Denny Klein - Fuel from Water - Is this a scam?

[Lynx2174]

hA, hA i LIVE IN N.J. THATS WHY.!!!

I think this explains a lot.


(I'm just joking, New Jersey. Please don't kill me.)


Honestly though, what makes this particular instance of some guy claming to have invented a radical new energy technology different from all the thousands of other times somebody has claimed to have invented a radical new energy technology? Nothing's ever come of it. They've been at it for hundreds of years.

This is one subject where it's a fair certainty that it's impossible. Faster than light travel? Perhaps if causality is wrong. True AI? Plausable, though certainly not quite yet.

But having a system that outputs more energy than is put into it is about as likey as gravity suddenly reversing itself on a whim.

The oil companies make money because PEOPLE WANT WHAT THEY'RE SELLING. People existed before petroleum was refined. For many thousands of years. It's not essential to human life. It is, of course, essential to our lifestyle as we know it, and for supporting a population as large as we have now, but it's not like they control the air we breathe. If you want to free yourself from the clutches of the oil industry, USE LESS PRODUCTS PRODUCED USING IT. The fact of the matter is that they found a profitable product to sell, and invested billions of dollars in the ability to manufacture desired goods from it, and now reap billions of dollars of profit. The best you can really hope for is the government uses antitrust laws to ensure no one company gains a monopoly on the market.

It doesn't make sense to want a car, but complain that people are making money off of the fuel you use for it. A car is not an essential part of being a human being. It is a luxury, though sadly, in many cases, a necessary one. The fact that much of america is structured around everyone owning cars isn't the fault of the oil companies. it's easily just as much the fault of people who wanted less expensive housing even if it means commuting. You may as well complain about oil companies having made oil so cheap in the past that it screws us over now that it's more expensive.

It's not that I'm opposed to the idea of free energy, it's just that after thousands of scams, I expect anyone who's actually invented such a thing to shut the heck up and begin production. Come back and talk about something like this when it's seen application in some sector. I honestly doubt the army has anything to do with it, but if you've got a source, feel free to prove me wrong. After all, the navy does like to play around with interesting fusion toys like the fusor. On the other hand, most of those Actually do involve some nuclear fusion, just not enough to come anywhere near breaking even.




No, that isn't true at all.


Yes, it is. It's extremely difficult to obtain monatomic hydrogen for exactly this reason. The stuff spontaneously combines, explosively so.


Yes, and on the Shuttle, both the H2 and O2 is preburned, to sperate the molecules before they go to the engines.


Don't know where you would have heard that. Preburners exist to run the turbine that powers the fuel pumps, while still allowing that mixture to be burned in the main engine, as opposed to using a gas generator. It heats the fuel mixture too, which is a nice side benefit. Preburners are certainly not to seperate the diatomic gas molecules. They mix a small amount of one propellant with a large amount of the other and burn that mixture. very little (relative to how much the engine goes through) of the fuel is preburned, because the fuel pumps simply don't need all that much power compared to the overall fuel consumption of the rocket engine.

[shadron]

Actually, it has tanks of liquid H2 and O2, as the single atoms are unstable and spontaneously join into pairs, releasing a small amount of energy.

No, that isn't true at all.

In fact, that same small amount of the energy has to be supplied to split the pairs before they can combust.

Yes, and on the Shuttle, both the H2 and O2 is preburned, to sperate the molecules before they go to the engines.

Oh, jeees. Robinson, how can the first statement be false and the second true? I'm sure we all know by heart the Laws of Thermodynamics, right? #1 says if you put in the energy in one direction, you get it back in the reverse. Gotta, gotta, gotta. I did mean that given a quantity of monatomic H it will combine into H2 and release a small amount of energy; same for O. Actually, you'll never see the monatomics; their combination happens within the reaction that creates them, such as hydrolysis.

As for preburn, NASA says this:

The SSME utilizes a two stage combustion process. In the first stage, called pre-burn, about 80 percent of the hydrogen flow and 11 percent of the oxygen flow are injected into two preburners to be preburned at an extremely fuel-rich mixture of LOX (liquid oxygen) and LH (liquid hydrogen). The resulting two hydrogen-rich gas streams first drive their respective high-pressure turbopumps and then merge to be injected into the Main Combustion Chamber (MCC), along with the coolant fuel and the remaining oxygen. Second (or final) stage combustion occurs in the MCC at a carefully controlled mixture ratio. (http://www.kenneyok.net/scott/usaf/florida/ksc5.htm)

As far as I can tell from that, the purpose isn't to break down that diatoms, but rather to drive the turbopumps; that's why there are two pre-burners, because there are two turbopumps. It's burning a very hydrogen rich mixture, and no doubt some of the diatoms are broken up, but that's not the point of the pre-burn. (I see this on-the-fly Google analysis repeats what a couple of others said above - I'm gratified.)

[XYNG]

I enjoy reading everyones opinions NEGITIVE and or POSITIVE about any new possible type Hydrogen Generator Technology.
Everyone that has responded to my posts ,say It's impossible or just another scam.

But Just sit back for one second, then think??, HUMM! Could this Inventor really find something that really could??, Revolutionize the Energy Industry.?? COULD HE ???

If we all thought like some here do, Man would still be trying to invent the Wheel.
In Fact just 90-to 100 years ago or so , everyone posting here if??, where alive at that time and old enough to understand about Science etc, any bets ( ALL ) of you would of said NO way in the World can a Man ever learn to even FLY. NO WAY!!, True or not?.
So lets give that Inventor a fighting chance.

(1) He either will make a total fool out of himself, and Be laughed back, where ever he came from.

(2) Or his claims about his Invention about this Hydrogen Generator as well as now , also a cooling refrigeration Invention, just might be what the US as well as the World, for that matter, has been waiting for, and IF I find out this guy is nothing but a Scam artist, I will be more then happy to post it here as well.

but for now!! , No one, NOT ME!!, not anyone Here truelly knows for sure 100% that this is all just a Fraud., so just sit back from the sidelines and wait it all out, and just watch and see, what if??, anything truly develops.

Just also Keep in mind , This Message board forum was made to discuss possible and all possible, I said possible??, Breakthroughs in Science & Technology, true,??

[XYNG]

It seems you know it all, and no one else can post anything other then what you know, or think you know about hydrogen Generators or the like for that matter. Amuseing you are not.!! But I do enjoy opinions NEGITIVE and or POSITIVE about any new possible type Hydrogen Generator Technology etc.

Everyone that has responded to my posts ,say It's impossible or just another scam.

But Just sit back for one second, then think??, HUMM! Could this Inventor really find something that really could??, Revolutionize the Energy Industry.?? COULD HE ??? NOT DID HE.??

If we all thought like some here do, Man would still be trying to invent the Wheel.
In Fact just 90-to 100 years ago or so , everyone posting here if??, where alive at that time and old enough to understand about Science etc, any bets ( ALL ) of you here would of said NO way in the World can a Man ever learn to even FLY. NO WAY!!, True or not?.
So lets give that Inventor a fighting chance.

(1) He either will make a total fool out of himself, and Be laughed back, where ever he came from.

(2) Or his claims about his Invention about this Hydrogen Generator as well as now , also a cooling refrigeration Invention, just might be what the US as well as the World, for that matter, has been waiting for, and IF I find out this guy is nothing but a Scam artist, I will be more then happy to post it here as well.

but for now!! , No one, NOT ME!!, not anyone Here trully knows for sure 100% that this is all just a Fraud., so just sit back from the sidelines and wait it all out, and just watch and see, what if??, anything truly develops.

Just also Keep in mind , This Message board forum was made to discuss possible and all possible, I said possible??, Breakthroughs in Science & Technology, true,??
Not being closed minded with a no way, no how attitude's, like some of you here seem to have. IMO

[~enigma~]

It seems you know it all, and no one else can post anything other then what you know, or think you know about hydrogen Generators or the like for that matter. Amuseing you are not.!! But I do enjoy opinions NEGITIVE and or POSITIVE about any new possible type Hydrogen Generator Technology etc.

Everyone that has responded to my posts ,say It's impossible or just another scam.

But Just sit back for one second, then think??, HUMM! Could this Inventor really find something that really could??, Revolutionize the Energy Industry.?? COULD HE ??? NOT DID HE.??

If we all thought like some here do, Man would still be trying to invent the Wheel.
In Fact just 90-to 100 years ago or so , everyone posting here if??, where alive at that time and old enough to understand about Science etc, any bets ( ALL ) of you here would of said NO way in the World can a Man ever learn to even FLY. NO WAY!!, True or not?.
So lets give that Inventor a fighting chance.

(1) He either will make a total fool out of himself, and Be laughed back, where ever he came from.

(2) Or his claims about his Invention about this Hydrogen Generator as well as now , also a cooling refrigeration Invention, just might be what the US as well as the World, for that matter, has been waiting for, and IF I find out this guy is nothing but a Scam artist, I will be more then happy to post it here as well.

but for now!! , No one, NOT ME!!, not anyone Here trully knows for sure 100% that this is all just a Fraud., so just sit back from the sidelines and wait it all out, and just watch and see, what if??, anything truly develops.

Just also Keep in mind , This Message board forum was made to discuss possible and all possible, I said possible??, Breakthroughs in Science & Technology, true,??
Not being closed minded with a no way, no how attitude's, like some of you here seem to have. IMO
How is this bypassing the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

[XYNG]

You have your opinions, I as well as many others here, have theirs, I just bring to this form possible Hydrogen Generator Breakthroughs, and all at once you all say is it's totally Impossible, and will never work, or even happen.

Maybe, just maybe you are right.?? But how about the other possibility ??, and that is that inventor is correct and did in fact invent a New state of the art Hygrogen Generator that can be used to run cars with,?? Run a home with,?? or even use it to COOL your home with and that is all 100% Economical as well as Energy Efficient to use as well.

Again, lets just sit back and wait and see if?????
What this Inventor comes to past as True or not.

You, the Moderator of this form or ME do not have that power or Authority to truly say to this Message board that it is totally impossible and will never, ever work. True??

