Water Powered Yacht the Aqua

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Justoneman

Yeah, did that in science class in high school.

Hydrogen is sticky. It likes to stick to other molecules.
There are several methods of separating the molecules and all of them require more energy to split the molecule than you get from burning the hydrogen.

These cars require hydrogen fuel cells that are at extremely high pressure, 3000+ psi.
The cars are not making the hydrogen as they drive.

H2 on demand will work and other designs are certainly valid to explore. We need to quit accepting the BS about man made global warming and focus on things like H2 for power and ways to obtain it with outside energy sources such as Solar panels. These people wanting to tax oil are holding back ideas like Thorium reactors and H2 powered cars.

Electrolysis of water is about 70% efficient. The fuel cells only combust about 90% of the hydrogen further reducing efficiency. If you are using solar electricity to generate hydrogen to burn, why waste all that energy? Charge batteries directly and skip the problems of hydrogen generation, handling, and storage.

Yes it is only 70% or so however, an on demand Hydrogen source was the initial design of the prototype Alternative fuel car. Compressed H2 was used to demonstrate the car when the specific device needed wasn't being made available. The on demand Hydrogen would bypass needing a huge source of energy. A small battery to start the on demand process and a solar panel can feed that battery.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Justoneman

Yeah, did that in science class in high school.

Hydrogen is sticky. It likes to stick to other molecules.
There are several methods of separating the molecules and all of them require more energy to split the molecule than you get from burning the hydrogen.

These cars require hydrogen fuel cells that are at extremely high pressure, 3000+ psi.
The cars are not making the hydrogen as they drive.

H2 on demand will work and other designs are certainly valid to explore. We need to quit accepting the BS about man made global warming and focus on things like H2 for power and ways to obtain it with outside energy sources such as Solar panels. These people wanting to tax oil are holding back ideas like Thorium reactors and H2 powered cars.

Electrolysis of water is about 70% efficient. The fuel cells only combust about 90% of the hydrogen further reducing efficiency. If you are using solar electricity to generate hydrogen to burn, why waste all that energy? Charge batteries directly and skip the problems of hydrogen generation, handling, and storage.

Yes it is only 70% or so however, an on demand Hydrogen source was the initial design of the prototype Alternative fuel car. Compressed H2 was used to demonstrate the car when the specific device needed wasn't being made available. The on demand Hydrogen would bypass needing a huge source of energy. A small battery to start the on demand process and a solar panel can feed that battery.

The "on demand" H2 source is the problem. The numbers for fuel cells look high so everyone wants to use one. PEM cells have finite lifetimes and the stack needs rebuilt fairly often. Another hitch is the use of Pt/Pd etc. in the fuel cell. If one could find some alloy that didn't require precious metals, it would be a revolutionary development.
Generating the hydrogen and the "on-demand" materials are the biggest hurdle because hydrogen can be combusted if nothing else is practical. The least expensive way to make H2 is by reforming natural gas but that leads to evil CO2. What materials have been proposed as on demand H2 sources? LiAlH4 comes to mind as does NaBH4. This sounds wonderful when the snake-oil salesmen try to sell it to the non-technical folk. If those materials are used, reality soon comes knocking.
1] The expended materials have to be factory recycled, so expect some sort of a exchangeable vessel at point of sale--analogous to a propane bottle for a forklift. Turn-in the vessel and get a new one because the solids formed from such on-demand H2 source materials prevent a permanent, refillable "gas tank" model.
2] As expected, in a practical system not all of the material is used even with finely divided particles. The reaction products form a crust on the surface and prevent the interior material from reacting.
3] Cradle-to-grave energy inefficiency. Those snake-oil salesmen never show the whole process. The conveniently fail to mention the enormous energy requirements and inefficiencies with a] shipping expended materials back to the factory;
(including safety problems with handling the partially reacted material); b)Separation and recovery of expended material; c) Production of H2 source materials from expended materials (the largest energy demand, by far).

Remember the three laws of thermodynamics (for poets): 1. You can't get something for nothing, 2. The best you can do is to break even, 3. You can't even break even

a reply to: pteridine

All very good points.

The exception being the school built something and showed it to function 30 years ago defying the so called laws about breaking even.



