Originally posted by SilverSurfer
Oil wouldn't become worthless even if all the cars in the world switched to fuel from water.. isnt just about every plastic oil-based ?

Just think of how much plastic an average household has.. sure oil would perhaps become less valued or atleast it would be sold in less quantities.. but it would still be a very useful product.

Plastic is recicleble and yes oil would become cheap because of it's usage in low quantities, I was waching CNN last night, there was a debate on free energy, none of the energy and oil companys representatives came on cnn's invitation, they refused the invitation, it's a big ring, all the way to the wite house, it's ass kising intimate relation ship up the steps, how can you expect a change when the president is an oil man, he makes huge profits, his whole family is on it, it's favors, coruption, and intrest, and it brings power, unlimited power to rule.

They control the market, oil go's up everything go's up.
Because everything is based on oil.
Food for example, if oil price go's up food price go's up, gas costs more so the shipment cost more.
I have a whole documentary movie that shows alternative ways to fuel and energy some of them already tested that are working.
I would upload it but I have no where to upload.

Originally posted by acura_el2000
you guys are saying that "they" would not let it happen, because they would loose profits in oil, and loose control. dont you think that it is silly to think like that, I mean, if someone could make a car that ran on water, and everyone could afford it, they could easily offset the difference in the cost of the car, say 15,000$ car today, becomes 30,000$ car because youve included the cost of gas for such and such years. all it means is that the control will shift to other companies with other interests, and so on...

or, it could only run on a special type of water, then charge that a fuel, there could be big money to be made from dasani in the future.

either way, i dont belive that there is a feasible working model, these "free engery" devices never work.

You're economic reasoning is wrong. Gas and car manufactueres are different companies and are complimentary goods. Costs are associated with how much money a car company must spend it order to create the product. Demand for cars will go up, the quantity produced will go up raising the price a bit, but seeing the growing market more people will get in the car manufacturing business and shift the supply curve so that you're back at the original price.

Byrd, what say you in regards to using this as a way of making hydrogen fuel stations?

A simple on site electrolysis set up, using filtered well water also on site... with a solar or wind powered set up to use for electricity?

Couldn't that eleminate the loss of energy transfer, by getting the original energy for free?

And wouldn't this storable gas, be a better "carrier" of energy potential for use in a car, than the same "charge" of electricity for use in a battery electric car? Not to mention, taking much less time to fill a hydrogen tank, than charging a battery...

and wouldn't the expected amount of energy storage be greater with a gas (more miles between fills) than a charge of an electric car as well?

I can truly invision a future with clean independant hydrogen stations each with its own solar or wind power generator, and well... positioned anywhere, even in areas totally off the grid...

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
A simple on site electrolysis set up, using filtered well water also on site... with a solar or wind powered set up to use for electricity?

I don't have time to do calculations, but I can imagine that generating enough energy (for a filling station) would require prohibitively large solar or wind farms - real estate is limited in most areas.

Electrolysis on a massive scale is not without it's dangers, either -- hydrogen is notoriously difficult to contain (leaks easily) and when mixed with the other product of electrolysis - oxygen - forms a gaseous explosive. It's one thing to have it far in the industrial zone, with security and safety controls, and the other - at a busy intersection or even a normal country route in rush hour.


[edit on 19-5-2006 by Aelita]

In order to use Hydrogen as a fuel you are going to have to have two things.

1. A way of efficiently producing and storing large quantities of Hydrogen.

2. The infrastructure to transport the Hydrogen to the consumer. (infrastructure)

Nobody is claiming "free energy" here. We know that with current technology it is going to take more energy to generate the Hydrogen, than we will obtain by burning the Hydrogen. To me this isn't a problem, provided it can be done economically. In my opinion the only power source capable of doing that is going to be nuclear power. If "cold fusion" is ever achieved safely the world will probably make the move to hydrogen power.

One thing though. Has anybody given any thought what will happen if the world moves to Hydrogen? We will be replacing all of that carbon in the atmosphere with huge amounts of water vapor. We will also be reducing the particulates that are needed to form rain drops. Would this be a good or bad thing?

Originally posted by Aelita

I don't have time to do calculations, but I can imagine that generating enough energy (for a filling station) would require prohibitively large solar or wind farms - real estate is limited in most areas.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Aelita]

Good point Aelita... but we overcame the problems with storage for gasoline, and that was decades ago technologically.

As far as what would make a "on site hydrogen generation station" I beleive (check me)
that if we take rural america as the example, then it would be feasable...
In this example, we have hydrogen stations on the outskirts of towns, and cities, with local zoning to require that the safety space would be equivalent to the "footprint" of the electrical generation device used...
For solar, it would require (estimated conservatively) at least an acre of solar coverage for a low yeild station (the kind to service a small community)
For wind, One industrial windmill could probably provide the needs (also approx 1-2 acres footprint).

Now i cant answer for the world here, but in the midwest, acres are going for around $3K-9K an acre, in undeveloped outskirts... and land is plentiful....
So a infrastructure is feasable regarding location finding,
but is it feasable regarding energy needed to produce the local populations need of hydrogen?
Thanks for any help aelita, or other gifted mathmatical mind...

Originally posted by JIMC5499
One thing though. Has anybody given any thought what will happen if the world moves to Hydrogen? We will be replacing all of that carbon in the atmosphere with huge amounts of water vapor. We will also be reducing the particulates that are needed to form rain drops. Would this be a good or bad thing?

Something is telling me that the world's oceans, which cover like 75% of the planet's surface and absorb absolutely phenomenal amounts of solar energy, are already producing really huge amount of vapor. It'll take a while before we can even start produce noticeable amounts of vapor, against that background.

