200 to 300 Miles Per Gallon for a car is to good to import to America ? Mileage tax ?

reply to post by JimTSpock


i mean, as a stop-gap, we COULD do hybrids that run on alcohol, instead of gasoline....it would be a cleaner burn, AND is "renewable", meaning we can always grow more plants to make more alcohol, as opposed to oil, which takes a VERY long time to produce naturally, and once it's gone, it's gone...

reply to post by Daedalus


Maybe we can make oil from algae and not worry about running out of oil. Looks very promising using nature to do the work for us. Once again it all comes down to how much it costs, at the moment it's too expensive but it could work with more research.

Native algae biofuel could make Australia oil rich

University of Queensland experts say Australian algae species hold great promise in the race for cheap, efficient biofuels that can compete with fossil fuels.

www.smh.com.au...

reply to post by JimTSpock


yes, but then you're still talking about oil...with all it's associated hazards...

would it not be better to get as far away from that as possible?

i agree, we would still need oil, but not for everything we need it for now...so what's left would last longer, and eventually, we can find ways to completely replace it with better methods..

reply to post by Daedalus

in fact, i'm not entirely sure i buy the whole "negative energy" thing either.....it's not as if hydrogen is something weak, like toothpaste, and doesn't burn, or explode.....hydrogen is quite explosive...would you mind explaining your problem with this?

Apparently you did not bother to read the link. Please do, I am getting tired of speaking to a wall. I have explained it several times. I cannot help it if you do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

reply to post by JimTSpock


Yeah...we need, IMHO, a Manhattan Project type approach to alternate fuels/energy sources. They are very close to fusion being an excellent option. Perhaps a well planned "attack" with full resources would knock out the final few hurdles.

Perhaps if the govt would quit wasting dollars on green companies that take the money and then declare bankruptcy and channeled that money to fusion research we could do it.

Hydrogen is a fashionable pie in the sky solution that will never work. It appeals to people who do not know any better. It's an awesome solution if energy is so cheap you can waste 75% to make hydrogen fuel. Until then we need to look at other areas.
You cannot get past the amount of energy it takes to crack the water molecule. There are no pockets of free standing hydrogen laying around anywhere....except in space. We cannot change the laws of physics just cause we like the idea of burning hydrogen and getting water as a byproduct. By the time that becomes cost-effective we will be way past fossil fuels.

In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.


Read more at: phys.org...

bbracken677
reply to post by Daedalus

 

in fact, i'm not entirely sure i buy the whole "negative energy" thing either.....it's not as if hydrogen is something weak, like toothpaste, and doesn't burn, or explode.....hydrogen is quite explosive...would you mind explaining your problem with this?

Apparently you did not bother to read the link. Please do, I am getting tired of speaking to a wall. I have explained it several times. I cannot help it if you do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

edit on 11-4-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

i'm SO sorry i'm too stupid to have a conversation with.

maybe let me know when you pull that elitist stick out of your arse.. -rolls eyes-

for clarity, i DID read the article...and when you take it through all those steps, yes, it's a net waste.

i was simply asking you to expand upon your views on the issue, not lazily refer me to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and imply that i'm an idiot.

reply to post by bbracken677


This is some interesting info about hydrogen cars.

EU, Leading Manufacturers And Agencies Sign Plan To Make Hydrogen Cars Viable

By building the vehicles and the filling stations and allowing people to kick the tyres we will be able to demonstrate that hydrogen is a viable option and that London is at the forefront of efforts to make it so.

www.investing.com...

Considering how expensive fuel is in Europe I'm not surprised by this.

We can make hydrogen cars and the fuel using renewable energy, it is just an expensive and not very efficient process. But so is doing the shopping in a big V8 SUV.


www.alternative-energy-news.info...

This is already happening.

Car manufacturers are building them and investing a lot of money in the technology. They seem to think it can work.

I will be very interested to see how expensive the hydrogen fuel is compared to petrol and diesel in Europe.

I'm not so sure it is quite as bad as was made out in the article you linked to, which was written back in 2006 and could be outdated. Possibly oil industry slant.

If it was so terrible car manufacturers wouldn't bother, like making a steam powered car which runs on coal or wood, they just wouldn't go near it. But we have some of the biggest in the business involved BMW, Daimler, Honda, Hyundai and Toyota.

Honda Solar Hydrogen Station Introduced to Green Car Market

www.alternative-energy-news.info...

As for the fusion reactor and ITER it won't be much use for cars and trucks unless a version small enough for a car or truck can be made and that will take quite some time... hopefully before the oil runs out!

reply to post by JimTSpock


i'll again point out the hydrogen fuel system being developed by united nuclear...

it allows conversion of a car to run on hydrogen, or petrol, and includes a home hydrogen generator, that runs on wind, solar, or AC....

this seems like a viable solution to me..especially since they have at least two prototype cars running the system, on the road today...

reply to post by Daedalus


I guess that time will tell, will it not? Either hydrogen will become a mass produced and used fuel, or it will not for reasons I previously posted, most particularly the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Energy is not particularly cheap now, and will become ever more expensive unless something like fusion takes over our energy production.