It is about where you look and how you get it done. I think we can do this.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Is 3000psi in itself not enough to move a boat? With watercraft you also have the advantage of hydrophobic substances to ease surface tension. I could see the introduction of a change in transportation happening sooner in water than on land given all the underutilized technology to do it.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: pteridine

All very good points.

The exception being the school built something and showed it to function 30 years ago defying the so called laws about breaking even.

It is about where you look and how you get it done. I think we can do this.

No, they didn't defy the laws of thermodynamics. Translating what the business prof was saying wasn't easy as he was a little unsure of the process but the gist of it is to get DC from the solar cells, convert it to AC, put it on the grid, and then when they had enough energy credits, use grid power for electrolysis of water to generate hydrogen and use the hydrogen to power the car.
Note that they were funded by DOE and if there was any great breakthrough, you certainly would have heard of it by now. This was just another DOE feel-good demo that proved nothing much.

You can't get something for nothing and for a car as heavy as the Prius, a few rooftop solar panels won't power it continuously, even on a sunny day. The do have an option with solar cells powering a vent fan if the car sits in the sun.

www.govinfo.gov...

See the Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member, (D)Tennessee,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives page 13.
Bart likely earmarked a small grant for the school in his state to play with the hydrogen car. There was nothing special about any of it.

a reply to: pteridine

Didn't have to defy any laws is what it seems was happening. Plus the original prototype design IS about H2 on demand. The other alternative fuel vehicle ideas by the University were in the links I provided. They didn't just stop at H2 on demand because the cost for the Hydro Electrolysis device the design was built around was $1 Million for about 15 years. In that time of being beat down by not being allowed to afford that device, they had to move on to solar cars.

This might help you on how to look at what I am pointing out to you.

For H2 on Demand it should not be a big issue in fact to input any missing energy from a more free like source such as the sun or maybe an ocean wave in the case of water vessel's now is there?

ETA

I do appreciate the dedication to skepticism on such a matter.

For you it is science and I can roll with that point of view. I think the final outcome that has no one building H2 motors, other than the designs from Germany that I know about, is because the oil company's are likely in bed with the Cabal. Both Conservatives and Libs can see that Big Oil is the next biggest thing to Bankers in funds to spend. They have a gravy train to lose if we move to H2 powered engines that we can pull up to the pond and fill er up without taxation abilities and it might cause a water shortage, in their minds. They will forget that the product of the H2 combustion in an Oxygen atmosphere is water.

a reply to: Justoneman

... is because the oil company's are likely in bed with the Cabal

Nah. Hydrogen is simply much more expensive to produce and store. Should it become cheaper than oil, those companies will be probably among the first to jump on it. Because all they actually care about is making money. And oil is still a very effective way to do it.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: pteridine

Didn't have to defy any laws is what it seems was happening. Plus the original prototype design IS about H2 on demand. The other alternative fuel vehicle ideas by the University were in the links I provided. They didn't just stop at H2 on demand because the cost for the Hydro Electrolysis device the design was built around was $1 Million for about 15 years. In that time of being beat down by not being allowed to afford that device, they had to move on to solar cars.

This might help you on how to look at what I am pointing out to you.

For H2 on Demand it should not be a big issue in fact to input any missing energy from a more free like source such as the sun or maybe an ocean wave in the case of water vessel's now is there?

ETA

I do appreciate the dedication to skepticism on such a matter.

For you it is science and I can roll with that point of view. I think the final outcome that has no one building H2 motors, other than the designs from Germany that I know about, is because the oil company's are likely in bed with the Cabal. Both Conservatives and Libs can see that Big Oil is the next biggest thing to Bankers in funds to spend. They have a gravy train to lose if we move to H2 powered engines that we can pull up to the pond and fill er up without taxation abilities and it might cause a water shortage, in their minds. They will forget that the product of the H2 combustion in an Oxygen atmosphere is water.

