If Only People Understood and Cared

[Deleted member 61768]

There were many young people over 40 years ago right out of college and some also fresh out of the military that went to work for many of the former "Seven Sisters". The major oil companies that at that time were all making quote "windfall profits" according to the U.S. Government. Some of us educated idiots had a "stupid idea" why not start building the infrastructure now for a inevitable switchover to HYDROGEN as a fuel for the American public. Why? Well it is clean burning; one part hydrogen plus 2 parts oxygen equals H2o otherwise known as water. My oil company built hydrogen fuel cells and fired armor piercing incendiary rounds into them while filming with super-highspeed cameras and found out something amazing. There were no explosions like with gasoline; only a very small flash. So Hydrogen could be used as a non-polluting fuel, it would illuminated the burning deaths gasoline caused, and with the huge profits at the time we could begin building an infrastructure that would allow a smooth switch over to Hydrogen fuel at existing stations. What is not to love? Only the Big Oil companies did not want to do it and National Government could not care less either so here we are 40 years later no further down the path than when I graduated from college and I'm turning 69 years old. How sad and short sighted. If the nation and the research had be intensified we might by now be able to fill your car with distilled water. Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled. No population and fill your tank with distilled water. No oil, no nations holding America over the oil drum, what a different nation we would live in. But greed and self interest rules just like when Tesla wanted to offer free energy to everyone. Why that was crazy when you can charge everyone for what they get.

 

[MarathonMike]

I saw my first hydrogen car demonstration about 25 years ago. The engineer giving the demo fired up the hydrogen fueled engine and some liquid started dripping out of the exhaust pipe. He reached down with a glass, let it fill for a bit and then he drank it! I was floored. Why are we not using this as fuel?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If the nation and the research had be intensified we might by now be able to fill your car with distilled water. Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled.

The ignorance in this post is unbelievable.

You don't just get energy out of nothing.

To separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to put energy into it. If all the processes involved were 100% efficient, then you could then get exactly that same amount of energy back by burning the hydrogen with the oxygen. But nothing is 100% efficient, so at every step, you lose some energy.

You've never going to see a car that runs on water, as you describe. Such a car would need to have some other source of energy, to break apart the water, and whatever that source may be, there will be better,more efficient ways to convert that energy into motion than using it to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burning that hydrogen and oxygen.

 

[MarathonMike]

If the nation and the research had be intensified we might by now be able to fill your car with distilled water. Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled.

The ignorance in this post is unbelievable.

You don't just get energy out of nothing.

To separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to put energy into it. If all the processes involved were 100% efficient, then you could then get exactly that same amount of energy back by burning the hydrogen with the oxygen. But nothing is 100% efficient, so at every step, you lose some energy.

You've never going to see a car that runs on water, as you describe. Such a car would need to have some other source of energy, to break apart the water, and whatever that source may be, there will be better,more efficient ways to convert that energy into motion than using it to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burning that hydrogen and oxygen.


View attachment 234024

That was a stretch, but it doesn't detract from the use of Hydrogen as a desirable alternative to fossil fuels. I'm amazed that Liberals who beat the drums constantly about carbon emissions say doodly squat about Hydrogen as a fuel.

 

[MisterBeale]

I saw my first hydrogen car demonstration about 25 years ago. The engineer giving the demo fired up the hydrogen fueled engine and some liquid started dripping out of the exhaust pipe. He reached down with a glass, let it fill for a bit and then he drank it! I was floored. Why are we not using this as fuel?

Reasons. Big important reasons accord with very powerful folks plans.

Remember, fascism is the government working with, favoring and controlling industry. If folks tell you that it doesn't exist in the US, Britain of other Western nations, they are lying to you.

"Fascist regimes generally came into existence in times of crisis, when economic elites, landowners and business owners feared that a revolution or uprising was imminent.[9] Fascists allied themselves with the economic elites, promising to protect their social status and to suppress any potential working class revolution.[10] In exchange, the elites were asked to subordinate their interests to a broader nationalist project, thus fascist economic policies generally protect inequality and privilege while also featuring an important role for state intervention in the economy.[11] Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[12] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists),[13][14] while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists)."
Economics of fascism - Wikipedia

Corporate interests do everything they can to destroy competition. They have governments pass laws, and the corporate structure buys up patents to make innovation impossible.

