Originally posted by free-energy
It takes a lot less energy to convert water to hydrogen when you use a harmonic frequency directed at the water instead of a direct current. Similar
to using a microwave instead of resistance heat.
So the figures on how many Kw of energy is used will have to be revised.
Here is a link to an inventor who has stumbled onto this.
There are some later stories showing a Sterling engine running above the test tube.
I don't mean to get away from the conversion device listed at the top of this thread. My point is that there are ways to reduce the energy required.
One of the ways the conversion kit does this is chemically with metals and baking soda.
The only reason I'm unable to set up a shop to install it is I don't have the money.
Even using a harmonic frequency equal to the resonant frequency of water, you'll still never get more energy back than what it took to split it.
I'll be the first to admit that it would be an amazing discovery to be able split water at near 100% efficiency, it still wouldn't solve some of the
other fundamental problems with using hydrogen as a method of energy transfer.
Those problems mostly being the adiabatic compression losses when storing it, the actual containers for storage, and the low energy density of
It takes energy to compress gas, and you won't get all of it back, because when you compress it, it heats up, and when it is decompressed, it cools
down. The heat is generally lost to the atmosphere, unless you strapped a thermocouple to your gas tank. This is much more of a problem for cars that
run purely on compressed air, but it will still represent a loss. Second, it's hard to store hydrogen. H2 molecules are so small they like to leak
out of most seemingly-solid containers over time. You need to have it highly compressed, because hydrogen has a ridiculously low energy density
compared to gas, and it's not feasable to carry tanks of cryocooled liquid hydrogen.
Those are really all problems to be solved by engineers, but it basically means that even if you could split hydrogen at near 100% efficiency, we
wouldn't be fundamentally any closer to a hydrogen economy than we are today, where we can do it by brute force at about 80%.
It's certainly not going to be used in stationary applications, where you could just run the machine on the electricity for no engine loss, so that
limits hydrogen to being a method of power transfer, putting it in competition with gas and batteries.
Eventually gas will become too expensive, and hydrogen's energy density should be able to beat out batteries, but we'll probably be using it in
hydrogen fuel cells, and not in crudely modified reciprocating piston engine cars (or unmodified wankel rotary engine'd cars), simply because of the
issue of efficiency.
Also: the method of using aluminum and barium to split water is neat, but it's really only suitable as a very portable hydrogen source. The overall
process is much less efficient than electrolysis. (because you have to electrolysyze the aluminum oxide to get useful aluminum back)
EDIT: O snap!
Apparently Honda has a production fuel cell car that they'll lease you if you live in the Santa Monica area. Range is 274 miles, top speed of 100
mph. Looks kind of like the prius.
It's probably just to test the market feasability of such a product, and they'll probably recall them when the three year lease is up, so they
don't have to keep making parts, but it doesn't look half bad.
[edit on 11-6-2008 by mdiinican]