What I am telling you is that no matter how you use the solar/wind/renewable electric power to make and store hydrogen and then burn hydrogen in a fuel cell to make electricity to power a vehicle, it is a losing proposition. It is far more efficient to store the electric power in batteries or capacitors to power the same car. A "Hydrogen Economy" is based on a derived product that, in this case, is just an energy storage medium. The Toffler's were not technically competent.
At one hydrogen conference I attended, we visited Sunline Transportation in California. They ran H2 powered busses and had a big show and tell at their HQ. An array of solar cells was happily producing cubic centimeters of H2 at 1 atmosphere. The hydrogen that they were using as fuel came from reforming methane because to generate all that hydrogen by solar power, they would need many acres of arrays. The few solar cells on the Prius [which is not 30 years old] couldn't possibly power the vehicle. At that same conference, BMW was showing off their H2 powered V-12 -- another publicity event with no real practicality.

As to the oil companies -- as Moebius has stated, they will jump on it and make money because they are energy companies and will follow the energy market.

If you have any questions about hydrogen or synthetic fuels, I will be glad to answer them.

a reply to: Justoneman

Here's the problem with the oil cabal theory. Oil is used for much more than just fuel and energy production. Literally most of the modern world isn't possible without oil and other hydrocarbons right down to the clothes you wear etc etc.

Even taking out ALL transportation and energy production oil consumption worldwide really doesn't dent the hydrocarbon demand all that much. People still need those things and thus the refineries etc would at best receive overhauls to focus their production output differently.

They certainly wouldn't shut down nor would the oil companies lose their power because modern societies still can't live without their products.

a reply to: pteridine

You are correct if we stay in a totally CLOSED system that concept could not work. I got this idea while with a group of EPA Scientists hosting a dinner for National Environmental Conference where we had Scientists and Engineers from all over the world joining with us at the Boston Museum of Science. This was almost 30 years now and they where Hydrolyzing water with a Solar panel energy source storing in a battery that delivered steady power to the Electrolysis probe so they could demonstrate the energy on the spot for an exhibit. It was wow moment. Their idea was that the Sun was enough of a source of energy to make it worth investing in the whole tech concept. I agree.

We don't have to keep the system closed to outside energy sources. We have energy sources that are attached to a meter with a business and a gov official collecting dues. In fact that is the problem I see, their need for control competing ideas that would allow people to be energy independent are allowing closed minded concepts.

I would think Quantum Physics for one thing can give us an avenue to tap into new resources and that there are other Sources of ENERGY to balance this out actually. There are other ideas and that is my story, I will stick with it.

Also what I am saying, we INTRODUCE energy from somewhere else outside the H2 engine that is freely available. That COULD BE something like Solar or whatever exotic means of Quantum energy we discover usable.

I always say we can't discover things by closing our Minds to ideas because of some arbitrary pre supposition of certain failure. Those scientific presuppositions are what makes it challenging for Scientists. Clearly those are not always correct.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: pteridine

You are correct if we stay in a totally CLOSED system that concept could not work. I got this idea while with a group of EPA Scientists hosting a dinner for National Environmental Conference where we had Scientists and Engineers from all over the world joining with us at the Boston Museum of Science. This was almost 30 years now and they where Hydrolyzing water with a Solar panel energy source storing in a battery that delivered steady power to the Electrolysis probe so they could demonstrate the energy on the spot for an exhibit. It was wow moment. Their idea was that the Sun was enough of a source of energy to make it worth investing in the whole tech concept. I agree.

We don't have to keep the system closed to outside energy sources. We have energy sources that are attached to a meter with a business and a gov official collecting dues. In fact that is the problem I see, their need for control competing ideas that would allow people to be energy independent are allowing closed minded concepts.

I would think Quantum Physics for one thing can give us an avenue to tap into new resources and that there are other Sources of ENERGY to balance this out actually. There are other ideas and that is my story, I will stick with it.

Also what I am saying, we INTRODUCE energy from somewhere else outside the H2 engine that is freely available. That COULD BE something like Solar or whatever exotic means of Quantum energy we discover usable.

I always say we can't discover things by closing our Minds to ideas because of some arbitrary pre supposition of certain failure. Those scientific presuppositions are what makes it challenging for Scientists. Clearly those are not always correct.

If you had a sufficient outside energy source, why would you need hydrogen at all? Look up LENR.

Hydrogen is an awkward fuel for transportation with a low energy density and difficult handling. Consider that if you did have a low cost hydrogen source, you could react it with CO2 in the atmosphere and produce methanol. The carbon in the methanol would be a hydrogen carrier of sorts and shuttle between the liquid fuel and the atmosphere with no net increase in atmospheric carbon. The methanol can be combusted in an IC engine with no significant changes in infrastructure.

