Hydrogen combustion engine using water as fuel and piezo-electric generation to break water into H+O
dan
Has anyone been working on a pure Hydrogen based internal combustion engine
that uses piezoelectric generated power to break up the water fuel into H
and O components without the use of fuelcells?
I have not found any research regarding this yet.
Questions:
Can the power needed to perform the water break-up be generated using the
resulting already running engine via a series of integrated piezoelectric
generators on the rotors/pistons?
Should only the H be combusted and O discarded or should both be combusted?
Can we accomplish a "more energy out than in" scenario if we just maintain
the availability of a water source?
If discussion starts, please cc my email as I do not frequest these groups.
Please direct comments to
___danielm_____at___citenet_dot_net
Don Lancaster
> Has anyone been working on a pure Hydrogen based internal combustion engine
> that uses piezoelectric generated power to break up the water fuel into H
> and O components without the use of fuelcells?
Piezoelectric generated anything is insanely inefficient.
Any "E-field" machine is inherently so at higher power levels.
Because the source impedance is very high.
Further, because of a fundamental thermodynamic principle called
"exergy", electrolysis is GUARANTEED to play NO ROLE WHATSOEVER in bulk
hydrogen energy. A kilowatt hour of electrical energy is ridiculously
more valuable than a kilowatt hour of unstored hydrogen gas.
Electrolysis is pretty much the same as 1:1 converting US dollars into
Mexican Pesos.
See http://tinaja.com/glib/hack63.pdf and
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu05.asp
http"//www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>
>Piezoelectric generated anything is insanely inefficient.
>Any "E-field" machine is inherently so at higher power levels.
>Because the source impedance is very high.
>
We had to produce 800 volts at several hundred watts to move a piezo
stack a couple millimeters.
We could do it very fast, and very precisely though. :-]
One could take a round pin in a lathe, and cut a square pin while
the lathe was turning.
The stack was a couple hundred wafers in a 3 inch stack. It sits in
oil during operation to keep it from arcing.
It impinged on a cantilever that was attached to springs and a lathe
cutting tool head. Lots of titanium. Pretty cool stuff.
They use them to make contact lenses for race horses. Among other
precision optical surfaces, cut right there on the lathe without
polishing. Nano-precise.
Don Lancaster
There is no doubt that piezo technology is highly useful for micro or
nanopositioning at negligible power levels.
I know of no reversed mechanical-to-piezeo ap at power levels above than
of a phonograph arm or pressure transducer.
Piezo remains horribly inefficient and utterly useless for most any ap
above a very few watts. Ultrasonic cleaners partially excepted.
Piezo is certainly useless when further burdened by electrolysis
ludicrosities.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
dan
of the water, at a rate that is required to keep an engine going. Assuming
the engine has pistons bouncing up and down, how much energy could you
recover out of that if for example the piston whacks the piezo or if the
piezo is floating within piston?
Obviously we still need a battery in here somewhere to start things up,but
nothing out of the ordinary in price.
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3q36ptF...@individual.net...
Steve Spence
> Well the question is, how much electrical energy do we need to get the H out
> of the water, at a rate that is required to keep an engine going. Assuming
> the engine has pistons bouncing up and down, how much energy could you
> recover out of that if for example the piston whacks the piezo or if the
> piezo is floating within piston?
> Obviously we still need a battery in here somewhere to start things up,but
> nothing out of the ordinary in price.
>
TANSTAAFL
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Anthony Matonak
...
> I know of no reversed mechanical-to-piezeo ap at power levels above than
> of a phonograph arm or pressure transducer.
I don't know the power levels but almost all of those butane BBQ
lighters use a piezeo spark generator.
Anthony
Don Lancaster
Assuming you are not a troll, the energy that whaps the piezo has to
grossly exceed any electricity the piezo produces.
That, of course, is BEFORE the staggering electrolysis exergy losses.
You are describing a DYNAMIC BRAKE.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Don Lancaster
The power level is approximately zero.
The energy level is a lot lower.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Don Lancaster
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
>> Don Lancaster wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> I know of no reversed mechanical-to-piezeo ap at power levels above
>>> than of a phonograph arm or pressure transducer.