[~enigma~]

You have your opinions, I as well as many others here, have theirs, I just bring to this form possible Hydrogen Generator Breakthroughs, and all at once you all say is it's totally Impossible, and will never work, or even happen.Wasn't an opinion but a question. Although it appears that you feel it was an attack.
You, the Moderator of this form or ME do not have that power or Authority to truly say to this Message board that it is totally impossible and will never, ever work. True??
False.

[davefoc]

XYNG,
Who is this inventor that you are talking about?

Apparently, xynergy purchased the intellectual property from somebody who claimed to have developed some kind of hydrogen generator technology. But they do not name that inventor. Do you know who he is?

There are many people claiming breakthrough technology relevant to the use of hydrogen in energy production. Do you have a particular person or group in mind?

[XYNG]

Does it sound to good to be true you ask me. ???

Yes it surely does, but then again years ago they said Thomas Edison's Light bulb. was to good to be true as well.

also the Wright brothers Flying Plane was tooo good to be true.

And i can go on, and on, with Inventors, that stepped up to the plate for the very first time in history to help make this world a better place to live.

So just sit back and lets see if?? that Inventor will come through, if ??, he does, you know as well as i do, this will surly have the potential to make a BIG Difference in our high Oil & Gas bills thats for sure. but thanks for your reponse to my opinions etc. I also enjoy reading yours., as well.

[XYNG]

Thnaks Arthwollipot for your opinions & response to my posts as well.

Like I have said, IF?? that inventor can come to bat and show the world, he can do as all those as of now 5-Official Press releases says he will.

Then and only then will you or I or any Moderator of this Message board really know if?? it can and in fact does work.??

lets give the guy at least a fighting chance to prove to you and me he can, and in fact will put up, or shut up as they say.

I do not like to read any BS , no matter if it has to do with SCIENCE & Ttecnolology, or even BS Politician's thatwe hear every day on TV that Promise to change the world if?? they get elected etc, now you know what I'm getting out.

But again, if you do not give that person a chance at least and or/ in this case that Inventor can you or I really know for sure we where right not to allow that person to at least try and do as he or she promises to do.??
But thanks for your response, I enjoy reading the Negatives as well as possible positives ,about any subject.

[Psiload]

Does it sound to good to be true you ask me. ???

Yes it surely does, but then again years ago they said Thomas Edison's Light bulb. was to good to be true as well.

also the Wright brothers Flying Plane was tooo good to be true.

And i can go on, and on, with Inventors, that stepped up to the plate for the very first time in history to help make this world a better place to live.

So just sit back and lets see if?? that Inventor will come through, if ??, he does, you know as well as i do, this will surly have the potential to make a BIG Difference in our high Oil & Gas bills thats for sure. but thanks for your reponse to my opinions etc. I also enjoy reading yours., as well.

How many light bulbs did Thomas Edison sell before he invented the light bulb? How many flying machines did the Wright brothers sell before they made their historic flight at Kitty Hawk?

http://xynergyusa.com/investorrelations.html

Investor Relations

For more information regarding Xynergy Corporation please e-mail us at:

info@xynergyusa.com

and...

http://hytechapps.com/get_aquygen

Purchase

The H2O 1500 Aquygen™ Gas Generator can be purchased for $6995. Please fill in the form below, and we will contact you directly to complete your order. We accept cash, check, Visa, MasterCard, and wire transfer.

Catch my drift?

[~enigma~]

Thnaks Arthwollipot for your opinions & response to my posts as well.

Like I have said, IF?? that inventor can come to bat and show the world, he can do as all those as of now 5-Official Press releases says he will.

Then and only then will you or I or any Moderator of this Message board really know if?? it can and in fact does work.??

lets give the guy at least a fighting chance to prove to you and me he can, and in fact will put up, or shut up as they say.

I do not like to read any BS , no matter if it has to do with SCIENCE & Ttecnolology, or even BS Politician's thatwe hear every day on TV that Promise to change the world if?? they get elected etc, now you know what I'm getting out.

But again, if you do not give that person a chance at least and or/ in this case that Inventor can you or I really know for sure we where right not to allow that person to at least try and do as he or she promises to do.??
But thanks for your response, I enjoy reading the Negatives as well as possible positives ,about any subject.
Why are you avoiding the question. How does this "invention" bypass the second law of thermodynamics. And if you think nobody has the ability to say if something violates the laws of thermodynamics you have a serious mental problem that can be treated by a competent psychiatrist.

[davefoc]

XYNG,
I'll try once more and then give up.

Are you talking about Klein? Are you talking about xynergy? Is it just a coincidence that your screen name is the same as the stock symbol for Xynergy (http://xynergyusa.com/index.html).

Are you talking about one or all of the other individuals and groups making similar claims about hydrogen generators? Which inventions in particular are you referring to. Klein, like several other similar groups, makes claims for three kinds of devices, welders, hydrogen injection for internal combustion engines and hydrolysis devices that are alleged to produce more energy from the hydrogen than the energy required to produce the hydrogen via hydrolysis. Are you referring to all three of these kind of devices in your posts?

[Hindmost]

Does it sound to good to be true you ask me. ???

Yes it surely does, but then again years ago they said Thomas Edison's Light bulb. was to good to be true as well.

also the Wright brothers Flying Plane was tooo good to be true.

And i can go on, and on, with Inventors, that stepped up to the plate for the very first time in history to help make this world a better place to live.

So just sit back and lets see if?? that Inventor will come through, if ??, he does, you know as well as i do, this will surly have the potential to make a BIG Difference in our high Oil & Gas bills thats for sure. but thanks for your reponse to my opinions etc. I also enjoy reading yours., as well.

XYNG...we are not giving you "opinions" here. The Wright brothers and Edision didn't violate any laws of thermodynamics. The first and second laws are something you can't get around. If there was a source of hydrogen on earth that was not combined with any other elements, then hydrogen burning devices would already be common. There just isn't any free hydrogen around the planet. Most hydrogen produced today is made from stripping it out of methane...and energy is lost--there is more energy in the methane than you can get out of burning the hydrogen.

Since hydrogen is combined with water in this case, it will take more energy to split the hydrogen out than you can get back when the hydrogen is burned. There is no opinion here...just thermodynamics that has been true since the begining of time...

glenn

[XYNG]

Davefoc, I must 100% agree with most of what you said about XYNG, and the Lack of really Good solid finanical information , I also wonder where will even they get the many Millions of dollars, to even try and start to build a Operational prototype, of this so called hydrogen generator to show it to the world by this summer.???

But I did not find this Jreff Message Form; about Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology, to try and Spam this stock, then Pump and Dump it, I do not need Jeff's Form about new Technology's to do that., i can very easy do that on Yahoo, and many other Penny stock message boards., that actually specialize in doing just that, but not here, at Jeffs, thats for sure.

I came here to Jeff's ,to really ask questions and to find out for sure IF?????, ( 1 ) Did any one here ever hear of such a Hudrogen Generator type Invention, ??? and (2) most important does it really, honestly , and truely work, and can it really do as that company seems to claim , in all their Official press releases, such as Quote: this generator is fueled by water and has been proven to power small businesses, including restaurants located in South Florida. Use of the generator in retail applications reduces energy consumption by an astounding 70%. The company intends on creating a retail prototype by end of summer '08 wherein it can demonstrate the prowess of its revolutionary new technology.

The deal culminates several months of talks and negotiations with the inventor, a well-esteemed engineer who has several patents and designs on many appliances and power supply units that are powered by alternative energy. It was earlier announced that the deal involving the hydrogen generator would be strictly an exclusive marketing agreement, but the company wanted more. The deal goes into effect immediately ,

Since I never in my life ever heard of such a Hydrogen Generator, I needed to find a web site that just might be able to help me understand, how this new to me at least , hydrogen Technology, and how it might work, and just as important is it, or could it really be that Economical Energy Efficient, to really be able to sell it one day to the World, and in so doing Help to Revolutionize the Oil & Gas Energy Industry as we all now know it to be.

This is the only real reason I came here, and if you read back to all my past posts, you can see for yourself ,my Questions & Search for the truth,. Bottomline is., I'm looking for the total truth about this type Hydrogen Technology., and is it all just another Scam, I'm very happy i found this form, and no matter what happens with this company, I did learn a lot about This Technology and it's possible future potential, IF?? Successful in building a actually running prototype, just for starters of course.

[~enigma~]

emotional bs snipped
And I will ask again how does this bypass the second law of thermodynamics?

[XYNG]

Hello Hindmost, again this is why I came to this message board to try and get some true answer's to all of my HONEST Questions about this Hydrogen Generator technology, i'm not a Physics, or the like, just a common Laymen, so the only way I can even try and get good solid information about this Hydrogen Technology is through Message boards like Jeffs.
Now getting back to you saying, I seem to not fully understand the laws of Thermodynamics that can not ever be changed or rearranged in such a way to actually work in a much more Economical as well as Energy Efficient manner to say run a car with, just for one example.
Well according to what I have personally seen for myself, like the following film by General Motors, showing a True Hydrogen Generator fully now operating automobile, I think I will beleive more in Multi-Billion Dollar General Motor's, more then your Honest but personal opinion that you tell me such a hydrogen car does not work, and can NEVER work Efficiently do to as you say it goes against the laws of Thermodynamics.
See for yourself if General Motors Hydrogen Car is just a Scam to make a quick dollar with, and not truely a Car that has the potential to change the Oil & Gas Industry.
I can see XYNG trying to Scam the Public, but NEVER, ERVER Billion Dollar General Motors, there Honorable Name and reputation. But thansk for your input, now View the following General Motors Hydrogen car Video, and tell me this is also just another penny stock get rich quick scam. Thanks!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBMYqtFkKRY

[Fronzel]

But thansk for your input, now View the following General Motors Hydrogen car Video, and tell me this is also just another penny stock get rich quick scam. Thanks!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBMYqtFkKRY

That runs on hydrogen fuel cells. Those work this way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell). They use them on the space shuttles I believe. You can buy little toy cars that use fuel cells.

