Why is this not in production? Great energy invention!

I dont think that weight has anything to do with cost.
Many sports cars are light and they cost a sh!t load more then SUV's.

I cant wait to see this in mass production. Many interesting products could be made with this.

We had a thread on this very same topic a couple months ago.

It may become a reality, but it just came into its prototype stage. It has to be tested and make sure it passes regulations, and has to get a stable financial backing, etc. I wouldn't doubt if we saw some of these guys hit the roads in 4-5 years, but for now we have to wait and see. An idea, nor a prototype, is enough to make good business sense for world-wide use. It takes time and money and proof (social and scientific) before it becomes popular and widespread.

We used to blow up hydrogen balloons at school with this...in the late 70's. We got it from a book. It's not new.

It's also not an energy source. Do you have any idea how much electricity it requires to make that aluminum? You'd be far better off using a hydrolyzer on the water in terms of efficiency. And hydrolyzers suck.

You guys DO know that hydrogen is an environmental issue, right? It's got that one-two punch...it destroys ozone AND forms high-altitude water vapor that's a greenhouse gas. Not only that, it leaks out of nearly anything you put it in. They're expecting a 10% loss rate.

ledbetter: that is a cool looking engine. I wish he would make one that would fit my motorcycle frame.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by Tom Bedlam]

We did that in the 90's, too.

I was going to say this, as well as to point out that Drano doesn't last forever in a chemical reaction either.

On the other hand, exactly this hydrogen-generating process is conducted around the clock in literally hundreds of U.S. locations, and the hydrogen is allowed to merely escape into the atmosphere.

The process of anodizing aluminum involves a chemical etch bath as one of the first steps in the process. The etch bath is nothing more than a heated Sodium Hydroxide solution (same as most drain cleaners - also called lye and/or caustic.) Perhaps this hydrogen could be recovered. It's being generated anyway!


Recovery of hydrogen generated in industrial processes like anodizing (there's probably other processes that also generate hydrogen, but I don't know of any) would then also have a one-two punch. Since the hydrogen is today allowed to escape - it must already be doing the damage you claim.

However, water vapor as a greenhouse gas is a non-issue, really. There is so much water on the planet, the atmosphere only holds the amount that it can hold. If it warms up, it can hold more. But if it does warm up, it won't care where the vapor comes from. It would just as easily obtain vapor in the natural way (from the ocean) if we didn't provide it through the oxidation of hydrogen.
Harte

Harte:

No, no I'm not talking about ground level water vapor. What happens with free hydrogen is that it ascends to the stratosphere and recombines there, cooling the lower stratosphere and forming very high altitude clouds that wouldn't naturally exist.

There was a Caltech/JPL paper on it back in 2003.

that's hilarious, mate, i'm sorry really, don't feel offended but that's was a good laugh


i mean you KNOW that carbon dioxide is the devil because they told you so and you KNOW that water is benign because frankly, demonizing it on a planet whose surface is covered by seas to an extent of roughly three forths wouldn't fly before the next big scare arrives, right :p

did you know that pure gases have absorbtion lines, while fluids and solids tend to block out large parts of the spectrum? yes? overcast day anyone?


now you're going to claim that clouds will catch the heat in the atmosphere, (which is hard to disprove without first hand data, isn't it) but then i'll have to ask you (or anyone) how condensed steam doesn't vaporise when heated...? did you know that methane (another eeevil gas) is alledgedly many times worse than CO2? did you know that plants produce it in considerable amounts? did you know that people can't make climate models which remain true to real world events for more than a *** break if that, when using coarse resolution? (well that was a bit condescending probably but you'll get my drift) did you know that remnants of trees were found below glaciers in Switzerland?

either way, don't think i'm addressing you personally, i'm adressing anyone who blindly buys into the fearmongering, scapegoating and profiteering. <-more on that later. if i got the wrong impression i apologize in advance if not read on.


global warming or not, but we don't know much about it (or those who do keep it very secret) and shouldn't pretend we do. CO2 is not toxic and trees like it, so direct your fear elsewhere, because it results in such SURREAL proposals such as blowing CO2 into the seas or the ground - negligent and stupid pracrice if ever brought to large scale use - see african killer lakes for a glimpse of the dangers, not to metnion the cost! but i guess a few industry barons would 'earn' err gain another fortune,m ultimately at taxpayer's and consumer's expsense, as usual.

plants

CO2



(end OT)


back on topic: weight is of course affecting revenue, i know that the market price of the end product is largely arbitrary, but every pound of metal sold is revenue for the metal mill, same for pretty much everything else, i doubt the aluminium mill gets a bouns for metal that will go into a sportscar. the same tendency can be seen everywhere, from military aircraft to lawnmowers, probably.