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I don't know the power levels but almost all of those butane BBQ
>> lighters use a piezeo spark generator.
>>
>> Anthony
>
>
> The power level is approximately zero.
> The energy level is a lot lower.
>
A detailed analysis of the utter absurdity of whapping a piezeo device
in a car cylinder for hydrogen generation has been newly posted to
http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu05.asp
Forgetting the ridiculosity piled upon ridiculosity, a piezeo lighter
generates somewhing well under .05 watt seconds per whump. Gasoline
stores 34,560,000 watt seconds per liter.
More at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
dan
Was that article aimed at this news thread? I guess it's not on second
thought, since the Post date of the newspost is 2005/09/28 and the webpost
is 2005/09/27 . Or is this all due to those pesky timezones...
Has anyone worked in advancing the piezo material to make it more effecient?
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3q56ejF...@individual.net...
Don Lancaster
Totally pointless, because it is inherently an E-field machine.
Source impedance is inherently infinite or at least very high.
Virtually all larger power production devices are H-field.
Skywise
news:dhnaje$2rss$1...@cti36.citenet.net:
> Interesting post.
> Was that article aimed at this news thread? I guess it's not on second
> thought, since the Post date of the newspost is 2005/09/28 and the
> webpost is 2005/09/27 . Or is this all due to those pesky timezones...
>
> Has anyone worked in advancing the piezo material to make it more
> effecient?
<Snipola>
The whole point is that hydrogen is pointless. It takes more energy
to make the hydrogen than you get back from burning it, no matter
HOW you make it.
The only way to make hydrogen work as a clean fuel is to produce
it cleanly. The only way I know of would be electrolysis, using
electricity produced from clean sources such as hydro, wind, and
solar. But you could never gather up enough of that to make enough
electricity to make enough hydrogen to meet demand. The alternative
then is that nasty 'N' word. Don't say the 'N' word.
NUCLEAR!
There! I said the 'N' word! :)
Currently the only way to produce mass quantities of hydrogen is
from....OIL!! See the problem?
Until hydrogen can be made cleanly, *without oil*, this whole
'hydrogen economy' thing is a joke of the highest order.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Don Lancaster
Not even wrong.
Electrolysis will NEVER play a role in bulk hydrogen production because
it is an inherent destroyer of value.
A kilowatt hour of electricity is ridiculously more valuable than a
kilowatt hour of unstored hydrogen gas. BEFORE amortization.
Thermodynamic fundamentals involving exergy absolutely GUARANTEE this.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial.
Skywise
Does that mean I'm right? (sorry not familiar with the phrase)
> Electrolysis will NEVER play a role in bulk hydrogen production because
> it is an inherent destroyer of value.
Which I think I addressed quite clearly in my second sentence,
"It takes more energy to make the hydrogen than you get
back from burning it, no matter HOW you make it."
Although I did not elaborate, converting energy to hydrogen is a
really lousy way to store that energy. Anyone with even a fundamental
understanding of physics and chemistry would realize that. For
everyone else, the simplified version (my quoted sentence) should
suffice to show how silly the idea of hydrogen powered cars is.
Anyone left over probably isn't worth convincing.
> A kilowatt hour of electricity is ridiculously more valuable than a
> kilowatt hour of unstored hydrogen gas. BEFORE amortization.
> Thermodynamic fundamentals involving exergy absolutely GUARANTEE this.
I think that's just a fancy way of saying "converting energy to
hydrogen is a really lousy way to store that energy."
> See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial.
Looks like an interesting document. I've only browsed it though,
so far.
JoeSixPack
> dan wrote:
>> Interesting post.
>> Was that article aimed at this news thread? I guess it's not on second
>> thought, since the Post date of the newspost is 2005/09/28 and the
>> webpost is 2005/09/27 . Or is this all due to those pesky timezones...
>>
>> Has anyone worked in advancing the piezo material to make it more
>> effecient?
>>
> Source impedance is inherently infinite or at least very high.
>
> Virtually all larger power production devices are H-field.