[XYNG]

Hello again DAVEFOC; you asked me the following ,Are you talking about Klein? Are you talking about xynergyuestion .??
I'm talking about whoever is the actual inventor of the Hydrogen Generator, as well as Cooling & refrigeration Invention that XYNG talks about in all their just released Press releases.

I already sent a Letter to XYNG Headquarters in Florida, asking them could you please tell me the name of this Inventor, and I also would very much like to know if???, this Inventor actuall owns all 100% US Patent & Royalty rights to all these Hydrogen Inventions of his, IF?? They ever send me a honest response, I will be more then happy to post it here for all to read for themselves, just who is this Mystery Inventor really is.
So I soory to say can not answer your honest question, at least at this time, I for one want to know it more then you do, I can assure you.

The following press release is all I know about him , at least as of this PR at , this is what it says; QUOTE:

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080205/0357821.html


The deal culminates several months of talks and negotiations with the inventor, a well-esteemed engineer( who has several patents ) and designs on many appliances and power supply units that are powered by alternative energy. It was earlier announced that the deal involving the hydrogen generator would be strictly an exclusive marketing agreement, but the company wanted more. The deal goes into effect immediately.

ABOUT XYNERGY CORPORATION

The company is engaged in the development and investment of alternative energy technology and the identification, marketing and utilization of applications for such technologies. The company has identified several business sectors that these technologies can serve, including restaurants, commercial bakeries, gas stations, and all small businesses, as well as gas engines for automobiles and boats. This technology has the potential to revolutionize the energy industry because it is believed that this technology, which uses water as a power source, is the only one in the world that can turn hydrogen into real power in a cost efficient manner, making it truly an alternative energy solution. The company recently announced that it has retained the services of Joseph Emas to file its form 10 for the purposes of becoming a fully reporting 1934 Act company. Preparations for the audit of the company's books and records has begun, and the company hopes to become fully reporting within 120 days.

So Bottomline, I have no real knowledge just who the inventor working with this XYNG might be??, I personally hope it is one of the following, anyone will make me happy,
(1) Stanley Meyer or his estate??, (2) Hue Brown, Brown's gas Fame, or (3) Denny Klein.
Buy again I have no real honest idea who it might be, until XYNG comes out with the name, we are all just left in the dark, and can only wait with faith that whoever it is knows what the hell he is truly doing.
Well thats enough from me, Good Night , and god bless.

[Psiload]

...snip...

Davefoc, I must 100% agree with most of what you said about XYNG, and the Lack of really Good solid finanical information , I also wonder where will even they get the many Millions of dollars, to even try and start to build a Operational prototype, of this so called hydrogen generator to show it to the world by this summer.???

...snip...

Read this press release... slowly:

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=MW&Date=20080110&ID=8019322&Symbol=US:XYNG

Xynergy Corporation Announces Plan to Launch Hydrogen-Powered Restaurants
January 10, 2008 8:45 AM ET

Tentative Target Date For Flagship Restaurant Opening is Mid to Late Summer

"The technology is ready to go, ready to power small business. We are making decisions right now as to where and when we will open our first restaurant.

...and now read this press release:

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080205/0357821.html

Xynergy Corporation Acquires 100% Intellectual Property Rights and Protoypes to Hydrogen Splitting Generator
Tuesday February 5, 2008 5:01 pm ET

The generator is fuelled by water and has been proven to power small businesses, including restaurants located in South Florida. Use of the generator in retail applications reduces energy consumption by an astounding 70%. The company intends on creating a retail prototype by end of summer '08 wherein it can demonstrate the prowess of its revolutionary new technology.

If that doesn't set off warning bells in your head, then your baloney detector is in dire need of a fresh set of batteries.

[TjW]

Read this press release... slowly:

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=MW&Date=20080110&ID=8019322&Symbol=US:XYNG



...and now read this press release:

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080205/0357821.html



If that doesn't set off warning bells in your head, then your baloney detector is in dire need of a fresh set of batteries.

Apparently his baloney detector is pining for the fjords:


<snippage and emphasis by TjW>
So Bottomline, I have no real knowledge just who the inventor working with this XYNG might be??, I personally hope it is one of the following, anyone will make me happy,
(1) Stanley Meyer or his estate??, (2) Hue Brown, Brown's gas Fame, or (3) Denny Klein.
Buy again I have no real honest idea who it might be, until XYNG comes out with the name, we are all just left in the dark, and can only wait with faith that whoever it is knows what the hell he is truly doing.
Well thats enough from me, Good Night , and god bless.

Still, if you're planning on being scammed, I suppose there's something to be said for being scammed by an easily-recognizable name.

[~enigma~]

Anybody have any idea why our little stock symbol is not answering my question? Couldn't have anything to do with him being a full blown woo could it?

[Hindmost]

Hello Hindmost, again this is why I came to this message board to try and get some true answer's to all of my HONEST Questions about this Hydrogen Generator technology, i'm not a Physics, or the like, just a common Laymen, so the only way I can even try and get good solid information about this Hydrogen Technology is through Message boards like Jeffs.
Now getting back to you saying, I seem to not fully understand the laws of Thermodynamics that can not ever be changed or rearranged in such a way to actually work in a much more Economical as well as Energy Efficient manner to say run a car with, just for one example.
Well according to what I have personally seen for myself, like the following film by General Motors, showing a True Hydrogen Generator fully now operating automobile, I think I will beleive more in Multi-Billion Dollar General Motor's, more then your Honest but personal opinion that you tell me such a hydrogen car does not work, and can NEVER work Efficiently do to as you say it goes against the laws of Thermodynamics.
See for yourself if General Motors Hydrogen Car is just a Scam to make a quick dollar with, and not truely a Car that has the potential to change the Oil & Gas Industry.
I can see XYNG trying to Scam the Public, but NEVER, ERVER Billion Dollar General Motors, there Honorable Name and reputation. But thansk for your input, now View the following General Motors Hydrogen car Video, and tell me this is also just another penny stock get rich quick scam. Thanks!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBMYqtFkKRY

I never said a hydrogen car won't work...it works just fine and is quite simple actually...the biggest problems is storing the hydrogen safely. The space shuttle has demonstrated that issue unfortunately.

However, to get hydrogen to run the car, you have to either split water it out of water with electricity or strip it out of methane or from some other hydrocarbon source. The energy you get out of the hydrogen when it is burned in the car is less than what you put in from the electricity to get the hydrogen. If you use methane for the hydrogen, there is more energy in the methane than you would get out of the hydrogen. This is what the laws of thermo guarantee--there are no opinions here. There is no such thing as a free lunch...no such thing as perpetual motion and no such thing as "free" energy.

For the planet to have a hydrogen economy, we would have to generate enough electricity to make the hydrogen from electrolysis of water...using solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear energy would make that feasible...expensive and a lot of engineering to do and a bunch of infrastructure to build.

XYNG will never have a working machine that does what they say it does...just a bunch of promises. General motors isn't claiming free energy or that their car runs on water.

glenn

[tbrdlvr88]

I had completed a long research project by a company I work for on whether the HHO kits and other "fuel saving kits" actually work. I found a post on a really good forums that you might all be interested in. We now have all the information collected and arranged to make it easier to read. Check it out "driveflexfuel.com/scams"
it basically proves scientifically that it is impossible for these kits to work.

[Horatius]

I had completed a long research project by a company I work for on whether the HHO kits and other "fuel saving kits" actually work. I found a post on a really good forums that you might all be interested in. We now have all the information collected and arranged to make it easier to read. Check it out "driveflexfuel.com/scams"
it basically proves scientifically that it is impossible for these kits to work.




So, having shown that these HHO kits are scientifically worthless, I was wondering what you had to say about ethanol as an "alternative fuel". I'm wondering if you're able to focus the same rigour on your own work. (http://www.driveflexfuel.com/what.php)



Ethanol, of course, is nothing new. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15635751/the_ethanol_scam_one_of_americas_biggest_political _boondoggles) American refiners will produce nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by biofuels, mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much larger revolution that could entirely replace our 21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction. Midwest farmers will get rich, the air will be cleaner, the planet will be cooler, and, best of all, we can tell those greedy sheiks to **** off. As the king of ethanol hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about ethanol is good, good, good."

This is not just hype -- it's dangerous, delusional ********. Ethanol doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global warming.

[tbrdlvr88]

lol do you realize that is a definition page simply deigning what E85 is. You must read all pages before commenting on my research. I also see you believe in the world hunger issue as well. Please read this full post.


Yes aprox. 20% of the corn in the US is used for ethanol. However, that is feed grade corn for cattle and animals. The corn that is placed into the ethanol process is not used up. They grind the corn and extract the starch which if you did not know is not the best for animals. When the process is finished you have 3 products, Bottled CO2, Ethanol and HIGH grade feed corn. Currently the US ships over 50% of our corn over seas for the hungry and we are shipping more every year.

Please read the two articles on this page "driveflexfuel.com/news.php". There are two articles on new ethanol production. One on how they are going to be making it out of garbage and bald tires and another on how they are producing it from whey.

If it were not for the use of corn in the first place we would not have funding and new technology that is being created. The American farmer is not getting rich off of corn. Our business is located in Centeral Wisconsin and the price the farmers are getting for their corn is not as high as everyone on the net makes it. The price of corn you are talking about is after it is processed, shipped, caned, packaged and marked up at your local store. The price of corn is currently high due to the price of fuel in the first place. Look at the price of diesel it is now $5 a gallon.


I am not going to get into all the other information I could. I don't wish to turn this whole thread about Ethanol it cuts the entire reason it was started. If you wish for me to start a Ethanol thread I will.

[Horatius]

l
I am not going to get into all the other information I could. I don't wish to turn this whole thread about Ethanol it cuts the entire reason it was started. If you wish for me to start a Ethanol thread I will.



Go for it. Could be fun.

[davefoc]

Go for it. Could be fun.
tbrdlvr88 was right, I think, the issue of ethanol is outside the subject of this thread.

