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.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Bedlam
I don't know if it is zero or not, but it seems o make a difference.
originally posted by: TheChrome
I'm not really looking at gasoline. I am looking at things such as: A forklift runs off propane. So do some cars. What prevents us from running cars off Hydrogen? Oh, yes Oil companies will fight that just like Ford and Chevy fought Tucker.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: TheChrome
I'm not really looking at gasoline. I am looking at things such as: A forklift runs off propane. So do some cars. What prevents us from running cars off Hydrogen? Oh, yes Oil companies will fight that just like Ford and Chevy fought Tucker.
There's a lot of reasons why not, and one is that it's less efficient. That hydrogen won't make itself.
For a car, propane is easy to store because it's liquid under pressure, even at temperatures that you encounter in automotive service. It's also stable, and a big molecule that doesn't migrate through gaskets and lines like hydrogen.
The combustion temperature is comparatively low, and the flame front speed is comparable to gasoline vapor, so a car designed for gasoline works ok with propane. Propane is also readily available, and it's a byproduct of petroleum. So it's cheap. You literally pump it out of the ground mixed with crude.
Hydrogen you have to make, with electricity, at a loss. It's small for a molecule, and you lose a lot of it in storage and distribution. It's got a high combustion temperature, and a fast flame front, so engines designed for it are not your typical gasoline engine. In fact, it's sort of miserable to build one, so mostly what you see with hydrogen cars is that they're fully electric and use fuel cells, like the Toyota Mirai.
There's also only about 10 hydrogen fueling stations in the US.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TheChrome
Lol! You claimed to be an engineer in another thread. If you really think something as obviously BS as this is so touch or go in the truth department, let me know what bridges you built and I'll make sure I'll avoid them.
I don't know what you mean by that exactly but it seems to make no sense.
originally posted by: TheChrome
Just from the passive observer standpoint, the energy required to pass through the electrodes that convert the water into gas, is not more than replenished by the alternator of the vehicle. Truly, I have other ideas up my sleeve. I am just starting with ground zero.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't know what you mean by that exactly but it seems to make no sense.
originally posted by: TheChrome
Just from the passive observer standpoint, the energy required to pass through the electrodes that convert the water into gas, is not more than replenished by the alternator of the vehicle. Truly, I have other ideas up my sleeve. I am just starting with ground zero.
Both the process of converting water to gas and the process of converting mechanical to electrical energy in the alternator are far less than 100% efficient so of course the energy the electrodes need is way more than is replenished by the alternator of the vehicle, how can you say it's not more?
Now if you put a humongous battery in the bed of a pickup truck, you can make up for the shortfall with energy stored in the battery, which is what these guys did but they were still making futile attempts to do the impossible which is what you said, lower the current to the electrodes so it's less than the alternator output.
2004 Dodge Pickup Runs on 100% Water
Despite their false claims they were doing it, their equipment showed otherwise and you can tell from their reaction at points they are concerned about the high current draw, as if this is a solvable problem that they can fix by tweaking something. They don't seem to understand that any "tweak" that would "fix" that problem would break the known laws of physics.
And I have to agree with the other comments that any engineer should understand these basic concepts about less than 100% efficient processes regardless of their engineering specialty, so I don't care what kind of engineer you are, no competent engineer should be saying "the energy required to pass through the electrodes that convert the water into gas, is not more than replenished by the alternator of the vehicle."
That's something I'd expect from the two amateur comedians trying to make that truck run on water, not from an engineer.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: TheChrome
Whether the cost of getting hydrocarbons out of the ground is one dollar on one trillion dollars doesn't change the laws of physics and won't allow you to run a truck on water.
In reality a lot of the power they got is from coal powered electric plants so they are charging the battery ultimately with burning coal (and other sources of power entering the grid). So it's more or less a coal powered truck, not a water powered truck, when they are draining the battery to run it on HHO.
originally posted by: Pilgrum
'HHO' or whatever you want to call the perfect mix of hydrogen & oxygen is a viable fuel with major drawbacks being storage volume, explosive volatility and cost to produce. The only 'safe' way to use it is to produce it on demand and the best practical application I've seen is welder/blowtorch uses because it's so clean and least likely to contaminate the weld. Somewhat popular for small applications such as jewellers etc these days.
It was proposed as a substitute for gasoline back in the 60s (look for 'Browns Gas') but the cost of production was the immediate killer for it back then (Gasoline less than $0.30 per gallon and the energy equivalent in Browns Gas costing over $2.00 for the electrical energy input). We passed that equivalency some time back and an industrial setup using bulk purchased electrical energy could produce the 'water fuel' significantly cheaper than gasoline now so it's just the storage and volatility that's holding it back now (these are major issues). What's needed is a means of converting it to a form that's liquid at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure and I suspect that has been achieved but the hike in production costs have pushed it past gasoline again.
As for producing it on the fly powered by a vehicle's alternator - it's a lose/lose proposition as has been stated several times previously. Electric vehicles are a far better alternative.
originally posted by: TheChrome
You can't run a truck on water true. That is because trucks are designed to run on hydrocarbons. Forklifts are designed to run on gas, .
and therefore more prone to run on something such as HHO
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: TheChrome
You can't run a truck on water true. That is because trucks are designed to run on hydrocarbons. Forklifts are designed to run on gas, .
Oh dear, the gas a forklift runs on IS a hydrocarbon....
and therefore more prone to run on something such as HHO
Wrong, that is because their fuel injection/carburetor system is designed to deal with a gas, not a liquid!
General Motors of Canada and Hydrogenics Corp., Ontario, Canada, are dipping their collective toes into the hydrogen economy, testing the viability of hydrogen-powered industrial vehicles. GM is using a pair of fuel-cell powered forklifts that rely on hydrogen for fuel at its Oshawa Car Assembly Plant.
Sort of yes, though to be more accurate, call them a form of energy storage rather than a battery since a battery has certain characteristics the hydrogen storage lacks. But the article confirms your idea when it says the cost of producing the hydrogen depends on the cost of electricity, which gets back to what I said earlier, that if the electricity is generated by burning coal, ultimately the forklifts get their energy from burning coal.
originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
These fuel cells are just a different type battery to provide electricity for the motors.
Sort of yes, though to be more accurate, call them a form of energy storage rather than a battery since a battery has certain characteristics the hydrogen storage lacks.