Instead of trying to convert "whacking" force," couldn't piezo generators be
used to harness the enormous energies of thermal expansion? To my knowledge,
few things can contain the forces of expanding metal or freezing water.
Don Lancaster
One more time: PIEZO IS THE WRONG HORSE TO BET ON!
First, piezo only responds to CHANGES.
THERE IS ---> NO <--- STEADY STATE OUTPUT!
Second, piezo is inherently an E-Field machine and is thus useless for
high power generation. E-field machines have infinite or very high
source impedance and thus are inherently inefficient.
Third, piezo is for LOW TEMPERATURES ONLY.
Forth, MUCH more mechanical work is required for input that can possibly
be recovered as electrical output.
See the tutorials at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/hack63.pdf
Don Kelly
"JoeSixPack" <ol...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:2eU%e.198133$wr.139104@clgrps12...
The energies aren't huge. The forces may be but force is not energy.
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
JoeSixPack
>>
>> The whole point is that hydrogen is pointless. It takes more energy
>> to make the hydrogen than you get back from burning it, no matter
>> HOW you make it.
>>
>> The only way to make hydrogen work as a clean fuel is to produce
>> it cleanly. The only way I know of would be electrolysis, using
>> electricity produced from clean sources such as hydro, wind, and
>> solar. But you could never gather up enough of that to make enough
>> electricity to make enough hydrogen to meet demand. The alternative
>> then is that nasty 'N' word. Don't say the 'N' word.
>>
>> NUCLEAR!
>>
>> There! I said the 'N' word! :)
>>
>> Currently the only way to produce mass quantities of hydrogen is
>> from....OIL!! See the problem?
>>
>> Until hydrogen can be made cleanly, *without oil*, this whole
>> 'hydrogen economy' thing is a joke of the highest order.
>>
>> Brian
>
> Not even wrong.
>
> Electrolysis will NEVER play a role in bulk hydrogen production because it
> is an inherent destroyer of value.
>
> A kilowatt hour of electricity is ridiculously more valuable than a
> kilowatt hour of unstored hydrogen gas. BEFORE amortization. Thermodynamic
> fundamentals involving exergy absolutely GUARANTEE this.
Throughout history, here have always been naysayers, at every step in
technological advancement it seems. In fact, the more significant the step,
the more vehement the denial.
http://www.fb.org/views/focus/fo2005/fo0404.html
We're only just beginning to tweak the technology. Plenty of avenues of
research exist, those visualized and those not. The efficiencies could
increase a little or a lot. At some point, the efficiency won't be the
critical factor, because the burning of carbon-based fuels won't be an
option.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36705.pdf
Don Kelly
Unfortunately, tweaking the technology will not overcome the limitations of
heat engines. Even if the conversion process for obtaining hydrogen was
100% efficient (and it is far from that), the net result is that you might
recover 20-25% of this energy. As, even at a theoretical "best" conversion
process, you will have a useful recovery of possibly 100to 200 watts from
your original 1000 watts.
Direct use of electricity gives a better return- that is, efficiency will
still count.
It also appears that Don Lancaster has a better understanding of
thermodynamics than Richard Keller whose article you referenced.
Don W.
Sometimes the 'naysayers' are right, sometimes not. A good test is to see
if the 'technological advancement' is self-supporting or if it needs a
boost from government. Businesses are anxious to invest in 'techological
advancements' that make good sense. Hydrogen needs a lot of help from
government.
> We're only just beginning to tweak the technology. Plenty of avenues of
> research exist, those visualized and those not. The efficiencies could
> increase a little or a lot. At some point, the efficiency won't be the
> critical factor, because the burning of carbon-based fuels won't be an
> option.
> http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36705.pdf
It's unlikely that tweaking the technology will significantly change the
volumetric energy density or containment problems of hydrogen. Efficiency
will only become MORE important as energy options become more limited.
