I'm calling BS....

919 Views 17 Replies 14 Participants Last post by Daisy Duster, Nov 22, 2012

DirtySCREW

Discussion Starter · Nov 20, 2012

I believe in the theory, but I just don't see how a DIYer could do this SAFELY. What pressure's are exerted burning hydrogen vs gasoline? Is a typical combustion engine up to the task? I don't know

Secondly, I can't go buy the "Hydrogen 1000" to put on DirtySCREW. Someone somewhere would invest and mass produce these babies and become a multi billionare. And I think that there are smart enough people out there that want to help the good ol' USA that would turn down millions trying to be bought out because they know they would make BILLIONS.

Gtown--what are YOUR thoughts?

DS

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

tsconver

· #2 · Nov 20, 2012

It is bs. Takes more energy to break the bond in the water than the energy you get from burning the hydrogen. And yes i am a chemist by training.

Electrolysis takes 118kcal per mole. Burning hydrogen produces 136 kcal per mole. As you see that is in a perfect system. By the time you add all the loses in the engine from friction and heat you do not even get close to breaking even.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

GSRswapandslow

· #3 · Nov 20, 2012

agreed, this "theory" is old though......and supposedly HAS been made to work...in the 50's or 70's, i believe. SUPPOSEDLY, though, it was bought out and tucked away by an oil conglomerate......................................................it's gotta be true, i read it on the interweb!

Frmr0317

· #4 · Nov 20, 2012

Not to mention, there's only so much fresh water out there, granted probably more than fossil fuels, but we don't all need to ingest fossil fuels either.

Yoda

· #5 · Nov 20, 2012

Frmr0317 said:
Not to mention, there's only so much fresh water out there, granted probably more than fossil fuels, but we don't all need to ingest fossil fuels either.

It may not be (currently) feasible, but not because of a limitation to the amount of fresh water.
When hydrogen is combusted, it joins with oxygen to form water (H[SUB]2[/SUB]O), the same fresh water that was separated into H and O through hydrolysis in the first place.

This technology is not yet economically viable, but it is more about separating H and O out of water, and then recombining it. That preserves the amount of water in the system, unlike destructive burning of finite fossil fuels

tanstaafl72555

· #6 · Nov 20, 2012

This really DOES work, but it was shelved because the perpetual motion machine was found to have better ergonomics............... either that or cold fusion. Gets so hard to remember this stuff sometimes.

tsconver

· #7 · Nov 20, 2012 (Edited)

hydrogen fuel cells definitely work, they powered the space shuttle. What they are doing is making H2 to run a combustion engine and the heat and friction losses of a combustion engine are too great for the small amount of net energy you get from burning H2 that is produced from the electrolysis of water. Not enough energy to overcome the friction and heat losses, I would guess they have a hidden electric source supplementing the electrolysis. Watching it closely they have an extra battery isolated from teh system.

And 30psi of H2 would be a friggin bomb.

turkeydance

· #8 · Nov 21, 2012

+1 tsconver......the Bomb!

sr30

· #9 · Nov 21, 2012

6.02x10^23

DirtySCREW

Discussion Starter · #10 · Nov 21, 2012

sr30 said:
6.02x10^23

Avogodro's Number! man..that takes me back awhile!

DS

sr30

· #11 · Nov 21, 2012

DirtySCREW said:
Avogodro's Number! man..that takes me back awhile!

DS

I like to write that number out in standard notation on the board when I teach scientific notation. Blows their minds.

eldogg

· #12 · Nov 21, 2012

iceland has been running hydrogen fuel for for years. they use the geo thermal energy to produce the hydrogen at the filling stations.

Crazy Carl

· #13 · Nov 21, 2012

I'd like to kick Avogadro in the balls for that damned number.

old confederate

· #14 · Nov 22, 2012

tanstaafl72555 said:
This really DOES work, but it was shelved because the perpetual motion machine was found to have better ergonomics............... either that or cold fusion. Gets so hard to remember this stuff sometimes.

Good reply! If you could convert one kind of energy to another kind of energy and gain energy that would be perperual motion but it doesn't work that way. Every time you convert you lose. I learned that in the third grade and I don't understand why supposedly (is that a word) educated people think otherwise. Larry

NJSC

· #15 · Nov 22, 2012

never trust a man with that bad of a haircut.

Chdamn

· #16 · Nov 22, 2012

This absolutely works. You can see it in the video. It is proven by the blue hoses. Nothing can run through blue hoses but water.

Control of that rule falls under the expanded powers of the mattress police.

Crazy Carl

· #17 · Nov 22, 2012

old confederate said:
Good reply! If you could convert one kind of energy to another kind of energy and gain energy that would be perperual motion but it doesn't work that way. Every time you convert you lose. I learned that in the third grade and I don't understand why supposedly (is that a word) educated people think otherwise. Larry

Entropy.

Daisy Duster

· #18 · Nov 22, 2012

The horse is still the best converter of natural resources into substanible energy for transportation purposes of an individual although it quickly becomes a problem when used for mass transportation; finding a 200 horse parking space can be a problem.

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.