It might be a good idea to start a new ethanol from corn thread or find one that already exists.

[robinson]

I couldn't stand it any longer. Ethanol! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3734908#post3734908)

[soylent]

Not even carbon subnitride(N≡C-C≡C-C≡N) burning in pure oxygen gas reaches that temperature, but it's pretty close.

If wikipedia is to be trusted, a carbon subnitride and ozone flame burns at 5516 K, which is ~9500 °F.

[huntersj78]

As written H-H-O would be a distinct chemical entity from H-O-H, even if their chemical formulae are the same. Only problem is that the H-H-O molecule is unknown. If Denny Klein has isolated this species he will probably be hailed as the inorganic chemist of the century.

First before you try and act like you are so smart and talk out your buttox, the HHO is a coin phrase Denny used to descibe Hybid Hydrogen Oxygen thus HHO. And yes it does work, because I bought the kit and my Starion is getting 97 miles to the gallon.

[davefoc]

First before you try and act like you are so smart and talk out your buttox, the HHO is a coin phrase Denny used to descibe Hybid Hydrogen Oxygen thus HHO. And yes it does work, because I bought the kit and my Starion is getting 97 miles to the gallon.


Is it possible that you could provide some of the following:
1. Details of the installation. How much did it cost? How long did it take to install? Were there any difficulties? Did you do it yourself?, etc.

2. Pictures of the installation.

3. Details about your mileage calculation?

[TheDaver]

I bet $10 he won't provide what you asked for, and $100 that he measured or calculated wrong. Any takers?

[TheDaver]

Oh and $5 that he won't post here under that nym again.

[XBoxWarrior]

Uh........Yeah.........

a scam? LOL

Why 8 pages?

[davefoc]

I wonder where huntersj78 got his kit from. Aquygen, Denny Klein's company, says they don't sell one. From their web site:


Please do not telephone us about the auto system. We anticipate this system in 2009.
http://hytechapps.com/company/contact

[Roadtoad]

First before you try and act like you are so smart and talk out your buttox, the HHO is a coin phrase Denny used to descibe Hybid Hydrogen Oxygen thus HHO. And yes it does work, because I bought the kit and my Starion is getting 97 miles to the gallon.

Uh, Hunt, let me ask you a few questions on this:

1.) What vehicle are you driving? I'm not familiar with the Starion, and Wikipedia isn't much help.

2.) What was your mileage before, and how did you figure it? How many miles a week were you driving, and where? Highway? City? It matters.

3.) How are you calculating your mileage?

4.) What's your performance like with the add-on?

5.) How does it work with your current set-up, and what are the trade-offs? If you're actually getting that kind of mileage, are you also doing damage to your engine and your turbocharger?

6.) What other mods have you made?

7.) Could similar results have come from other modifications?

8.) What other costs have been incurred since you bolted this onto your car? If you have to shell out additional money for additives, lubricants, catalysts, etc., it might not be worth it.

Just a start.

[davefoc]

Oh and $5 that he won't post here under that nym again.

I sent him a private message telling him that there were responses to his post. It was conceivable to me that he didn't get an automatic email notification that there were responses in the thread he posted in. Of course if he didn't get notification of responses in this thread he probably wouldn't get notification of my private message. He didn't list an email address.

On the other hand, the post looked exactly like routine troll behavior and I wouldn't be taking your bet at 10 to 1.

[davefoc]

I just googled huntersj78.

It came up as a screen name in an on-line game (crackle) and as what appears to be an ad for an English instructor in Japan.

I wonder if Loon knows him.

The English teacher in Japan makes sense since according to Wikipedia the Starion was marketed in the US by Chrysler under the name, "Conquest" and under the name Starion in Japan. Hmm, maybe he meant 97 kilometers per gallon. Still that would be extraordinary fuel efficiency. Maybe he meant 97 kilometers per imperial gallon. Now we're talking plausible.

[arthwollipot]

Kilometers per gallon? Isn't that what downed the Mars Polar Lander or something?

The metric system measures fuel consumption in liters per 100km.

[davefoc]

...
The metric system measures fuel consumption in liters per 100km.

I don't think 97 liters to go 100km would be all that fuel efficient for a Starion.:)

[Horatius]

I don't think 97 liters to go 100km would be all that fuel efficient for a Starion.:)



But if he's messed around with his engine enough, it is much more believable!

[huntersj78]

I just googled huntersj78.

It came up as a screen name in an on-line game (crackle) and as what appears to be an ad for an English instructor in Japan.

I wonder if Loon knows him.

The English teacher in Japan makes sense since according to Wikipedia the Starion was marketed in the US by Chrysler under the name, "Conquest" and under the name Starion in Japan. Hmm, maybe he meant 97 kilometers per gallon. Still that would be extraordinary fuel efficiency. Maybe he meant 97 kilometers per imperial gallon. Now we're talking plausible.

First of all I came on this forum to see who else might have bought the kit and found people thinking they are physicists . I got mine from runyourcarwithwater.org. This is where you can buy his kit. It is sold by someone else, but I assure you it is the same kit.

About Crackle. Online game? Moron.

About the Starion, do a better search Jackass. The conquest and Starion are two different cars. Starion is made by Mitsubishi. Same chassis to some effect. Like the Toyota and Lexus. In Japan its all Toyota, but Japanese are weird and now they are importing Lexus, the car they exported as Toyota.

The Starion gets 97 miles/gallon with the conversion. That would be 156 kilometers fyi. Don't be angry because you can't afford the kit. Even if you bought it you would probably post here again saying it didn't work because your DA couldn't put it together.

English teacher? Yes I used to be, but now I am a web designer in Japan. Before you get stupid and post again, I live in Japan. My car is a Starion from the US. I like the steering wheel on the left and in Japan they are hard to find.

Now be a good little boy and stop ******** in your own backyard.

[TheDaver]

Well **** you too, you ****ing ****er. Don't let the door hit your *** on the way out.

[Hindmost]

I think I'm an engineer...and I still think the laws of thermo are valid.

glenn:)

[trvlr2]

Hindmost- I just checked-yes, the thermo laws still apply. And, I don't even think I am an engineer.

[CurtC]

My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead.

[Pantaz]

FYI: Numerous threads on so-called "HHO"/"Hydro Assist"/"Water for Fuel"/etc. are available for discussion at CR4 (http://cr4.globalspec.com/) (engineering forums and blogs). There are a few die hard proponents, but for the most part, the true engineers have repeatedly posted detailed counterpoints.

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

First of all I came on this forum to see who else might have bought the kit and found people thinking they are physicists . blah blah blah etc........

Many of us that post on here are scientists, and yes, some are real physicists.

Why don't you answer the questions that you have been asked? You have made an extraordinary claim and there is nothing wrong with being asked for details.

[davefoc]

FYI: Numerous threads on so-called "HHO"/"Hydro Assist"/"Water for Fuel"/etc. are available for discussion at CR4 (http://cr4.globalspec.com/) (engineering forums and blogs). There are a few die hard proponents, but for the most part, the true engineers have repeatedly posted detailed counterpoints.

I found this thread over at CR4:
http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/18508

Quick summary:
Several posts about the obvious impossibility of getting a net energy gain by electrolyzing water and then burning it.

Some posts that mentioned water injection in ICE although hydrogen injection is only vaguely related to that.

One mention of the idea of using hydrogen injection to reduce emissions or increase efficiency. What looks like the most legitimate work on this idea, the MIT Plamotron was mentioned. I had looked for some information about this before. ArvinMeritor seemed to be developing a product to use hydrogen to reduce emissions and possibly increase efficiency but I couldn't find anything current about their efforts. Here is a link to a 2004 press statement:
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=ARM&script=460&layout=23&item_id=580908

[davefoc]

First of all I came on this forum to see who else might have bought the kit and found people thinking they are physicists . I got mine from runyourcarwithwater.org. This is where you can buy his kit. It is sold by someone else, but I assure you it is the same kit. That site seems to offer a book on how to do the conversion. Did you make your modification based on that book or did you buy a kit?

What was the name of the company that manufactured the kit that you bought?

This site lists many people supplying something similar to hydrogen injection.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Fuel_Efficiency_Hydrogen_Injection

The use of the Klein video may not be an indication that they are associated with Klein. From Klein's site: Purchasing Vehicle System (not available yet)

About Crackle. Online game? Moron.:)
Crackle appears to be a video sharing site. Penn Jillette has some videos over there and I watched a few of them.
http://crackle.com/c/pennsays#id=2177511&ml=o%3D12%26fpl%3D264776%26fx%3D
I'm not sure that not knowing what Crackle was is a sign of moronisity, but maybe in hunter's world.

About the Starion, do a better search Jackass. The conquest and Starion are two different cars. Starion is made by Mitsubishi. Same chassis to some effect. Like the Toyota and Lexus. :)

Huntersj78, is correct about the Starion in that it was marketed in the US. Chrysler marketed a similar car under the name conquest. I'm not so sure about the jackass part but I will concede that a plausible case can be made for that at times.

The Starion gets 97 miles/gallon with the conversion. That would be 156 kilometers fyi. OK, it seems you were serious about your claim. So given that, would you share some of the details with us?

Don't be angry because you can't afford the kit. Even if you bought it you would probably post here again saying it didn't work because your DA couldn't put it together.:) I won't be angry if I can't afford the kit. If I did buy it I would report the results honestly. I didn't understand the reference to DA who couldn't put it together.

[huntersj78]

You guys are cool. Sorry for all the name calling, but you guys are alright. You made me laugh. I have never laughed that hard in a long time. Thanks a million. The way you came back and answered each one of my comments with sincerity and sarcasm was classic.

Do not swear, including in the title of your posts.

[TheDaver]

Alas poor hunter…

[gfunkusarelius]

i almost don't want to post this, out of fear of fanning the flames, but i find that link (runyourcarwithwater.org) looks like a parody. the reference videos posted are all external links to other people's youtube videos. if this was a legitimate company, wouldn't they have their own promotional videos with examples of their product in use and engieneers explaining the technology? this doesn't even rise to the level of a 3am TV informercial.