Here are some important dates in history:
1766 - Henry Cavendish isolated 'inflammable gas' (hydrogen) and identified
many of its characteristics
1783 - Jacques Charles and an assistant flew in a hydrogen balloon
1779 - Antoine Lavoisier coined the name hydrogen
1800 - William Nicholson and Sir Anthony Carlisle produced hydrogen through
electrolysis
1807 - Isaac de Rivas built the first hydrogen-fueled internal combustion
vehicle (unsuccessful design)
1839 - William Grove invented the hydrogen fuel cell
1959 - Allis-Chalmers demonstrated a hydrogen fuel cell powered 20hp
tractor
1960's - NASA's Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle programs made extensive
use of hydrogen fuel cells designed and built by General Electric
Over the last 40 years many billions of dollars have been spent on R&D of
fuel cells, hydrogen containment, hydrogen powered vehicles and hydrogen
production, yet there is still no satisfactory answer to the question "from
where will the hydrogen come?" While thousands of hydrogen powered
vehicles have been built, there is still no hydrogen powered consumer
vehicle available. Every major automobile manufacturer has a diversionary
hydrogen vehicle or FCV program and Ballard, Stuart Energy Systems, General
Electric, Siemens and many other companies around the world are
commercially producing fuel cells.
After 166 years, the cost of a little, 1kW fuel cell is still higher than
I'm willing to pay and after 13 billion years H is still too fluffy to make
a very convenient fuel. As always, the hydrogen economy is just 20 years
away.
Don W.
Gonorio Dineri
Has anyone been working on a pure Hydrogen based internal combustion
> engine that uses piezoelectric generated power to break up the water
> fuel into H and O components without the use of fuelcells?
> I have not found any research regarding this yet.
>
> Questions:
> Can the power needed to perform the water break-up be generated using
> the resulting already running engine via a series of integrated
> piezoelectric generators on the rotors/pistons?
> Should only the H be combusted and O discarded or should both be
> combusted? Can we accomplish a "more energy out than in" scenario if
> we just maintain the availability of a water source?
>
> If discussion starts, please cc my email as I do not frequest these
> groups. Please direct comments to
> ___danielm_____at___citenet_dot_net
>
>
>
Technology already exists for combusting both the hydrogen and oxygen, and
conserving the H2O byproduct so as to recycle it in the fuel cell. So, no,
the O should not be discarded.
Rotes Sapiens
While fuel cells are expensive and chemically fragile, they are in use
in some areas.
Many of the systems for H2 fuel are already in place in some
countries. In Australia, LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) is in wide use.
LPG is gaseous at room temperature, so it needs to be stored under
pressure. The LPG tank usually goes in the boot and there are various
inspections that have to be carried out by law. LPG usually costs
around half the petrol price. It has to be piped and transported
thousands of kilometres.
The mechanics of LPG use aren't that much different from H2, so why
don't they have H2 fuel? It could be made locally from solar or wind
power.
Sig:
"The cat was once revered as a god. They have never forgotten this" - Anon
Don Lancaster
LPG is a much more tractable fuel with a much higher energy density than
stored hydrogen. LPG is a liquid at room temperature under sane pressures.
The two are not remotely comparable in any manner.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Don W.
news:qm59k1die6mhh6d1c...@4ax.com...
> While fuel cells are expensive and chemically fragile, they are in use
> in some areas.
> Many of the systems for H2 fuel are already in place in some
> countries. In Australia, LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) is in wide use.
> LPG is gaseous at room temperature, so it needs to be stored under
> pressure.
Partly right. Under very modest pressure, LPG is liquid at room
temperature. Hydrogen is NEVER liquid at room temperature.
> The LPG tank usually goes in the boot and there are various
> inspections that have to be carried out by law. LPG usually costs
> around half the petrol price. It has to be piped and transported
> thousands of kilometres.
> The mechanics of LPG use aren't that much different from H2, so why
> don't they have H2 fuel? It could be made locally from solar or wind
> power.
The "mechanics" of LPG are very much different from H2! It's likely
everyone has chosen not to use their precious electricity (whether from
solar, wind or combustion of hydrocarbons) on electrolysis because H2 just
isn't as useful as electricity. Well, that and most folks don't want to
throw away half the energy in the electricity to hydrogen conversion and
then throw away 70% of the remainder converting the hydrogen back to
electricity (not to mention the outrageous capital cost of electrolyzers,
H2 storage and handling equipment and fuel cells.)