In the end? It all boils down to greed and power.


Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries - Wikipedia

 

[MisterBeale]

If the nation and the research had be intensified we might by now be able to fill your car with distilled water. Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled.

The ignorance in this post is unbelievable.

You don't just get energy out of nothing.

To separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to put energy into it. If all the processes involved were 100% efficient, then you could then get exactly that same amount of energy back by burning the hydrogen with the oxygen. But nothing is 100% efficient, so at every step, you lose some energy.

You've never going to see a car that runs on water, as you describe. Such a car would need to have some other source of energy, to break apart the water, and whatever that source may be, there will be better,more efficient ways to convert that energy into motion than using it to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burning that hydrogen and oxygen.


View attachment 234024

Just as feasible as electric cars.

"The truth is, electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell cars both have the potential to be wonderfully non-polluting forms of transportation, but to make them truly green we'll need to move away from methods of producing electricity that burn fossil fuels. Instead of burning coal to generate electricity, we'll need to concentrate on environmentally clean methods like hydropower, solar power, wind power and nuclear power, which produce little or no polluting emissions. When the day comes that most of our electricity comes from these sources, the electric car and the hydrogen fuel cell car will both be nearly perfect forms of green, non-polluting transportation."
Electric Cars vs. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars

Why does one industry get support and not the other?

GOVERNMENT.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That was a stretch, but it doesn't detract from the use of Hydrogen as a desirable alternative to fossil fuels. I'm amazed that Liberals who beat the drums constantly about carbon emissions say doodly squat about Hydrogen as a fuel.

There are some serious impediments to the use of hydrogen as a general fuel. But the OP was so far removed from actual science that it doesn't even get to the use of hydrogen around those impediments. What Paparock was describing, in effect, was a water-fueled perpetual motion machine, with no awareness nor attempt to account for the need for energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

It takes a lot of activity, effort, energy, and resources to mine and process petroleum. At the end of the process, it's worth it, because the refined petroleum products can be burned to produce far more energy than what it took to obtain them. This is what makes petroleum, and other fossil fuels, so valuable.

There is no way to obtain hydrogen, that doesn't involve putting more energy into obtaining it, than what you can get back out by burning it. The easiest way to obtain hydrogen is by electrolysis of water. Run an electric current through water, and it breaks apart into hydrogen and oxygen. Yes, you can then burn that hydrogen in an internal-combustion engine, or a fuel cell, but the amount of usable energy that you get back that way will be less than what you put into electrolyzing water to obtain it. Much better to just use that electrical power to power a conventional electric motor.

Hydrogen is also very difficult and dangerous to store in any amount. The Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon were powered by hydrogen. The hydrogen had to be kept extremely cold, to liquify it, and loaded into the rocket just before launch. If the launch had been delayed by very much, it would have been impossible to keep the hydrogen liquified and contained in the rocket.

 

[MisterBeale]

That was a stretch, but it doesn't detract from the use of Hydrogen as a desirable alternative to fossil fuels. I'm amazed that Liberals who beat the drums constantly about carbon emissions say doodly squat about Hydrogen as a fuel.

There are some serious impediments to the use of hydrogen as a general fuel. But the OP was so far removed from actual science that it doesn't even get to the use of hydrogen around those impediments. What Paparock was describing, in effect, was a water-fueled perpetual motion machine, with no awareness nor attempt to account for the need for energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

It takes a lot of activity, effort, energy, and resources to mine and process petroleum. At the end of the process, it's worth it, because the refined petroleum products can be burned to produce far more energy than what it took to obtain them. This is what makes petroleum, and other fossil fuels, so valuable.

There is no way to obtain hydrogen, that doesn't involve putting more energy into obtaining it, than what you can get back out by burning it. The easiest way to obtain hydrogen is by electrolysis of water. Run an electric current through water, and it breaks apart into hydrogen and oxygen. Yes, you can then burn that hydrogen in an internal-combustion engine, or a fuel cell, but the amount of usable energy that you get back that way will be less than what you put into electrolyzing water to obtain it. Much better to just use that electrical power to power a conventional electric motor.

