Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Tiger_Fodder

Tiger_Fodder

Braintree, MA
June 2007

APR 11, 2009 07:44 AM

I bought my hybrid while Bush was POUS (I can't believe we survived that) and got a tax break for it. Wasn't Bush Rush's wet dream? His mom needs to recall is head for a lack of a brain.

Toku666

Toku666

Columbus, OH
May 2004

APR 11, 2009 02:06 PM

Tiger_Fodder said:
His mom needs to recall is head for a lack of a brain.



Forsooth!

CashOnDelivery

CashOnDelivery

Australia
February 2009

APR 14, 2009 07:18 AM

To all the dummies not buy hybrids or alternate fuel cars... letas wait 2 years when oil goes back up to 150 to maybe even 200 bucks a barrel.

Otoki

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

APR 14, 2009 08:59 AM

Why aren't we hearing more about this?

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

APR 14, 2009 09:32 AM

Otoki said:
Why aren't we hearing more about this?


...holy crap. though the question is, how energy-efficient is the electrolysis process?

Otoki

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

APR 14, 2009 09:42 AM

motorfirebox said:

Otoki said:
Why aren't we hearing more about this?


...holy crap. though the question is, how energy-efficient is the electrolysis process?



That's what I said when the video came out. And yet I haven't heard anything about it after that video.

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

APR 14, 2009 10:15 AM

Otoki said:
That's what I said when the video came out. And yet I haven't heard anything about it after that video.



The process is actually really old and inefficient:

William Nicholson was the first to decompose water in this manner in 1800. The energy required to generate the oxyhydrogen always exceeds the energy released by combusting it.



Water fuelled cars usually end up being a hoax that the inventors either won't or come up with required facts and processes to prove how they work

You would need electron deficient Hydrogen in order to make an H-H-O compound and that is on the very rare side.. Hydrogen really, really doesn't like bonding to Hydrogen, in so much it will never do it. (Maybe, in some very rare cases). Dennis Klein will not release any detailed information about his process and just wants the government to buy it without question.

I think what you have there is an elaborate hoax.

Think of it this way.

You have this long ass chain of hydrocarbons that we call gasoline. We burn the gasoline for power, the only thing left out of that long ass chain of hydrocarbons is H2O and CO2 if combustion is complete. We burned the other hydrocarbons to create energy to run the car.

Now take the HHO Machine. You start with water, you supposedly ignite the water as fuel, but the end result is still water? How can you electrolyze water, burn it for fuel and still end up with water? In order for combustion to occur, you had to destroy something, it didn't happen there. How come he still ends up with water?

Something failed to happen.

gdarklighter

gdarklighter

San Diego, CA
August 2005

APR 14, 2009 10:18 AM

Otoki said:

motorfirebox said:

Otoki said:
Why aren't we hearing more about this?


...holy crap. though the question is, how energy-efficient is the electrolysis process?



That's what I said when the video came out. And yet I haven't heard anything about it after that video.


There are a couple of reasons this is a poor idea. Carrying water as fuel means you need to carry hydrogen and oxygen. Carrying around a bunch of oxygen (which weighs a lot more than the hydrogen), when you're surrounded by air is more than a bit silly. Also, decomposing water onboard a vehicle is probably much less efficient than doing so in a more centralized location where you can take advantage of economies of scale.

Stiles

Stiles

Oakland, CA
November 2002

APR 14, 2009 01:58 PM

Otoki said:
Why aren't we hearing more about this?



Because it's bullshit, and here's why:

Water is very, very stable. It takes lots of energy to break water's strong molecular bonds to get burnable hydrogen/ oxygen gases, much more energy than is generated by burning those gases, thus the process is a net energy consumer, not an energy generator. There is no free lunch or perpetual motion machine.

You can generate small amounts of hydrogen/oxygen gases with automotive electrical power, but not nearly enough to make any significant difference in mileage or performance.

"Water powered car" crooks are straight-up fleecing the gullible and the ignorant.

Popular Mechanics teamed with dateline NBC to test these claims, and they found they were bullshit.

link to Popular Mechanics article 3/2009

A pertinent quote:


One point of interest: A conventional car engine ingests on the high side of 500 liters of air per minute at idle, and a great deal more at highway speed. These generators generally produce a liter or less of HHO per minute. Or roughly 50 liters per hour, of which only two-thirds is hydrogen. At atmospheric pressure, hydrogen has a density of 0.0899 g/liter. One NASA study used 640 grams of hydrogen per hour to sweeten the mixture for its conclusions. I'll leave the homework to you, but, basically, the amount of hydrogen added to the combustion process by onboard hydrogen generators is far smaller than one percent of that used by the studies that hydrogen-enrichment proponents are quoting as "proof" that their gadgets work. Could you make a hydrogen generator that made that much HHO? Sure, but it would be huge, use far more electricity than the onboard generator could possibly produce, and consume most of the power the engine put out—and it would still not improve fuel economy.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next