Wind power is not a good option in some places, and there is very little chance it will become much more efficient in the near future. Solar panels are not always a good option, even though they may become economically feasible/cost effective before long.

In the meantime I will not get caught up in investing in the development of hydrogen technology. I think it is a mild version of a popular, romanticized hoax. What could be better than burning hydrogen and the exhaust is clean water, no?

reply to post by Daedalus


I went to the United Nuclear website and could find nothing about generating hydrogen...at least not anything like what I think you described. There is a "student electrolysis apparatus" that will generate a few cc's of hydrogen but that is not what you are talking about.
I found nothing regarding a kit to convert an engine to hydrogen fuel use......

Could you post links? Sounds interesting.

reply to post by bbracken677

Can plain old tap water power your car? It's possible, but it may not be worth it.
So what's the problem? Like most other alternative fuel sources, HHO conversion kits for use onboard a car have a negative net energy ratio [source: du Plessis]. This means that the amount of energy you get out of the conversion is actually less than the amount you put in. Think about it like this: If it takes one gallon of gasoline to convert water into HHO, your energy output will equal one-half gallon of gasoline. You've just used one gallon of gas to produce the energy of one-half gallon. Speaking strictly in terms of energy, you would've been better off simply using that one gallon of gas to fuel your car. You would have gotten the benefit of the whole gallon, rather than just half of it.

that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics....such a pain in the keester.

bbracken677
reply to post by Daedalus

 

I went to the United Nuclear website and could find nothing about generating hydrogen...at least not anything like what I think you described. There is a "student electrolysis apparatus" that will generate a few cc's of hydrogen but that is not what you are talking about.
I found nothing regarding a kit to convert an engine to hydrogen fuel use......

Could you post links? Sounds interesting.

sure, here you go.

www.unitednuclear.com...
www.unitednuclear.com...
lmgtfy.com...

Daedalus

bbracken677
reply to post by Daedalus

 

I went to the United Nuclear website and could find nothing about generating hydrogen...at least not anything like what I think you described. There is a "student electrolysis apparatus" that will generate a few cc's of hydrogen but that is not what you are talking about.
I found nothing regarding a kit to convert an engine to hydrogen fuel use......

Could you post links? Sounds interesting.

sure, here you go.

www.unitednuclear.com...
www.unitednuclear.com...
lmgtfy.com...

edit on 12-4-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)

I followed links provided from the page on the site called "hydrogen conversion kits" and well...I was not convinced. In fact, it seems like you wind up at all kinds of hokum sites.

When I research their kits, what I get is the production of hydrogen is not nearly sufficient to keep up with the consumption. If you research complaints or comments, you get some rather negative stuff that, in some cases, calls it a hoax. Not so much the running on hydrogen, but any other claims made. You can, indeed, run a car on hydrogen...I do not argue that point at all. It's just like running on propane in many respects. However, it cannot be done as represented by some and certainly cannot be done in anything resembling a cost effective manner.

This all seems to fall into the other hokum tech stuff trying to make a buck by appealing to some romantic notion that hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Perhaps of the future, (although I do not see it happening: see 2nd law of thermodynamics) but certainly not the fuel of the here and now.

bbracken677

Daedalus

bbracken677
reply to post by Daedalus

 

I went to the United Nuclear website and could find nothing about generating hydrogen...at least not anything like what I think you described. There is a "student electrolysis apparatus" that will generate a few cc's of hydrogen but that is not what you are talking about.
I found nothing regarding a kit to convert an engine to hydrogen fuel use......

Could you post links? Sounds interesting.

sure, here you go.

www.unitednuclear.com...
www.unitednuclear.com...
lmgtfy.com...

edit on 12-4-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)

I followed links provided from the page on the site called "hydrogen conversion kits" and well...I was not convinced. In fact, it seems like you wind up at all kinds of hokum sites.

When I research their kits, what I get is the production of hydrogen is not nearly sufficient to keep up with the consumption. If you research complaints or comments, you get some rather negative stuff that, in some cases, calls it a hoax. Not so much the running on hydrogen, but any other claims made. You can, indeed, run a car on hydrogen...I do not argue that point at all. It's just like running on propane in many respects. However, it cannot be done as represented by some and certainly cannot be done in anything resembling a cost effective manner.

This all seems to fall into the other hokum tech stuff trying to make a buck by appealing to some romantic notion that hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Perhaps of the future, (although I do not see it happening: see 2nd law of thermodynamics) but certainly not the fuel of the here and now.

not sure what page you were looking at, but none of the links (with the exception of maybe the google page) linked to any "hokum" sites....the first two links are to united nuclear's page on the system they're developing...the intro mentions that there are scams and hoaxes out there, and on the part of the site that talks about them, they actually AGREE with your assessment...

what exactly did you look at?

even though this system isn't ready for primetime, it seems like nice step in the right direction...

What volkswagen gets 200 miles to the gallon? A gallon is like 5 liters? We have cars that get like 60 miles to the gallon at speeds like 80 mph and thats considered excellent. There is no car on the german msrket that comes anywhere close to getting 200 miles to the gallon.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
reply to post by Masterjaden

 

Run your engine lean and see what happens. I guess us guys who actually work on real cars in the real world and not just on the internet don't know anything do we.