Hydrogen is also very difficult and dangerous to store in any amount. The Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon were powered by hydrogen. The hydrogen had to be kept extremely cold, to liquify it, and loaded into the rocket just before launch. If the launch had been delayed by very much, it would have been impossible to keep the hydrogen liquified and contained in the rocket.

Most of your post I agree with, however, from what I have read, the tech for storage is every bit as safe as your common gas tank.

 

[MisterBeale]

I don't have any data on what is more efficient, the fuel cell or the electric battery. Neither comes close to efficiency that the internal combustion engine as far as fuel extraction and usage goes.

 

[MisterBeale]

But if the left gets their way and dissolves ICE, we will have a new option for transportation.

We can mass produce these for the illegals. No pollution or energy use!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just as feasible as electric cars.

"The truth is, electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell cars both have the potential to be wonderfully non-polluting forms of transportation, but to make them truly green we'll need to move away from methods of producing electricity that burn fossil fuels. Instead of burning coal to generate electricity, we'll need to concentrate on environmentally clean methods like hydropower, solar power, wind power and nuclear power, which produce little or no polluting emissions. When the day comes that most of our electricity comes from these sources, the electric car and the hydrogen fuel cell car will both be nearly perfect forms of green, non-polluting transportation."
Electric Cars vs. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars

Why does one industry get support and not the other?

GOVERNMENT.

Electric cars, I can see as having a future, if we can overcome some serious limits to current battery technology. That's really the only thing holding them back. As it now stands, we do not have any battery technology that comes anywhere close to storing the same amount of energy in a given weight or volume as what can be stored in a comparable weight and volume of gasoline or other fuel to be burned in an internal combustion engine; nor do we have any technology that allows batteries to withstand being charged at a rate that is anywhere close to comparable to the rate of pumping gasoline into a conventional car. I do not know if it will happen in my lifetime,but if we ever do overcome these limitations on battery technology, I expect that internal-combustion-engined cars will very quickly become obsolete.

Hydrogen,on the other hand, I doubt if it will ever be practical as a general-purpose fuel. As I said before, there is no way at this time, nor do I think there ever will be, to obtain hydrogen, that does not require expending more energy to do so than what you can get back by burning it. I also do not see any realistic prospect of any time soon overcoming the serious difficulties and dangers in storing it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Most of your post I agree with, however, from what I have read, the tech for storage [of hydrogen] is every bit as safe as your common gas tank.

Gasoline can be stored in liquid form, at room temperature, at standard atmospheric pressure. Propane is a gas at standard temperature and pressure, but it doesn't take very much pressure to liquify it.

To store hydrogen in liquid form, requires extreme pressure or extreme cold, or both, far beyond what can safely be done aboard an automobile.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't have any data on what is more efficient, the fuel cell or the electric battery. Neither comes close to efficiency that the internal combustion engine as far as fuel extraction and usage goes.

Actually, internal combustion engines are horrendously inefficient, compared to modern electric motors. Only about a third of the energy that they release by burning fuel comes out the crankshaft in usable form. The rest is just wasted as heat and vibration. In fact, most internal combustion engines have a cooling system to remove excess heat. That's wasted energy, that has to be disposed of in order to keep the engine from destroying itself.

Where internal engines get their advantage is that they are able to run on fuels that are easily obtained, relatively inexpensive, and which have a far greater energy density than any current battery technology.

 

[MisterBeale]

US3980053A - Fuel supply apparatus for internal combustion engines - Google Patents

 

[MisterBeale]

US1380183A - Gas-generator - Google Patents

 

[MisterBeale]

Fuel from Water - KeelyNet 01/09/02

 

[flacaltenn]

Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled. No population and fill your tank with distilled water.

I was cheering you UNTIL we reached that paragraph above..

It takes a LOT of energy to separate hydrogen from water. Slightly less to cleanly separate it from light hydrocarbons. So the VEHICLE is not likely to be the place to do the fuel production. I've seen reasonable designs for HOME hydrogen production. They are compact and would fit on a garage wall. But if powered from the grid -- it solves very little. If powered from daytime solar -- it doubles the price.

The fuel cells required for hydrogen cars are pricey, but compare well with high mileage battery cars. So adding the fuel production in would just put it out of reasonable economy.

