Cycle Engine uses water only as a working fluid
and not as a fuel.
How about the big turbines up at Niagra, then? They use water as a fuel.
Ivan Marsh
> Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:25:56 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024
>>>> once and I can attest that it is actually real.
>>>
>>...and for that matter steam isn't even the fuel in this case, whatever
>>is heating the water is the fuel.
>
> It's true that the Watt Cycle Engine uses water only as a working fluid
> and not as a fuel.
>
> How about the big turbines up at Niagra, then? They use water as a
> fuel.
No... they use gravity as fuel. If the water wasn't already moving they
would get nothing from it.
Scott Dorsey
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:28:22 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:25:56 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024
>>>>> once and I can attest that it is actually real.
>>>>
>>>...and for that matter steam isn't even the fuel in this case, whatever
>>>is heating the water is the fuel.
>>
>> It's true that the Watt Cycle Engine uses water only as a working fluid
>> and not as a fuel.
>>
>> How about the big turbines up at Niagra, then? They use water as a
>> fuel.
>
>No... they use gravity as fuel. If the water wasn't already moving they
>would get nothing from it.
If you take that argument to the extreme, then you have to say that
gasoline-powered vehicles use sunlight as a fuel, since the original
energy to grow the plants that made the petroleum came from the sun.
In the end, ALL of these systems are basically energy-carriers rather
than energy sources.
Ivan Marsh
> Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:28:22 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:25:56 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024
>>>>>> once and I can attest that it is actually real.
>>>>>
>>>>...and for that matter steam isn't even the fuel in this case,
>>>>whatever is heating the water is the fuel.
>>>
>>> It's true that the Watt Cycle Engine uses water only as a working
>>> fluid and not as a fuel.
>>>
>>> How about the big turbines up at Niagra, then? They use water as a
>>> fuel.
>>
>>No... they use gravity as fuel. If the water wasn't already moving they
>>would get nothing from it.
>
> If you take that argument to the extreme, then you have to say that
> gasoline-powered vehicles use sunlight as a fuel, since the original
> energy to grow the plants that made the petroleum came from the sun.
Or you could be ridiculous and go all the way back to the big bang, but
since we're talking about closed systems let's stick to the nearest actual
fuel source in that system... which isn't water.
> In the end, ALL of these systems are basically energy-carriers rather
> than energy sources.
Except that in the cases mentioned water isn't acting as fuel, it's acting
as a medium to push mechanical parts. Is a piston rod in an internal
combustion engine fuel? Clearly it isn't.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Except that in the cases mentioned water isn't acting as fuel, it's acting
>as a medium to push mechanical parts. Is a piston rod in an internal
>combustion engine fuel? Clearly it isn't.
I once had a Toyota that used its exhaust valves for fuel....
Ivan Marsh
> Ivan Marsh <ivan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Except that in the cases mentioned water isn't acting as fuel, it's
>>acting as a medium to push mechanical parts. Is a piston rod in an
>>internal combustion engine fuel? Clearly it isn't.
>
> I once had a Toyota that used its exhaust valves for fuel....
Ha! I had an '85 T-Bird that did the same thing.