It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The hope of Hydrogen

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
The problem with H2 is not so much of efficiency or cost, it's more of a safety problem among others.

Also why alway trying to implement the less practical way to solve a problem? If peoples want to avoid increasing atmospheric CO2 you can make synthetic hydrocarbon fuel by retaking CO2 from the air in a process using solar energy or any other source. This would be carbon neutral!

Using synthetic HC fuel have the advantage of well proven usage, is relatively safe and require no infrastructure modification on the distribution and utilization side.

H2 is a nasty engineering nightmare. Ever heard of hydrogen embrittlement?


And the good Dr Ricketts at MTSU certainly agrees with you so they are only capturing small amounts at any one time. The original design is H2 on demand which is then sent to a combustion cylinder for immediate use. There have been over 20 years of research on all this at this University.




posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: th3dudeabides

Phew...I thought science was dead for a second! Thanks!



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: network dude

Go read the collected works of Michael Ruppert on the subject hydrogen. it wont work because hydrogen has a lower EROEI than any other fuel source currently. which essentially means while it is extremely clean we have no way of producing it currently in the amounts necessary to replace a hydrocarbon economy. its just not feasible. and even if we had all the spare energy just lying around to create that much hydrogen, we would lose energy in the production. 2nd law of thermodynamics.


Ok, then why do we have a working model to review available for all to see for themselves if that law really applied to this situation where we use Solar or Water powered sources to make up the difference? I think you are getting close to a true understanding by thinking out the objections. I have been there and done that, just want to share what I found. I am now in the non in-viable position of being the anti Phage on this subject.
edit on 18-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



It helps when explaining why i feel H2 will work...


As I said previously, I don't think H2 is a good solution from a practical standpoint. In theory it seem very clean and usefull but in practice it would be a nightmare. In engineering, the goal is alway to bridge the theory to the practical world and implement the most optimal and practical solution. H2 is definitively not an optimal solution for car.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

So let me be sure I understand this.

There will NEVER be a way to produce hydrogen efficiently.

There will NEVER be a way to travel faster than the speed of light.

Science is limited by the laws that help explain it and you are stupid for trying to discuss otherwise.

Do all scientists think this way?



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



So let me be sure I understand this. There will NEVER be a way to produce hydrogen efficiently. There will NEVER be a way to travel faster than the speed of light.


When that way is found and it is practical, then we shall talk about it's implementation. You know the saying, not trying to sell the bear skin before catching the bear.

But as I said before, why not produce synthetic HC fuel in a carbon neutral way? After all, fuel is just an energy carrier.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: network dude



So let me be sure I understand this. There will NEVER be a way to produce hydrogen efficiently. There will NEVER be a way to travel faster than the speed of light.


When that way is found and it is practical, then we shall talk about it's implementation. You know the saying, not trying to sell the bear skin before catching the bear.

But as I said before, why not produce synthetic HC fuel in a carbon neutral way? After all, fuel is just an energy carrier.


OK I obviously think you have your head screwed on straight, I will bite a bit harder. In what way has MTSU'S car, winning award after award and having been successfully field tested missed the mark? I will gladly contact the professor personally with these concerns if need be I have met him in an official capacity and have been invited to play around with the car and was not able to make it to Murfreesboro on the designated date.
edit on 18-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: noeltrotsky

So let me be sure I understand this.

There will NEVER be a way to produce hydrogen efficiently.

There will NEVER be a way to travel faster than the speed of light.

Science is limited by the laws that help explain it and you are stupid for trying to discuss otherwise.

Do all scientists think this way?


Good God , I sure hope not. You sure have expressed some of the issues of the day in this eloquent post.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

That car your talking about, is it still the concept with the black carbon fiber tank behind the seats (p.26 of Ricketts_EVS.pdf)?

Also what do you mean by "head screwed on straight"?



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Justoneman

That car your talking about, is it still the concept with the black carbon fiber tank behind the seats (p.26 of Ricketts_EVS.pdf)?

Also what do you mean by "head screwed on straight"?

I haven't looked at it up close in years,, so maybe...

I like the way you think. You have impressed me with your logic in other threads.
edit on 18-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
At the same event I 1st viewed the H2 car a TN Tech Professor of EE was sharing his concepts to recapture energy by using a generator for braking mechanism. I have forgotten his name but he also was pitching an idea using gravity to send a train from the Cumberland Plateau area to Nashville and Knoxville TN. It was an interesting Clean Air Day celebration in my life.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



was sharing his concepts to recapture energy by using a generator for braking mechanism.