BUT -- here's a remarkably GREAT application for wind and solar. Wind and solar on the grid are too entirely flaky and unreliable to be alternatives for large scale grid generation.. But using OFF GRID wind and solar at the site of Hydrogen production plants is an ELEGANT engineering use. Because the fuel is STORED, the fact that the "sun don't shine and the wind don't blow" is NOT a problem. It really then becomes "almost free".

Who wouldn't go into large scale hydrogen production with an "almost free" source of energy?

All 3 South Korean car companies have virtually dropped battery cars in favor of hydrogen fuel cell designs. There is a fairly extensive "Hydrogen Hiway" already started in Europe. By 2025, if the dreams come true, hydrogen fueled electric vehicles will surpass production of battery vehicles. And with a LOT of enviro advantages over grid charged batteries, their toxic waste stream and the "dirtyness" of the power that they are charged from. No major need for a 40% increase in electrical grid capacity to support electric cars. The list of enviro and economic wins is very long.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why does one industry get support and not the other?

That's the $Bill question. With the government picking winners and losers, you get a lot more losers. And then there is the collusion factor (see every company Elon Musk owns that lives off govt teats) --- and the exclusion factor when the govt picks ONE DESIGN and makes it so cheap with subsidies that other BETTER ideas just die.

Shouldn't be govt funding ANY mature technologies that you can buy on the open market. Only BASIC and targeted research open to ALL ideas and concepts.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

If the nation and the research had be intensified we might by now be able to fill your car with distilled water. Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled.

The ignorance in this post is unbelievable.

You don't just get energy out of nothing.

To separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to put energy into it. If all the processes involved were 100% efficient, then you could then get exactly that same amount of energy back by burning the hydrogen with the oxygen. But nothing is 100% efficient, so at every step, you lose some energy.

You've never going to see a car that runs on water, as you describe. Such a car would need to have some other source of energy, to break apart the water, and whatever that source may be, there will be better,more efficient ways to convert that energy into motion than using it to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burning that hydrogen and oxygen.


View attachment 234024

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance as you obviously were unable to read and understand my post. I am truly sorry the education system failed you.

 

[Lewdog]

Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled. No population and fill your tank with distilled water.

I was cheering you UNTIL we reached that paragraph above..

It takes a LOT of energy to separate hydrogen from water. Slightly less to cleanly separate it from light hydrocarbons. So the VEHICLE is not likely to be the place to do the fuel production. I've seen reasonable designs for HOME hydrogen production. They are compact and would fit on a garage wall. But if powered from the grid -- it solves very little. If powered from daytime solar -- it doubles the price.

The fuel cells required for hydrogen cars are pricey, but compare well with high mileage battery cars. So adding the fuel production in would just put it out of reasonable economy.

BUT -- here's a remarkably GREAT application for wind and solar. Wind and solar on the grid are too entirely flaky and unreliable to be alternatives for large scale grid generation.. But using OFF GRID wind and solar at the site of Hydrogen production plants is an ELEGANT engineering use. Because the fuel is STORED, the fact that the "sun don't shine and the wind don't blow" is NOT a problem. It really then becomes "almost free".

Who wouldn't go into large scale hydrogen production with an "almost free" source of energy?

All 3 South Korean car companies have virtually dropped battery cars in favor of hydrogen fuel cell designs. There is a fairly extensive "Hydrogen Hiway" already started in Europe. By 2025, if the dreams come true, hydrogen fueled electric vehicles will surpass production of battery vehicles. And with a LOT of enviro advantages over grid charged batteries, their toxic waste stream and the "dirtyness" of the power that they are charged from. No major need for a 40% increase in electrical grid capacity to support electric cars. The list of enviro and economic wins is very long.

NASA wants to create fuel on the moon to help get to Mars.

“You take the ice, you melt it into water, then you crack it into hydrogen and oxygen, and that represents life support from an oxygen perspective. You can breathe it. It also represents propulsion and power,” Bridenstine said.

“Hydrogen and oxygen, that’s the same fuel that powered the space shuttle. And that gives us opportunities to ultimately create power sources and propulsion on the surface of other worlds.”

NASA Wants Space Fuel Station Around Moon