>
>
> Sig:
> "The cat was once revered as a god. They have never forgotten this" -
Anon
Don W.
Arnold Walker
"Don W." <dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1L-dnSFdEqx...@comcast.com...
CNG had the same push as hydrogen.
Seemed every city and school bus fleet,in Texas, was hot to get the stuff.
Now you can see the gas lines and filler hoses ...hard pressed to see
anyone burning the stuff in a bus.
Don't think you would have any better luck with LNG.
And the hydrogen we do get here is from NG.
NG formed hydrogen is not cheap......much less the water "magic"
stuff some of the guys talk.
They mention solar and windmills....Texas in the past 3yrs put in more
commerical windmills than anyone else in the lower 48.1500 for that period.
But if you buy green power as it is called here.....it cost extra.
So I am wondering if the stuff is too expensive to make with NG or
coal(lignite stripmine here ,unless it is shipped in).
How is that windmill going to make it.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Don Lancaster
> As side note ,I can remember back 15 or 20 years ago...
> CNG had the same push as hydrogen.
> Seemed every city and school bus fleet,in Texas, was hot to get the stuff.
> Now you can see the gas lines and filler hoses ...hard pressed to see
> anyone burning the stuff in a bus.
> Don't think you would have any better luck with LNG.
> And the hydrogen we do get here is from NG.
> NG formed hydrogen is not cheap......much less the water "magic"
> stuff some of the guys talk.
> They mention solar and windmills....Texas in the past 3yrs put in more
> commerical windmills than anyone else in the lower 48.1500 for that period.
> But if you buy green power as it is called here.....it cost extra.
> So I am wondering if the stuff is too expensive to make with NG or
> coal(lignite stripmine here ,unless it is shipped in).
> How is that windmill going to make it.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
At a recent school auction, two mint Ford Crown Vics with around 9800
miles each went for about $700 each because they had gas conversions.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
JoeSixPack
"Don W." <dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1L-dnSFdEqx...@comcast.com...
> news:qm59k1die6mhh6d1c...@4ax.com...
>
>
> everyone has chosen not to use their precious electricity (whether from
> solar, wind or combustion of hydrocarbons) on electrolysis because H2 just
> isn't as useful as electricity. Well, that and most folks don't want to
> throw away half the energy in the electricity to hydrogen conversion and
> then throw away 70% of the remainder converting the hydrogen back to
> electricity (not to mention the outrageous capital cost of electrolyzers,
> H2 storage and handling equipment and fuel cells.)
>
Hydrogen has limited uses today, mainly because of the expense and
difficulties in handling. Certain applications (eg. planes and ships) do
not lend themselves to electrical propulsion and require a fuel. Several
vectors need to converge before H2 makes sense for mass adoption. Those
vectors are beginning to converge already.
1) Technology. Recently a simple and convenient way to store hydrogen in a
dry pellet was discovered in Australia. Many more advances can be expected.
As the cheap oil windfall disappears, many new energy production
alternatives are appearing. www.enviromission.com.au
2) Need. As the cost of fossil fuels continues to rise, the cost of hydrogen
becomes a more viable option.
3) CO2. As atmospheric loading continues to rise, the effects on the planet
will be too significant to ignore. Hydrogen does not emit carbon into the
atmosphere.
4) Electricity cost. Cheap and abundant electricity is required for hydrogen
production to make sense. Although the sources are vastly abundant, the
technologies to utilize it are still lacking. Recent advances in amorphous
photovoltaics (solar cells) promise to revolutionize solar energy
collection.
5) Politics. Great turmoil in many parts of the world is due in whole or in
part from the need to procur vast amounts of fossil fuel oil to feed the
growing economies around the world. The hostilities seems to be escalating.
A lessening of dependence on supply from hostile nations is a good thing.
Don Lancaster
Several
> vectors need to converge before H2 makes sense for mass adoption. Those
> vectors are beginning to converge already.