As an aside, many developing nations are or will be experiencing drought conditions. Who knows, by using hydrogen, we can increase snowfall a little bit and maybe rebuild snowcaps on mountains.

Fresh powder on the slopes... Mmmmmm...

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
So a infrastructure is feasable regarding location finding,
but is it feasable regarding energy needed to produce the local populations need of hydrogen?
Thanks for any help aelita, or other gifted mathmatical mind...

Ok, let's assume that a medium to large size gas station powers 500 cars a day (I think it's fairly realistic). Each car has a 15 gallon tank (average). So we have 7500 gallons a day, which translates into 10**12 Joules. Assuming 100% conversion effiency, you need a generating plant with 10 million watts capacity, which is 10 Megawatts. One square meter of surface can produce about 100 watt at 100% efficiency. So you need the area of 10**5 square meters, which is 25 acres.

Every inefficiency will bring that surface area up.

Originally posted by Aelita
Ok, let's assume that a medium to large size gas station powers 500 cars a day (I think it's fairly realistic). Each car has a 15 gallon tank (average). So we have 7500 gallons a day, which translates into 10**12 Joules. Assuming 100% conversion effiency, you need a generating plant with 10 million watts capacity, which is 10 Megawatts. One square meter of surface can produce about 100 watt at 100% efficiency. So you need the area of 10**5 square meters, which is 25 acres.

Every inefficiency will bring that surface area up.

You are going to need more hydrogen than gasoline to drive the same distance. That shoots the 15 gallon tank in the foot. The average gas station fuels more than 500 cars per day. The only economical way to carry enough Hydrogen to fuel a car is to liquify it, add the power for that process to your requirements. Your 25 acres just became at least 40.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
You are going to need more hydrogen than gasoline to drive the same distance. That shoots the 15 gallon tank in the foot.

No it don't. I was only calculating the energy consumption based on gasoline, hydrogen is irrelevant at this stage of the calculation.

The only economical way to carry enough Hydrogen to fuel a car is to liquify it, add the power for that process to your requirements

This is not true. Hydrogen can be stored in porous adsorbent materials (metals) in a very efficient way. Nobody wants to carry around a tank full of cryogenic liquid close to Absolute Zero anyway.

Of course, in real life the required area would larger than 25 acres anyway. This is the low limits.

i heard a guy on art bell who claimed to have a hydrogen car which was completely self sufficient, with it's own solar cells as the source of energy, and the resultant hydrogen as fuel.
extended periods of darkness are a problem.

i don't know if it's true. i don't trust art bell farther than i could throw him.

overall, though, i am convinced that huge corporations in concert with giant government are involved in stopping anything that provides benefit for free.

like, mary jane, for example. good medicine, great strong resilient fiber and quick growth make this an ideal crop. henry ford supposedly felt that either biofuel from hemp or petroleum could be used as fuel for automobiles.

Originally posted by billybob
i heard a guy on art bell who claimed to have a hydrogen car which was completely self sufficient, with it's own solar cells as the source of energy, and the resultant hydrogen as fuel.
extended periods of darkness are a problem.

i don't know if it's true. i don't trust art bell farther than i could throw him.

It is possible, but not practical. The car would probably have to sit in the sun for a month just to make enough hydrogen to drive around the block.

What about wind power aelita? JC?

10kw units are common and relativley cheap. Also useful more often than solar.

and does it really cost that much to generate the electrolytic cycle?

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by billybob
i heard a guy on art bell who claimed to have a hydrogen car which was completely self sufficient, with it's own solar cells as the source of energy, and the resultant hydrogen as fuel.
extended periods of darkness are a problem.

i don't know if it's true. i don't trust art bell farther than i could throw him.

It is possible, but not practical. The car would probably have to sit in the sun for a month just to make enough hydrogen to drive around the block.

Hmm I dont get it, you talk abot storing it? why store it?
The whole device is based on self suficency, that is the beauty of it.
the fuel is produced in the car, it's produced from water.
The alternator produces electicity while the car runs providing electricity for the chamber that turns water in to hidrogen and oxigen, it is then distribuited for burn , by mixing the hidrogen and oxigen it creates a burn level higher then regular fuel up to 40% more.
So you dont need to store it, it's produced and consumend on the spot.
All you need is water and electicity.
Dont confuse nitrogen with hidrogen, many do, they think it's rocket fuel, it is not.
Hidrogen can be produced easy, water has plenty of it.



[edit on 19-5-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by billybob
i heard a guy on art bell who claimed to have a hydrogen car which was completely self sufficient, with it's own solar cells as the source of energy, and the resultant hydrogen as fuel.

It is possible, but not practical. The car would probably have to sit in the sun for a month just to make enough hydrogen to drive around the block.

perhaps.
the guy interviewed said it worked usually, and only long periods of overcast conditions affected mobility.
could be hype, could be truth. while TRUTH is simple, 'truth' is complicated.

Cheap, reliable, safe, clean hydrogen fuel?

Sometime in the early 1980s, the city where I lived had 1 hydrogen refill station. It was sponsored by the local electric utility. The utility bought a few light cars and trucks modified by GM to run on hydrogen gas. Hydrogen as a fuel was put in reinforced tanks under 3000 psi. Everything was wrong. The tanks were heavy. The amount of hydrogen did not propel the vehicles far. The cost of storing the refueling center’s tank of liquid hydrogen was prohibitive. It could be done but not on any acceptable economic scale. There is surely no harm working on it - liquid hydrogen as a fuel - as no one knows when a breakthrough might happen. But as the similar false alarm over cold fusion - especially when compared to a tokamak machine - it has not yet come.

Believe me, when it happens, we’ll start a new calendar - Year One of the Hydrogen Era.