[arthwollipot]

Well, it does show how much money they have managed to raise that they can't afford their own advertising.

Is this a scam?

Yes.

[robinson]

v=y__YCvFF8iM Meyer's scam revealed.

Interesting. Here is the original clip.

v=YIgOn1kRw5s

I guess if he had a power source to split the water, he could run the car on Hydrogen. But it certainly isn't the primary source of energy.

[arthwollipot]

I guess if he had a power source to split the water, he could run the car on Hydrogen. But it certainly isn't the primary source of energy.Darn that pesky second law of thermodynamics. It costs more energy to split the water than you get from burning the hydrogen.

[robinson]

The only way you win with hydrogen, is to use solar energy to split the water. That works out well.

[arthwollipot]

Not well enough to run a car.

[trvlr2]

The only way you win with hydrogen, is to use solar energy to split the water. That works out well.

Cite some evidence?
Amortizing costs of solar cells/life span, accounting for the lack of H2-O2 reaction energy density?

Or, just don the pinner specs, and it'll all look good..:rolleyes:

[robinson]

It seems to work quite well on the ISS. :)

[arthwollipot]

Solar cells don't split hydrogen on the ISS.

Um, unless they do. I don't actually know.

[trvlr2]

It seems to work quite well on the ISS. :)

Well enough. But, you did not mention cost. For the curious:

/science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast13nov_1.htm

[TheDaver]

v=y__YCvFF8iM Meyer's scam revealed.

Interesting. Here is the original clip.

v=YIgOn1kRw5s

I guess if he had a power source to split the water, he could run the car on Hydrogen. But it certainly isn't the primary source of energy.





Fixed:
y__YCvFF8iM Meyer's scam revealed.

Interesting. Here is the original clip.

YIgOn1kRw5s

I guess if he had a power source to split the water, he could run the car on Hydrogen. But it certainly isn't the primary source of energy.

[TheDaver]

Consider yourselves lucky you don’t have the problem here that Discovery is having on their Mythbusters forum. They’ve had to disable all the forum’s fancy features because Water4Gas shills have been spamming the board with referrer links.

[robinson]

Fixed:

What was wrong? Did the videos not work? What?

[davefoc]

What was wrong? Did the videos not work? What?
They didn't work for me. It took me awhile to figure out what the TheDave did to fix them, apparently, at least for me and TheDaver, it doesn't work to have v= in the designation of the you tube video.

[robinson]

Strange. They play in my original post, (I always check). It could be a browser thing. Sorry for any problem with them. What do you think about it? He has a generator on the lab bench, and on the car. So he could have been running the dune buggy on HHO, but using some hidden source of energy to generate it?

Pretty funny stuff. Considering the myth around him. (according to the CTs that is).

[davefoc]

Strange. They play in my original post, (I always check). It could be a browser thing. Sorry for any problem with them. What do you think about it? He has a generator on the lab bench, and on the car. So he could have been running the dune buggy on HHO, but using some hidden source of energy to generate it?

Pretty funny stuff. Considering the myth around him. (according to the CTs that is).

I just tried internet explorer with your original posts and the video still wouldn't play for me.

As to the substance of the videos:
Those were about the lamest broadcasters or at least the lamest writers whose stuff they were reading that I can recall. It boggles the mind tht these folks could get some a job in an apparent mainstream newsroom.

As to the debunking video:
I was quite sure there was enough presented to conclude that a scam was underway. Certainly to me it looks like a scan but what exactly is evidence that it is a scam based o the vido linked to.

[robinson]

It's confusing as hell trying to track down what really happened in regards to Meyer's, as well as th rest of the "water as fuel" scams and devices and inventors and such.

I thought the video was interesting because we can see this 110V motor running the alternator that produces the current to split the water.

In the lab, it was plugged in to house current. But where was the power coming from on the dune buggy? It also raises the question, how was he getting enough HHO (it isn't really HHO, it is Hydrogen and oxygen gas mixed) to run the ICE on the dune buggy?

[TheDaver]

It's confusing as hell trying to track down what really happened in regards to Meyer's, as well as th rest of the "water as fuel" scams and devices and inventors and such.
He collapsed and died in the middle of a dinner celebration with some “investors”. Of course, the popular conspiracy theory is that he was poisoned by Big Oil / the gov’t / shapeshifting reptilian moonjews – despite the coroner’s report identifying a cerebral aneurysm as the cause of death.

[robinson]

I was more interested in the dune buggy, as well as the way he had it set up. I guess the BigOilAlienOverlords destroyed it or something.

Damn aliens, they just want the atmosphere polluted because that is what their home planet is like. And they like money.

[XYNG]

for all of you experts that say a Car can NEVER RUN on just plain Water, LOOK again, Japan has already started to MASS Produce them.

Now I wonder why???, the Great U.S. of America , can not seem to do what others are already doing, stop this insane dependence on OIL once and for all time. HUMM!! I guess it's called GREED!! IMO
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561&videoChannel=74

Jun. 13 - Japanese company Genepax presents its eco-friendly car that runs on nothing but water.

The car has an energy generator that extracts hydrogen from water that is poured into the car's tank. The generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car. Genepax, the company that invented the technology, aims to collaborate with Japanese manufacturers to mass produce it.

SOUNDBITE: Kiyoshi Hirasawa, CEO, Genepax.

Michelle Carlile-Alkhouri reports.:)

[TjW]

for all of you experts that say a Car can NEVER RUN on just plain Water, LOOK again, Japan has already started to MASS Produce them.

Now I wonder why???, the Great U.S. of America , can not seem to do what others are already doing, stop this insane dependence on OIL once and for all time. HUMM!! I guess it's called GREED!! IMO
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561&videoChannel=74

Jun. 13 - Japanese company Genepax presents its eco-friendly car that runs on nothing but water.

The car has an energy generator that extracts hydrogen from water that is poured into the car's tank. The generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car. Genepax, the company that invented the technology, aims to collaborate with Japanese manufacturers to mass produce it.

SOUNDBITE: Kiyoshi Hirasawa, CEO, Genepax.

Michelle Carlile-Alkhouri reports.:)

This just in: Tokyo zoo announces Invisible Pink Unicorn exhibit.

[davefoc]

So far the price of oil hasn't begun to plummet from this news. Maybe all the pink unicorns running around have distracted the commodity markets.

[robinson]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/

[jsfisher]

for all of you experts that say a Car can NEVER RUN on just plain Water, LOOK again, Japan has already started to MASS Produce them.

In other news (http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/):
The key to that system, it seems, is its membrane electrode assembly (or MEA), which contains a material that's capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction.

Chemical reaction, eh? That would imply another consumable in addition to the claimed water.

[davefoc]

Thanks for the link robinson. I read through a few of the comments in the article you linked to. A great many of the posters were most concerned about how the car looked. Another group thought the giant oil company conspiracy was going to shut down the project. There was the occasional poster that expressed a little skepticism about the whole thing but that didn't seem to be the norm.

I wondered how this announcement would affect XYNG. It doesn't seem to have so far. The stock is hanging in there at a steady .0033 dollars a share.

[robinson]

The new water powered car has it's own thread, in case you missed it.

I put recent links there, including one that just came out today.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3781871#post3781871

[bruto]

for all of you experts that say a Car can NEVER RUN on just plain Water, LOOK again, Japan has already started to MASS Produce them.

Now I wonder why???, the Great U.S. of America , can not seem to do what others are already doing, stop this insane dependence on OIL once and for all time. HUMM!! I guess it's called GREED!! IMO
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561&videoChannel=74

Jun. 13 - Japanese company Genepax presents its eco-friendly car that runs on nothing but water.

The car has an energy generator that extracts hydrogen from water that is poured into the car's tank. The generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car. Genepax, the company that invented the technology, aims to collaborate with Japanese manufacturers to mass produce it.

SOUNDBITE: Kiyoshi Hirasawa, CEO, Genepax.

Michelle Carlile-Alkhouri reports.:)

"Has already started to MASS produce" is a pretty liberal translation of "aims to collaborate to mass produce" isn't it?

[Elvis666]

shapeshifting reptilian moonjews

You made me laugh out loud at work. Stop it. :D

[XYNG]

just when we all think Hydrogen will soon take the place of Gas to Run our Cars with, now comes the AIR Pressure Car, you heard it here first, a Car that does already Run on just AIR.
Interesting to say the least.!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Bxx5IpW...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFbKINlXz...

[XYNG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Bxx5IpWXY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFbKINlXzRk&NR=1

[Olowkow]

Several threads here on the air powered car already. The physics just do not hack it, it seems.

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-23563.html

Don Lancaster has a bit to say about this at http://tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

There’s been some web noise lately over compressed air
vehicles. It is obvious they never talked to anyone in the
fire service who dearly would love to use compressed air for
such tasks as rescue saws, spreaders, rapid cutters, PPV vent
fans, and such. But are unable to do so because of the lousy
energy density and appalling inefficiency of compressed
air. Despite years of careful engineering.
Because of the law of diminishing returns, typical fire
departments have elected not to go from 150 to 300 Bar on
their airpack systems. Higher pressures are beyond the pale.

He also includes a table of energy densities and it shows compressed air as pretty poor, about on par with lead acid batteries (but he doesn't list the pressure he's assuming).

It doesn't sound like such a great idea to me.

[XYNG]

It seems no matter what I post, someone says it can not work, or we Americans will NEVER see it happen in our lifetime. Amusing to say the least.

Now I see a Inventor can now turn just plain SALT Water, YES I said SALT Water from the Ocean to run your car with.

Now, I wait for all you experts, to now post this is impossible and it is just another Scam. Lets here it Experts, BUT at least First, View the following Video for yourself, is it just another Scam or is it real and does work the way this Inventor shows, just how it really works, Enjoy!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhr9463yhtQ&feature=related

[Roadtoad]

XYNG, the problem isn't that it "can't be done," it's that it can't be done with any degree of efficiency, nor can it be done without adding tons of crap to the water. (Which means it's not just water anymore.) You're fighting the laws of physics in this.