>
Typo. "converge" should be spelled "diverge".
Hell also has to freeze over before H2 makes sense for mass adoption.
One of the necessary but not sufficient conditions would be Saddam
Hussain's Bar Mitzvah.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
JoeSixPack
> JoeSixPack wrote:
> Several
>> vectors need to converge before H2 makes sense for mass adoption. Those
>> vectors are beginning to converge already.
>>
>
>
> Typo. "converge" should be spelled "diverge".
>
OK, so supply and demand for oil are diverging. In school they teach us
that's what makes prices go down. Do you see oil prices going down?
>
> Hell also has to freeze over before H2 makes sense for mass adoption.
I saw a program last night about all the disasters that could have been
prevented, if the people in charge hadn't been so closed-minded as to ignore
all the evidence being presented to them. Pearl Harbor, the Yom Kippur War,
the fall of Singapore, and 9/11. All were allowed the element of surprise
in spite of compelling evidence from many sources. If there was one lesson
to be learned from that documentary, it is that having a closed mind can be
very hazardous to our wellbeing.
Certitude is the prime component of stupidity, and you are certainly not
lacking in your convictions.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>There is no doubt that piezo technology is highly useful for micro or
>nanopositioning at negligible power levels.
This was not a nanopositioner. It was NOT low power. It was 1.5kW
and was positioning a cutter head on a lathe at a high speed rate and
a high pressure front. That hardly counts as "negligible.
>
>I know of no reversed mechanical-to-piezeo ap at power levels above than
>of a phonograph arm or pressure transducer.
That tells a lot. YOU know of none.
Here's just one.The 1.5kW signal generating amplifier is the short
squat guy on the right side.
Almost half a mm throw in ultra precision form. It will cut optical
quality surfaces.
>Piezo remains horribly inefficient and utterly useless for most any ap
>above a very few watts. Ultrasonic cleaners partially excepted.
You're not too bright. It is inefficient, but it is not relegated
to low power only applications.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>Piezo is certainly useless when further burdened by electrolysis
>ludicrosities.
Oh boy! You sure do know a lot!
NunYa Bidness
<danielm-th...@spamremove.citenet.net> Gave us:
>Has anyone worked in advancing the piezo material to make it more effecient?
>
Yeah... the piezo guys!
It's advanced ceramics actually.
NunYa Bidness
>It also appears that Don Lancaster has a better understanding of
>thermodynamics than Richard Keller whose article you referenced.
The best use for Hydrogen is those batteries the Navy developed some
decade or so ago. The pressure inside tells one the charge level, and
as far as I know, the hydrogen always stays inside. It's a pressure
vessel.
Don Lancaster
Correct.
Thank you for the compliment.
JoeSixPack
> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:05:47 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
>> Gave us:
>>
>>
>>>Piezo is certainly useless when further burdened by electrolysis
>>>ludicrosities.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh boy! You sure do know a lot!
>
> Correct.
>
> Thank you for the compliment.
>
Now that's just too pathetic.
NunYa Bidness
Gave us:
>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:05:47 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
>> Gave us:
>>
>>
>>>Piezo is certainly useless when further burdened by electrolysis
>>>ludicrosities.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh boy! You sure do know a lot!
>
>Correct.
>
>Thank you for the compliment.
The fact that you ignored the post that showed you were wrong about
piezo is interesting though. A bad habit, at best.
Don Lancaster
Me wrong?
I though I may have been wrong once, but it turned out I was mistaken.
The piezo post was exacmined in extreme depth at
http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu05.asp
The point remains that there are ZERO high power piezo apps that input
mechanical and output energy. And that the fundamental properties of
piezo absolutely guarantee this.
dan
"NunYa Bidness" <nunyab...@nunyabidness.org> wrote in message
news:skjdk1tj5e9m3asti...@4ax.com...
dan
could work so we can test the theory?
Even if there was a little shortfall of the required power needed to
generate the h2o, once the engine is running (even if started from battery)
there should be no problem gathering the rest needed from available
solar,heat and other sources on the car.