True scientists do not have closed minds. Nothing is ever "Settled Science," contrary to some.

a reply to: pteridine

Why use Hydrogen? Race car like power from H2 powered engines that an electric engine is hard pressed to duplicate.

But ask yourself are the current skills in Solar generation of energy good enough to replace combustion engines for a solo source of power?

I would think it isn't right now.

We also get a lot of energy from a system of dams but it isn't enough to power all our needs and the damage to the environment building a dam could be an issue to be concerned. H2 gets us over the hump is why use H2 and a battery keeps the level of energy delivered to the process steady. Meanwhile if we shift to H2, we can watch carbon/Carbon Dioxide producing motors end up in the recycling centers. UN and the worlds self appointed leaders will care if those same wannabe kings really believe CO2 is the problem. I truly suspect they, like most of us here on ATS, know better than that. CO2 Crusade is wrong and only offers pain for the masses and riches for the Narcissist leaders of the cult.

I certainly agree with most of your thoughts. Especially that last line.

a reply to: Justoneman

Where are you getting this race car like power idea from when it comes to hydrogen?

If you actually burn hydrogen in an engine rather than use it in a fuel cell it's not only not super impressive but it also causes things like hydrogen embrittlement in the metals of the engine itself. This will fairly dramatically reduce the life of the engine.

If you use fuel cells, you're generating electricity which means you need electric motors to power the wheels and still aren't going to get race car power levels.

Either way I'm failing to see where hydrogen even has the benefits you believe it does to say nothing of the process or processes by which you get your hydrogen. (The most common and cost effective way to get hydrogen now is from natural gas btw)

No matter how you look at it hydrogen just adds unnecessary steps each of which is governed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics meaning additional losses for a given starting amount of energy.

Hydrogen isn't catching on because it's less efficient and more resource intensive than what we already have, not because it's being suppressed.

a reply to: roguetechie

From the car MTSU built that set the land speed record for H2 powered vehicle LAST Century.


I linked some of the more recent links to this ancient technology long held back. The data has been scrubbed from the web.

I personally saw the car at an EPA Clean Air Week symposium in the 90's. They had to leave that design and more on to Solar and other ideas for the reasons stated in my reply's on this thread.

Here is an article about a design the Cabal will let them use
www.greencarcongress.com... The comments are similar dismissal it appears but here it was, working.

Here is an excerpt from the article from 2007 that references the now scrubbed stories on the H2 powered car at the Bonneville Salt Flats.

Dr. Ricketts was one of the witnesses testifying in 2006 before the US House Science Subcommittee on Energy on the prospects for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. (Earlier post.) While his focus for the shorter term is flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles, he is interested in the development of hydrogen-fueled plug-in hybrids. He is also a 15-year holder of the Land Speed Record for a hydrogen vehicles at the Bonneville Salt Flats.

This is for real.
www.wired.com...

That we can do this is a start. How they acquired the H2 now is just a detail in the big scheme of things. Lots of research to support this concept and SOMEONE influential IMO doesn't want us to believe it will work.

a reply to: Justoneman

Did you actually read the wired article?

220mph...

6700 pounds...

770 horsepower electric motor...

Do you not see the fact that all 3 of these things individually are MAJOR problems?

To say nothing of all 3 In combination!

So let's go through a SHORT LIST of problems here shall we?

1. 220mph is NOTHING! Seriously that's a joke of a salt flats run no matter what class you're talking about other than "hydrogen"

2. That's not even a hydrogen powered car, it's an electric car with the world's worst battery system. (hydrogen fuel cell stacks)

3. A salt flats record car that weighs 6700 pounds with only 770 horsepower! You can go buy a dodge hellcat that blows that away at any local dodge dealer that puts 900+ horsepower down at a substantial fraction less weight.

If that's what you believe race car performance is, you are dead wrong.

It does however highlight exactly why hydrogen is NOT the answer (to any question really) quite vividly.

To be clear, that car and that speed run are an absolute joke to anyone who has even close to a basic knowledge level about these things.

It says very bad things about your credibility and ability to meaningfully evaluate energy and automotive systems in even a cursory way much less to be authoritatively saying anything about them.