[Psiload]

It seems no matter what I post, someone says it can not work, or we Americans will NEVER see it happen in our lifetime. Amusing to say the least.

Now I see a Inventor can now turn just plain SALT Water, YES I said SALT Water from the Ocean to run your car with.

Now, I wait for all you experts, to now post this is impossible and it is just another Scam. Lets here it Experts, BUT at least First, View the following Video for yourself, is it just another Scam or is it real and does work the way this Inventor shows, just how it really works, Enjoy!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhr9463yhtQ&feature=related

It is just another scam.

[jsfisher]

It is just another scam.


Well certainly energy-in will exceed energy-out, and the news report seemed completely oblivious to that aspect of the invention. Still, though, I don't think it quite fair to call it a scam. Does an RF field have any merit for hydrogen generation? If it maybe does, then the line of research is reasonable.

On the other hand, I don't know why XYNG is all excited by this. Extracting hydrogen from water is nothing new.

[davefoc]

Has anybody linked to these guys?
http://www.preignitioncc.com/woj/

I suppose I shouldn't be so naive at my age, but I am still surprised by the willingness of people to make sincere pitches for products that are complete crap.

This is a site that is skeptical of the claims and gives a few details on the people behind the apparent scam:
http://www.phact.org/e/dennis.html

Apparently, this is a scam whereby dealerships are sold for selling an HAFC. The HAFC is allegedly guaranteed to increase fuel economy 50 to 100%. The dealer organization is known as the UCSA dealer group, LLC. This is a posting by what appears to be a sincere but probably gullible dealer:

http://www.getpowerclub.com/nloct07.htm

[Psiload]

Well certainly energy-in will exceed energy-out, and the news report seemed completely oblivious to that aspect of the invention. Still, though, I don't think it quite fair to call it a scam. Does an RF field have any merit for hydrogen generation? If it maybe does, then the line of research is reasonable.

On the other hand, I don't know why XYNG is all excited by this. Extracting hydrogen from water is nothing new. It's a scam in that RunYourCarWithWater.org is using the video as a sales pitch. Their URL is plastered all over the video, and it's presented as "Water Powered Car Run On Water | Save Gas Fuel".

http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/

I wouldn't accuse John Kanzius of being involved in a scam. He's just the "inventor" of a profoundly inefficient method of producing hydrogen and oxygen.

[Olowkow]

It's a scam in that RunYourCarWithWater.org is using the video as a sales pitch. Their URL is plastered all over the video, and it's presented as "Water Powered Car Run On Water | Save Gas Fuel".

http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/

I wouldn't accuse John Kanzius of being involved in a scam. He's just the "inventor" of a profoundly inefficient method of producing hydrogen and oxygen.

There are always two choices when confronted by nonsense: either the person believes it, then he is a fool, or he does not believe the nonsense, then he is a con man.

Surely he cannot be overlooking in this case the simple notion that he could use the electrical power directly to run a motor or to heat the water to steam to run a steam engine, each method being much more efficient than RF breaking up water to get hydrogen to burn in an internal combustion engine or even more silly, using a Sterling engine.

I call con man. I am amazed at how easily the news media is conned.

[TheDaver]

It seems no matter what I post, someone says it can not work, or we Americans will NEVER see it happen in our lifetime. Amusing to say the least.

Now I see a Inventor can now turn just plain SALT Water, YES I said SALT Water from the Ocean to run your car with.

Now, I wait for all you experts, to now post this is impossible and it is just another Scam. Lets here it Experts, BUT at least First, View the following Video for yourself, is it just another Scam or is it real and does work the way this Inventor shows, just how it really works, Enjoy!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhr9463yhtQ&feature=related
Pay attention next time and you won’t make an idiot out of yourself.

Nobody has said that it’s impossible to make hydrogen from water. Anybody who’s taken Chemistry in high school knows it’s possible.

What we’ve been saying is that in a closed system (read: car on the road), it’s highly unlikely for an “HHO” system to have any benefit, because it takes much more energy from the engine than it returns to it.

Think of it this way: you and I set up a business arrangement where for every $100 you give me, I give you only $30 back, does that sound like a good deal to you?

[Roadtoad]

Pay attention next time and you won’t make an idiot out of yourself.

Nobody has said that it’s impossible to make hydrogen from water. Anybody who’s taken Chemistry in high school knows it’s possible.

What we’ve been saying is that in a closed system (read: car on the road), it’s highly unlikely for an “HHO” system to have any benefit, because it takes much more energy from the engine than it returns to it.

Think of it this way: you and I set up a business arrangement where for every $100 you give me, I give you only $30 back, does that sound like a good deal to you?

You obviously haven't spent much time in the trucking industry.

[emerycorp]

Has anybody linked to these guys?
http://www.preignitioncc.com/woj/

I suppose I shouldn't be so naive at my age, but I am still surprised by the willingness of people to make sincere pitches for products that are complete crap.

This is a site that is skeptical of the claims and gives a few details on the people behind the apparent scam:
http://www.phact.org/e/dennis.html

Apparently, this is a scam whereby dealerships are sold for selling an HAFC. The HAFC is allegedly guaranteed to increase fuel economy 50 to 100%. The dealer organization is known as the UCSA dealer group, LLC. This is a posting by what appears to be a sincere but probably gullible dealer:

http://www.getpowerclub.com/nloct07.htm
davefoc-- great post . . . ty

[XYNG]

If POOR Sir Lanka can invent a Hydrogen Generator, why can't XYNG already??? this Hydrogen Generator is already up and running a car with on just plain water with, why Can't this XYNG do the same already.???
WHY can't XYNG come up with this Turning plain water into fuel to run your car with already.????

Look what I was just E-Mailed, a Young man from of all places Sir Lanka, has not only invented this Invention already, but has a full running prototype to BOOT.

What is taking XYNG so long???, when other people from third world very POOR no less countries , have already not only Invented this Hydrogen Technology, but more important have cars running on it with very little Electric Power no less to accomplished it. My God what in the world are ALL these so called Brillint Inventors doing in the U.S Already, to at the very least, try and duplicate what already has been done in other countries already.
Now look for yourself how this fully working Hydrogen Generator runs a car on just plain water and a little electric current.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Water_Fueled_Car_-_Sri_Lanka


Water-Fueled Car from Sri Lanka

Posted: 30 Jul 2008 http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:W... 01:00 PM CDT

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:W...
A Sri Lankan inventor has come up with a super-efficient electrolysis method that allegedly enables a small vehicle to travel 80 kilometres on just one litre of water, without any danger to life or any impact on the environment. (PESWiki; July 23, 2008)

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:W...

[bruto]

An interesting link and site above, which appears to show, as usual, an electrolysis device that produces hydrogen, which can run an engine. But there's not much detail. The amperage is said to be low. What is the voltage, what is the source, and how long do you have to run it?

There's' no real mystery to the idea that you can get hydrogen from water. We did that in introductory science class with a battery charger and a bit of glassware. What we need is evidence that it's efficient.

[JJM]

{snip} There's' no real mystery to the idea that you can get hydrogen from water. We did that in introductory science class with a battery charger and a bit of glassware. What we need is evidence that it's efficient.It can never be efficient. It's that perpetual-motion problem- it can't be done. It always takes more power to generate the hydrogen than can be retrieved by using it.

[robinson]

It can never be efficient. It's that perpetual-motion problem- it can't be done. It always takes more power to generate the hydrogen than can be retrieved by using it.

Nonsense. The ISS uses hydrogen/oxygen split from water all the time. They don't need to bring fuel to the ISS because they have an energy excess. Power, and heat. It is the safest, cheapest and cleanest way to use the massive amount of solar energy available.

It is only a problem if you are trying to generate hydrogen from the same motor that is burning the hydrogen. Obviously that won't work.

But fuel from water is a very simple procedure. People do it all the time.

[davefoc]

Robinson, I think you saw something in JJM's post that he didn't intend. His reference to a perpetual motion machine was referring to the idea of using the output of a motor to drive a generator that powers the hydrolysis that is used in a fuel cell to drive the motor. Perhaps he should have said "possible" instead of "efficient" and his meaning would have been more clear. If that is not what he intended, my apologies.

I guess the disconnect here with people who think this is possible is that they continue to believe that there is chemical energy available from water. That is that the hydrogen can be separated out of the water molecule with less energy than can be retrieved by oxidizing the hydrogen to recreate the water.

There is now an internet cottage industry mining the resources of people who think this is possible.

[bruto]

Nonsense. The ISS uses hydrogen/oxygen split from water all the time. They don't need to bring fuel to the ISS because they have an energy excess. Power, and heat. It is the safest, cheapest and cleanest way to use the massive amount of solar energy available.

It is only a problem if you are trying to generate hydrogen from the same motor that is burning the hydrogen. Obviously that won't work.

But fuel from water is a very simple procedure. People do it all the time.Of course it's simple, as I mentioned in the post JJM was responding to. If you have lots of one kind of energy available, and it isn't useful in its raw form, and if efficiency of the conversion itself is not the most important thing. then it's a grand idea. It seems a perfect way to get fuel at a space station, for example.

That's a different thing from saying that a water powered car is a great breakthrough, or even a good idea. It might be a superb idea if you have more electricity (or generating capability) than you need, and don't want to carry batteries around, but it's still inherently an inefficient energy trade, unless that Sri Lankan inventor has come up with something we don't know about (and that he isn't explaining). An inefficient conversion of energy is not always a bad idea. Consider hydraulic rams, or deep well jet pumps. A ram is a great way to get water pressure if you have lots of natural water flow to waste, and that is often the case. A deep well jet may be the only way to get water pressure, and then it hardly matters that most of it is going back into the well.

The fault I see in the Sri Lankan hydrogen car linked to is just that: that it does not mention the overall efficiency of the process, and the question remains unanswered whether or not it's a useful economic tradeoff.

[Toke]

I saw another milage scam where gasoline containing impurities like water, ketscup, tabasco ..... were run through the catalyst in the exhaust line.