Untill someone gets out the Dilithium crystals there may not be thing thats
makes this magic work. It's going to be a puzzle that needs all the pieces,
but noone says we cant start with 1/2 the pieces first.
On an unrelated topic, does anyone know where to find global Oxygen levels
for Earth?
"NunYa Bidness" <nunyab...@nunyabidness.org> wrote in message
news:mridk1dsbof2kupsl...@4ax.com...
Inventor MiB
I don´t know but I think i have an idea - Let the water pass thru a
"modified" sparkplug with a cavity inside
and then let the spark enegry to be used to extract
hydrogen, then down under in the sparkplug let the
gas come out.. what I know the ingnition is on
several 100 Kilovolts !
//inventor
marcel bos
Sweden
"NunYa Bidness" <nunyab...@nunyabidness.org> skrev i meddelandet
news:cqkoj1p0pds7hoojp...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:29:19 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
> Gave us:
>
>
>>
>>Piezoelectric generated anything is insanely inefficient.
>>Any "E-field" machine is inherently so at higher power levels.
>>Because the source impedance is very high.
>>
> We had to produce 800 volts at several hundred watts to move a piezo
> stack a couple millimeters.
>
> We could do it very fast, and very precisely though. :-]
>
> One could take a round pin in a lathe, and cut a square pin while
> the lathe was turning.
>
> The stack was a couple hundred wafers in a 3 inch stack. It sits in
> oil during operation to keep it from arcing.
>
> It impinged on a cantilever that was attached to springs and a lathe
> cutting tool head. Lots of titanium. Pretty cool stuff.
>
> They use them to make contact lenses for race horses. Among other
> precision optical surfaces, cut right there on the lathe without
> polishing. Nano-precise.
Don Lancaster
> I don´t know but I think i have an idea - Let the water pass thru a
> "modified" sparkplug with a cavity inside
> and then let the spark enegry to be used to extract
> hydrogen, then down under in the sparkplug let the
> gas come out.. what I know the ingnition is on
> several 100 Kilovolts !
>
> //inventor
> marcel bos
> Sweden
Water to hydrogen via electrolysis is CURRENT driven by Faraday's Law.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf for a tutorial.
Electrolysis for bulk hydrogen energy is totally pointless because of
its staggering loss of exergy. It also ain't gonna happen.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial.
Peter Lowrie
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egaspower
Inventor MiB wrote:
> I don´t know but I think i have an idea - Let the water pass thru a
> "modified" sparkplug with a cavity inside
> and then let the spark enegry to be used to extract
> hydrogen, then down under in the sparkplug let the
> gas come out.. what I know the ingnition is on
> several 100 Kilovolts !
> //inventor
> marcel bos
> Sweden
--
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.pelicom.net.nz
Todd
standard internal combustion engine in a car to burn hydrogen and
gasoline as well as hydrogen only. He is generating hydrogen
on-the-fly with a standard 12 volt battery and recharging the battery
with a standard alternator instead of using fuel cells. Interesting!
On 2005-09-28 21:46:39 -0500, "dan"
fred
I'm working on a multiple cell hydrogen generator that is powered by a
resonant transformer (tesla coil). I am curious as to what you are referring
to by a Piezo-Electric source. I know how piezo electric works, I just don't
understand how you would implement it into powering a hydrogen cell?
Can you give me a little more detail?
My theory with regard to the tesla coil goes like this: The more load you
add to a resonant transformer, the greater the efficiency. If I couple
enough anode-cathode pairs in series with a very high voltage pulse train, I
hope to achieve more energy out than in. My project requires a lot of
stainless steel for anode-cathodes and I am still in the process of
collecting/purchasing the steel tubing as I can afford it.
"Todd" <sm...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:2007010213332916807%smith@charternet...
Jakthehammer
"fred" <fr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Z1DBi.33$Ev2...@newsfe12.lga...
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on a multiple cell hydrogen generator that is powered by a
> resonant transformer (tesla coil). I am curious as to what you are
referring
> to by a Piezo-Electric source. I know how piezo electric works, I just
don't
> understand how you would implement it into powering a hydrogen cell?
>
Sucka dick!