Unless your car is designed to run like that it won't be good for it. At all. Please try it yourself in real life. lol.

Running an engine too lean is bad news but you know better because you read it on the internet.

You mean the Pontiac Fiero? The one that caught on fire?

You mean proven technology that car manufacturers don't use because it's so great? Sure.

I happen to rebuild cars and am a mechanic. I haven't tried his technology, but you seem to KNOW what can and can't work, so I am assuming that you have TRIED his method and it came up short huh???

Talk out your ass some more, but use some binaca first please...

Jaden

The future will not be running cars on hydrogen that require foul tanks that can carry compressed gasses.

The navy has already developed a process where they can convert sea water to liquid fuel. It is splitting the water into hydrogen an oxygen but it also extracts CO2 from the water as well which if that fuel is burned useing a catalytic converter and muffler then it would clean the environment by trapping the carbon.

Currently the navy says a gallon of fuel made with the process would cost $6 to make but they are working on a more efficient method. For the navy that is actually cheaper than their current model because it removes the transportation costs involved.

The process would be lucrative for private industry if refineries were located in remote areas of power generation or if they used the excess power from off peak hours where generally that excess power isn't used for anything and goes to waste.

Being able to create a liquid fuel from water is the major breakthrough as compressed hydrogen is not something most people wish to have in their car or by their home. I currently can't link the thread about the navy and fuel breakthrough but it is called-----Navy says it can now convert sea water to fuel.

The navy plans to use nuclear carriers to produce the fuel but the general populace can use any electrical source. Huge geothermal plants could be built to refine sea water into fuel Hawaii could become fuel rich. there have also been some major breakthroughs in geothermal facilities as well. The us power grid is not set up to handle the major power generatin for the nation from the west or Midwest but we could produce fuel from those areas without restructuring the grids.

Instead of giving a foreign company 7 billion essto build the keystone pipeline we should invest in this new clean fuel process.

a reply to: Masterjaden

I'm happy to discuss automotive technology but without the foul language thanks.

All I can say to your vague reference is that automakers spend billions on engine design and R&D and fuel economy is a very competitive area and I don't think there is something which they don't know which will give some magic boost to fuel economy. I think that idea is ridiculous and laughable.

I have a background in physics and there is a specific amount of energy in a litre of petrol, and you cannot get any more out of it no matter how fantastic the claims are, such as magic carbys which you bolt on etc. Internal combustion engine design has reached a very refined and highly engineered stage and there are no significant gains in efficiency or economy to be had. Unless you are an engine designer at Toyota or something I wouldn't put any stock in much you say. Everything I've said has been really basic stuff. lol. There's no way I'd let you anywhere near my car. lol.

a reply to: JimTSpock

Just to add to the conversation here.

I have a ram 1500 with a 5.9 in it. It was once my work truck but some years ao I bought a Nissan frontier to take its place however I kept the ram for fun because its a 4x4 I looked into a lot of things to modify it and improve performance or gas mileage.

I even added a dry cell which by itself I couldn't tell any difference however I was determined to get a hydrogen boost in some form or another. So I did some research and tried a few things on a small power generator I had.

I am sure you are aware that you can break down aluminum with a chemical (having a brain fart can't remember the name of it but it's cheap) so in the back of that truck I have a stainless tank with a solution that is rated for a fair amount of pressure. I also have some solar panels up on the roof of the cab that feed a deep cycle. The deep cycle with a flip of a switch runs the dry cell ( of course I have gauges gallor in the cab monitoring the two independent systems) as far as the stainless tank. Well I just throw empty beer or coke cans in their basically any small aluminum scrap I can come by as well. Inside the cab I can control the air fuel mix that goes into the engine and have a few presetings.

The current system I have works pretty good and it definitely has improved my gass mileage however I do not advise such a setup for anyone looking to save money because I spent a fair amount just doing this but for me I enjoy such tinkering and it is more of a hobby. A high school student has been documented in building a vehicle that got somewhere near 800 miles per gallon by utilizing a dry cell and a pulse system.

www.youtube.com... (I tried to embed the video but can't seem to do it from this iPad....I don't much care for apple anymore)


It has been a while since I have done anything else on the beast(my trucks name that my friends gave it) however I was really thinking of replacing the alternator with a permanent magnet alternator because I read they are more efficient creating less drag or even setting op a squirl cage fan hooked to such an alternator in the back of the truck so that I could maintain a charge longer or maybe evens add another deep cycle battery to my current setup.


You seem pretty knowledgeable would you happen to know anything about the future modifications I have been contemplating especially perment magnet alternators?

Anyway I guess I am saying there are ways to utilize hydrogen in cars to add mileage/performance but not the way YouTube would lead people to believe. I am in no way perpetuating the lie of running cars off of water like Stan Myers did but I do believe the adding of systems can increase efficiency and mileage. I am not going swear by it but I think I read an automotive article once where a foreign manufacturer implemented a dry cell in the car design.