It was turned into plasma, somehow got through the injection system, and improved the combustion proces to give xxxx% increase in fuel economy.

There are an amacing number of scams around.

As for making hydrogen onboard your car, could it be an alternative to regular batteries?
You plug it in at night, fill on water, and have a full hydrogen tank in the morning.

It would probably give a lighter car, but how is efficiency of a fuel cell in/out compared to a battery.

[arthwollipot]

One of the technical issues regarding hydrogen-powered cars is that hydrogen is explosive. Especially when there's lots of oxygen around too.

A vehicle accident involving a hydrogen-powered car is far more likely to take the form of an explosion than one not involving a hydrogen-powered car. A survivable accident suddenly becomes a lot less so.

[davefoc]

...

As for making hydrogen onboard your car, could it be an alternative to regular batteries?
You plug it in at night, fill on water, and have a full hydrogen tank in the morning.

It would probably give a lighter car, but how is efficiency of a fuel cell in/out compared to a battery.

Battery charge efficiency is complicated. Lead acid batteries seem to be characterized in general as something like 85% efficient, but the charge efficiency varies with the state of charge and as the battery approaches fully charged the efficiency falls off significants (like to about 60%). Lithium ion batteries do better. One site I saw said the efficiency was 99.9%. I don't know if it's that high but lithium ion batteries are better in that they don't self discharge as much and the efficiency is higher.

Battery chargers can be very efficient, in the range of 90% any way. So assuming lithium ion and taking a guess that the actual efficiency of the battery is about 90% when all the little gotchas are taken into account the round trip efficiency of a lithium ion battery/charger system might be 80%. Note this is my own rough guess and I stand to be corrected on this.

An article I read on wikipedia lists the round trip efficiency of a fuel cell/ hydrolizer system at 50%. So a battery system seems like it might be more efficient. There are complications with fuel cell efficiencies also and current ones as I recall aren't completely happy running at varying discharge rates. And there are jillions of problems to be worked out before a fuel cell car is going to be coming off the production line.

So right now if efficiency or availability is the issue a lithium ion battery pack seems to be better.

But energy mass density favors hydrogen. Lithium ion batteries aren't too good on the basis of energy mass density compared to tankful of that good old gasoline and they are several times better than lead acid batteries with regards to mass energy density.

On mass energy density alone hydrogen is a winner over even gasoline. Unfortunately, on volume energy density hydrogen isn't all that wonderful compared to gasoline, even when it's compressed. And even more unfortunately hydrogen needs to be compressed into heavy tanks for use in a car and the weight of the tanks plus the energy to compress the hydrogen are another hit against hydrogen fueled cars.

So I remain somewhat confused as to why the hydrogen hoopla. You need to make it and doing that cheaply isn't a slam dunk. You need to store it and it's just a lot harder to store hydrogen in a car for fuel than gasoline. And you need to oxidize it in a fuel cell (burn it in an ICE and any possible hydrogen benefits disappear as you get stuck with ICE efficiencies of about 20%) and there are issues associated with using fuel cells in cars, including the fact that they are expensive and it doesn't seem like it's that easy to make them cheap. And when all of the issues of distribution, storage, efficiency and safety are taken into account hydrogen doesn't look nearly as cool as one is lead to believe by current hydrogen hoopla.

[Toke]

Well, it is the only way i can think of to get a car to run on water, unless amphifibius and going downstream.:)

[JJM]

Nonsense. The ISS uses hydrogen/oxygen split from water all the time. They don't need to bring fuel to the ISS because they have an energy excess. Power, and heat. It is the safest, cheapest and cleanest way to use the massive amount of solar energy available.Have you seen a picture of the ISS. It has big panels facing the Sun. They are called "solar panels" because they have a coating that absorbs light from the Sun ("solar" refers to the Sun) and converts it into electricity.

The electricity can be used directly; but the ISS is bathed by the Sun only half the time. So, some of it is used to split water into its components, hydrogen and oxygen (in a process called "electrolysis"). When the ISS is not bathed in Sunlight, those gases can be passed through a "fuel cell" to generate electricity.

If you have followed this narrative, you will realize that hydrogen is not the "source" of power, it is just the medium in which the power is stored (the Sun is the source of power). If the ISS were always facing the Sun, they would not need fuel cells. Storing energy in hydrogen is not efficient (it is better to use the energy directly); but it works well in that application.

It is only a problem if you are trying to generate hydrogen from the same motor that is burning the hydrogen. Obviously that won't work.A good start! Now, note that converting power into hydrogen and back into power is inefficient. It sometimes serves in a pinch; but it is overall wasteful.

But fuel from water is a very simple procedure. People do it all the time.Now this becomes a little technical. "Fuels" are harvested from nature. Hydrogen is not found in nature. It must be manufactured. (The "fuel cell" is unfortunately named). Harvested petroleum, coal, firewood, etc. provide more energy than is expended in harvesting them. Production of hydrogen results in a net loss of energy, it is fundamentally inefficient.

Is that simple enough?

[JJM]

{snip} So I remain somewhat confused as to why the hydrogen hoopla. {snip} And when all of the issues of distribution, storage, efficiency and safety are taken into account hydrogen doesn't look nearly as cool as one is lead to believe by current hydrogen hoopla.We have, above, an example of the irrational exuberance over hydrogen. In the US, in general, it could make sense for energy storage in some limited situations. For example, use of electricity declines at night; whereas, production proceeds apace. It makes sense to store the nighttime excess for daytime use.

For example, Northfield Mtn. (Massachusetts) has a reservoir excavated out of it's top. At night, water is pumped out of the Connecticut River and up to the reservoir. During the day, the pump runs backwards (as a generator) as the water flows back into the river. Overall, it is inefficient; but it saves some of the power that would otherwise be lost.

One could imagine a similar use for hydrogen in an area lacking a convenient mountain/water-source pairing. I leave it to engineers to figure out what energy storage process is best for a given application.

[bruto]

Well, it is the only way i can think of to get a car to run on water, unless amphifibius and going downstream.:)There actually is another way, which despite many obvious drawbacks can sort of work, and may well have been used by an older generation of water-car scammers: calcium carbide. Put a pellet of carbide in a tank of water, and out comes acetylene. Very combustible. Can run an engine. There are tinkerers making these rigs as we speak. Cost of carbide, safety, emissions and engine longevity all remain an issue, I think, but there is indeed a way to fill a tank with water, plop a little "magic pill" into it, and drive away.

[XYNG]

It can never be efficient. It's that perpetual-motion problem- it can't be done. It always takes more power to generate the hydrogen than can be retrieved by using it.
Solar-Power Breakthrough, NEVER Say NEVER it could never happen about Hydrogen running your home or Car with, look at this:

Researchers have found a cheap and easy way to store the energy made by solar power.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21155/
By Kevin Bullis

Splitting water: Daniel Nocera poses with a device for breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen. The device uses an inexpensive catalyst that he has developed.
Credit: Donna Coveney, MIT
Multimedia
Watch Daniel Nocera explain how his catalyst can be used to store sunlight.

Researchers have made a major advance in inorganic chemistry that could lead to a cheap way to store energy from the sun. In so doing, they have solved one of the key problems in making solar energy a dominant source of electricity.

Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at MIT, has developed a catalyst that can generate oxygen from a glass of water by splitting water molecules. The reaction frees hydrogen ions to make hydrogen gas. The catalyst, which is easy and cheap to make, could be used to generate vast amounts of hydrogen using sunlight to power the reactions. The hydrogen can then be burned or run through a fuel cell to generate electricity whenever it's needed, including when the sun isn't shining.

Solar power is ultimately limited by the fact that the solar cells only produce their peak output for a few hours each day. The proposed solution of using sunlight to split water, storing solar energy in the form of hydrogen, hasn't been practical because the reaction required too much energy, and suitable catalysts were too expensive or used extremely rare materials. Nocera's catalyst clears the way for cheap and abundant water-splitting technologies.

Nocera's advance represents a key discovery in an effort by many chemical research groups to create artificial photosynthesis--mimicking how plants use sunlight to split water to make usable energy. "This discovery is simply groundbreaking," says Karsten Meyer, a professor of chemistry at Friedrich Alexander University, in Germany. "Nocera has probably put a lot of researchers out of business." For solar power, Meyer says, "this is probably the most important single discovery of the century."

The new catalyst marks a radical departure from earlier attempts. Researchers, including Nocera, have tried to design molecular catalysts in which the location of each atom is precisely known and the catalyst is made to last as long as possible. The new catalyst, however, is amorphous--it doesn't have a regular structure--and it's relatively unstable, breaking down as it does its work. But the catalyst is able to constantly repair itself, so it can continue working.

In his experimental system, Nocera immerses an indium tin oxide electrode in water mixed with cobalt and potassium phosphate. He applies a voltage to the electrode, and cobalt, potassium, and phosphate accumulate on the electrode, forming the catalyst. The catalyst oxidizes the water to form oxygen gas and free hydrogen ions. At another electrode, this one coated with a platinum catalyst, hydrogen ions form hydrogen gas. As it works, the cobalt-based catalyst breaks down, but cobalt and potassium phosphate in the solution soon re-form on the electrode, repairing the catalyst.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by JJM http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3905903#post3905903)
It can never be efficient. It's that perpetual-motion problem- it can't be done. It always takes more power to generate the hydrogen than can be retrieved by using it.Solar-Power Breakthrough, NEVER Say NEVER it could never happen about Hydrogen running your home or Car with, look at this: {snip}

If Nocera has found a more efficient method for generating hydrogen, it still does not get around the fact that it wastes energy. So, NEVER stands; it is still that perpetual motion problem. It remains for the engineers to work out when this will be a useful method (where the energy losses are acceptable, balanced against other considerations).

The fact remains that this technology depends on the amount of sunlight available. Increasing the output of hydrogen from small to "not so" small is a drop in the bucket; welcome, nonetheless.

[Horatius]

If Nocera has found a more efficient method for generating hydrogen, it still does not get around the fact that it wastes energy. So, NEVER stands; it is still that perpetual motion problem. It remains for the engineers to work out when this will be a useful method (where the energy losses are acceptable, balanced against other considerations).