[edit on 12-8-2006 by Long Lance]

Found a free copy of the Caltech paper:

www.waterstof.org...

Some popularizations of the data:

www.tcsdaily.com...
www.downtoearth.org.in...

I've been going through the guy's site...

does he ever actually RUN the thing? I've seen him crank one over, I've seen them running from compressed air, but does he ever show one running from fuel? If so, which clip was it?

See, now this I don't get. I'm not in any way speculating on the reality (or unreality) of global warming due to any greenhouse gasses. I just said that water vapor as a greenhouse gas is a non-issue. Seems like what you say here:

Pretty much agrees with what I said.

well, people screaming about greenhouse gas while ignoring clouds is funny, don't you think? especially when said greenhouse gas is already present at saturation levels (meaning the wavelength is blocked out already, so more gas won't change squat). as the saying goes, anything can be made the credo of a society no matter how ridiculous, with appropriate media and government action.

sorry for partially derailing this thread i started my own on fragile earth.

My extreme interest in this was due to the fact that this could be the BEST way to incorporate, fuel efficiency and less pollution into our society's normal way of living without upsetting the powers that be...too much.

I looked at this MYT engine as a possible way to improve upon the current ways we get around, not completely ratify it. I do honestly believe that that is our ONLY option right now, improvement, not overthrowing the oil/government/corporation alliance that actually runs our world. That won't work...and maybe for good reason. If free energy or near free energy were to become public, then our world economies would actually break down. So, maybe the key is to continue to bring about R&D on more controversial or lesser known energy sources and use more efficient "conventional" sources to improve the infrastructure already in place right now.

That's why I like this, it has had exposure, there has already been money placed into it's development and it has actually been tested, it's not just a theory. On top of that, wll it would need is a progressive thinking auto company to license the tech, throw it in a car and it could catch on. Our world's transportation infrastructure wouldn't have to be changed.

ethanol cant be the next fuel unless they start using solar power to produce it. right now it takes more than a 1:1 ratio of energy to produce ethanol, just like petroleum based fuel. even though its renewable, you would run out of energy to produce it.

Solar power or any other renewable energy source...solar cells and wind power efficiency have made great strides recently. By using either one of these to help produce bio-diesel, cellusic ethanol or hydrogen, we could pretty effectively cut down on the tons of gases we emit into the atmosphere every day.

I personally think instituting a design change first (running on gasoline), then incorporating newer fuel sources down the road is a more feasible answer.

Remember, the engine I posted can run on ALL of the fuels I listed!



[edit on 8/13/2006 by ledbedder20]

ledbetter:

He says so, but is there a video of him actually doing it?

I see hand-cranked visual models, I see it running on compressed air, but amongst the videos, is there one of them actually running?

I gave up after a while.

Apparently, there are no videos of it running on any fuels. I do remember him speaking about them doing it in one of the films of him at an auto show, but he said they haven't recorded it yet. Which seems kind of odd to me.

Even so, the science behind this thing is basically the same as the first combustion engine over a hundred years ago, which leads me to believe that the timeline behind idea to production on this thing is based on fine tuning the mechanics. So, I do think this is more plausible than most new energy or transportation based inventions we read about on the ole' internet!

Ya, I thought he said he had one of them running for a while but he never shows it. I was hoping I had just missed the film amongst all the others he has on his site.

What better way to sell the thing than to mount one in a tractor rig, or a car? Wouldn't YOU? He says he has running models, then why not show one?

I would have one outside the show running on a stand. Hard to ignore it then....but he doesn't ever show it. No film, no demo, no one's seen it go but him.

I was sort of interested in it but now I think I'm smelling a rat.

NEWS FLASH!

The cars being mass produced and sold in the world today are old technology. Far more fuel efficient engines have existed for years, they are not in production because of oil lobbyists paying off all major auto makers. Sort of similar to what happened to the electric car (Who Killed the Electric Car?) and why they were replaced by hybrids.

150MPH is not that efficient there have been independent inventors creating similar engines for years, some capable of well over 250MPG. But the oil companies would never let one come into mass production. They have enough cash to buy off everyone who as so much as seen this engine let alone the inventor/holder of patents and rights.

If you dont belive me about the current engine technology take a look for your self. Supermileage
Those are the results of the 27th annual SAE Supermileage competition. University of British Columbia came out on top at 3,145MPH of course they had extensive funding and those arent exactly street/highway mileages but affordable commercial grade engines can VERY easily be built by auto makers. Hell even some of the high schools beat the 1000MPH mark.

The technology is out there it's just not in use.
Aren't big world dominating corporations fun.

Yep yep...I think a climate of change is approaching. These guys are just going to have to figure out a way to make money off of a more economical and pollution free way of getting around. Too many things are becoming more well known. Too many technologies are becoming mainstream.