That concept is not new, it was pionnered by a guy named Couture circa 1982, I think of Universite Laval. AFAIK normal hybrid use this, called motor braking I think. It was buyed by Hydro Quebec, a gov co. that did a great job at dragging its feet and crippling the Couture original project. It was based around a "wheel motor" and had incredible torque.

About the H2 car we were speaking about, if it's the one, that tank is pressurized at 5000psi and hold 4.2kg of H2, and equal the same as just 1 gallon of ordinary gasoline!!!


edit on 2015-2-18 by PeterMcFly because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
So the big problem is storing what we have already extracted from the ground? Even if we could make a switch to using "X" for fuel and stop using gasoline tomorrow, there is a need for oil in many other products. We would use vastly less oil if that were the case.

Use less, as in burn less? Yes.

Use less, as in extract less? No.

So our extraction rate would stay unchanged, but our burning rate would decrease. Which, is good, if we had someplace to put everything we would no longer be using, which is the bulk of the extracted product.

Why? We have no way, at current, of separating the products we would want from the products we wouldn't want in situ.



Which seems to be your point. But I thought storing oil in barrels was something we already did. Is that not the case? I just don't understand this argument.

We store for short terms only. If we switched to a hydrogen system, we could extract as much of the hydrogen as we could, but would still require a very long term storage solution for the remainder. And, I don't think mountains of barrels would be prudent, sufficient, or environmentally sound.
edit on 18-2-2015 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly

THAT was done when the hydro-electrolysis device was $1 MILLION. Dr Ricketts has not modified it to fit his original 'on demand' portion since he was thwarted because of the unbelievable price tag. Heck, fuel cells were way cheaper even then. On demand is what will make this viable for mass creation and provide that level of safety needed for drivers. Good part about H2, as the Hindenburg helped us all visualize, is that it burns cleanly and completely. That clean air day was in the 80's that I was attending, just a few years out of school.


edit on 18-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

The ironic part about the Hindenburg was that it was not the H2 being the problem, but the aluminized coating (making nice thermite like combustible).

Coming back to the car, according to you, why my solution to use synthetic HC fuel seem so bad?



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: PeterMcFly

THAT was done when the hydro-electrolysis device was $1 MILLION. Dr Ricketts has not modified it to fit his original 'on demand' portion since he was thwarted because of the unbelievable price tag.


Ah yes! The mysterious Hydrogen 'on-demand' device! The one that isn't being used but could change the world! The one that is being suppressed and hidden from the world in the great conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Justoneman

The ironic part about the Hindenburg was that it was not the H2 being the problem, but the aluminized coating (making nice thermite like combustible).

Coming back to the car, according to you, why my solution to use synthetic HC fuel seem so bad?

Actually it didn't strike me as bad,,, I will need to study this and then discuss it with Dr. Ricketts.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: PeterMcFly

THAT was done when the hydro-electrolysis device was $1 MILLION. Dr Ricketts has not modified it to fit his original 'on demand' portion since he was thwarted because of the unbelievable price tag.


Ah yes! The mysterious Hydrogen 'on-demand' device! The one that isn't being used but could change the world! The one that is being suppressed and hidden from the world in the great conspiracy.



When did I say this was a mystery? That is the original design, as I stated so no mystery to me. Contact the school and challenge the work they are doing if you are still in doubt as this car keeps getting 1st place in alternative fuel designs it speaks volumes to the workability.
edit on 18-2-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



Actually it didn't strike me as bad,,, I will need to study this and then discuss it with Dr. Ricketts.


Remember the guy have worked hard on his H2 car project, even if he is the most honest guy on Earth, he is still human, then biased to his work!



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: network dude
So the big problem is storing what we have already extracted from the ground? Even if we could make a switch to using "X" for fuel and stop using gasoline tomorrow, there is a need for oil in many other products. We would use vastly less oil if that were the case.

Use less, as in burn less? Yes.

Use less, as in extract less? No.

So our extraction rate would stay unchanged, but our burning rate would decrease. Which, is good, if we had someplace to put everything we would no longer be using, which is the bulk of the extracted product.


OK, now I am officially very confused. Why would the extraction rate need to remain constant? is there some prize for being the first to get ALL the oil? (I get that right now, that is the case as oil=$ ) But you speak as if we cannot stop the drilling if an alternative source was found.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join