The fact remains that this technology depends on the amount of sunlight available. Increasing the output of hydrogen from small to "not so" small is a drop in the bucket; welcome, nonetheless.

This looks like his patent. (http://www.google.com/patents?id=hZAUAAAAEBAJ&dq=6863781)

Embodiments for the invention include a process for the production of hydrogen comprising a protic solution, a photocatalyst capable of a two-electron reduction of hydrogen ions; and a coproduct trap. The embodiment includes exposing the reaction medium to radiation capable of photoexciting the photocatalyst to produce hydrogen. The protic solution may comprise at least one of hydrohalic acid, a silane, and water, and the hydrohalic acid may be hydrochloric acid, hydrogen bromide, hydrogen fluoride or hydrogen iodide. The present application also describes novel transition metal compounds. Embodiments of the compounds include a compound comprising two transition metal atoms, wherein the transition metal atoms are in a two-electron mixed valence state and at least one transition metal is not rhodium; and at least one ligand capable of stabilizing the transition metal atom in a two-electron mixed valence state.

Patent number: 6863781

[JJM]

This looks like his patent. (http://www.google.com/patents?id=hZAUAAAAEBAJ&dq=6863781)Do you have a point? I did not say Nocera was wrong. I said it does not change what I said about perpetual motion.

[Horatius]

Do you have a point? I did not say Nocera was wrong. I said it does not change what I said about perpetual motion.



Just providing info. I thought someone might like knowing what he was actually doing, as opposed to a media write-up of what he was doing.

[David Wong]

So I remain somewhat confused as to why the hydrogen hoopla. You need to make it and doing that cheaply isn't a slam dunk. You need to store it and it's just a lot harder to store hydrogen in a car for fuel than gasoline.

There is no alternative. Gas is running out, for pure electric cars there appears to be no way around the "takes 8 hours to refill your tank" issue. If somebody invented a way to charge an electric car in under a minute, nobody would be talking hydrogen. As I understand it, that will never be possible.

All the hoopla is over the fact that there appears to be no other option.

[Hindmost]

The next generation nuke plants are going to be designed to produce hydrogen. It is a daunting prospect and will take a bit to develop. Due to the inefficiencies of electrolysis, different processes are being considered to split the hydrogen out of the water.

http://nuclear.inel.gov/docs/papers-presentations/nuclear_hydrogen_3-3-03.pdf

The link provides a reasonable overview of the issues. Slide 14 gives the chemical/thermal process that is being considered.

the very last slide gives a hint as to how much energy will be needed....it is enormous.

glenn

[bruto]

There is no alternative. Gas is running out, for pure electric cars there appears to be no way around the "takes 8 hours to refill your tank" issue. If somebody invented a way to charge an electric car in under a minute, nobody would be talking hydrogen. As I understand it, that will never be possible.

All the hoopla is over the fact that there appears to be no other option. Does it take any less time and energy to generate a tankful of hydrogen than to charge up a car full of batteries, or is it just a matter of how easy the energy is to store and dispense?

It's quite possible that electrolytically generated hydrogen will end up being an economical method of getting fuel in a car when petroleum becomes scarce enough, despite its overall inefficiency, but so might swappable batteries, producer gas, steam, compressed air or something else. It's not the only game in town.

An inefficient process can be a bargain if the source energy is plentiful and cheap, but this does not make it any more efficient. We can hope that someone will come up with a better way to get hydrogen but so far we don't seem to have seen it, whatever the hyped-up web sites imply.

My partially-informed, informal opinion is that bio-diesel from grass and vegetable waste will beat hydrogen out.

[davefoc]

I agree with Bruto, hydrogen might play a role in some future.

For transportation biofuels or other fuels possibly synthesized from hydrogen are possibilities. Improved battery technology is a possibility. Motor vehicles with limited range are already on the edge of viable with current battery technology. Super super caps are a possibility. Flywheels are a possibility. I doubt compressed air is viable.

As a source of energy, hydrogen is possible from photo hydrolysis.

In the more immediate future that 58 year old people (like myself) are likely to see in their lifetime, conservation, plug in hybrids, electric vehicles, and oil from tar sands or coal are likely to dominate. My guess is that hydrogen will not play a role in that time frame. But you young whippersnappers that participate in the board might begin to see what the no fossil fuel world will look like. I'm curious about what it will be but I don't think I'm going to quite live long enough to get a good feel for it.

[Lennart Hyland]

Sorry I just want to ask you guys a question. A friend of mine told me that it is technical possible to make a engine that can run on water though it cost a lot of energy to produce such an engine and that the resources are limited.

And the question is, is my friend right? :D

Thanks in advance :)

And oh btw he is studying Engineering Physics too :)

[Toke]

It does not involve getting energi out of the water.
The bond between O and H is pretty strong.
You need energi to break that, to get more back you need a reaction with another chemical that will release more energi that combining/burning O&H.

It happens in metal fires, if you direct a firehose at it the water will break down/up and the oxygen combine with the iron to create alot of heat.

In thermite you mix iron oxide "rust" with aluminium. When lit the oxygen moves from iron to the aluminium. The bonds have different energy levels, surplus energi appear as heat, ALOT of heat.

It is used for cutting and welding in special applications.



Could it be a steam engine?

[robinson]

For the record, this topics OP is completely bogus.

[Hindmost]

double post.

[Hindmost]

Does it take any less time and energy to generate a tankful of hydrogen than to charge up a car full of batteries, or is it just a matter of how easy the energy is to store and dispense?

It's quite possible that electrolytically generated hydrogen will end up being an economical method of getting fuel in a car when petroleum becomes scarce enough, despite its overall inefficiency, but so might swappable batteries, producer gas, steam, compressed air or something else. It's not the only game in town.

An inefficient process can be a bargain if the source energy is plentiful and cheap, but this does not make it any more efficient. We can hope that someone will come up with a better way to get hydrogen but so far we don't seem to have seen it, whatever the hyped-up web sites imply.

My partially-informed, informal opinion is that bio-diesel from grass and vegetable waste will beat hydrogen out.

It is gong to take all forms of energy in the future. All have issues that will make them difficult to displace oil since they have inherent inefficiencies. Producing biofuels is not a real option until enzyme capable of breaking down cellulose economically.

Of particular note would be all electric cars. Since electricity production is inherently inefficient, it would be difficult to produce enough electricity to significantly put a dent in transportation needs.

glenn

[balrog666]

It is gong to take all forms of energy in the future. All have issues that will make them difficult to displace oil since they have inherent inefficiencies. Producing biofuels is not a real option until enzyme capable of breaking down cellulose economically.
[snip]]


If you can break down cellulose into simple sugars economically, the first ones in line will be every last food company in the world, not the energy companies.

[Hindmost]

If you can break down cellulose into simple sugars economically, the first ones in line will be every last food company in the world, not the energy companies.

It is a bit in the future, but it has promise.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn

glenn

[David Rodale]

The next generation nuke plants are going to be designed to produce hydrogen. It is a daunting prospect and will take a bit to develop. Due to the inefficiencies of electrolysis, different processes are being considered to split the hydrogen out of the water.

http://nuclear.inel.gov/docs/papers-presentations/nuclear_hydrogen_3-3-03.pdf

The link provides a reasonable overview of the issues. Slide 14 gives the chemical/thermal process that is being considered.

the very last slide gives a hint as to how much energy will be needed....it is enormous.

glenn

Due to the inefficiencies of electrolysis, different processes are being considered to split the hydrogen out of the water.

The very last sentence in the article:
Electrolysis is promising, particularly in the near term

There's always ammonia......

The issue of energy efficiency via electrolysis has seen some major advancements since 2003. For instance, nano materials for electrodes.

If you have $500k sitting around, getting off the grid can be a reality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEdQRVQtffw). :D

[Hindmost]

The very last sentence in the article:
Electrolysis is promising, particularly in the near term

There's always ammonia......

The issue of energy efficiency via electrolysis has seen some major advancements since 2003. For instance, nano materials for electrodes.

If you have $500k sitting around, getting off the grid can be a reality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEdQRVQtffw). :D

Near term, electrolysis is the only choice. the other process is incredibly difficult to find materials that can stand up to the acid and operate for 60 years. I was personally surprised that straight electrolysis wasn't being used. The hydrogen yield is really a key factor.

The reactor design is going to take a bit...it is not available yet. And 200 plus GW would take a long time to build.

I have seen the hydrogen place and read about it...most people would set themselves on fire with the setup--and probably their neighbors.

glenn

[davefoc]

FWIW, here's an article on progress towards getting hydrogen from photo electrolysis.

http://sciencedude.freedomblogging.com/2008/07/26/famed-chemist-shines-new-light-on-alternative-energies/

Like lots of articles on this kind of thing there's no real information about the viability of the technology and the time frame that it might become viable, but the process is being developed by a Cal-tech professor and that at least puts it a little above Mr. Klein's efforts on the credibility scale.

[davefoc]

For the record, this topics OP is completely bogus.

Your view is shared by most of the participants in this thread including myself.

[arthwollipot]

For the record, this topics OP is completely bogus.Your view is shared by most of the participants in this thread including myself.I think it was established pretty early on that the answer to the question "is this a scam?" was yes.

[robinson]

I think it was established pretty early on that the answer to the question "is this a scam?" was yes.

I think you missed the point.

[bruto]

I think you missed the point.I presume you mean to distinguish the bogus claimis of "aquygen" referred to in the first post from the more general discussion of other hydrogen projects, scams, hopes and theories? If this is not what you mean, and if everyone is missing the point, it probably wouldn't hurt to elaborate enough to make your point clear.

[arthwollipot]

I think you missed the point.Only because you threw it badly.

[e-sabbath]

There is no alternative. Gas is running out, for pure electric cars there appears to be no way around the "takes 8 hours to refill your tank" issue. If somebody invented a way to charge an electric car in under a minute, nobody would be talking hydrogen. As I understand it, that will never be possible.

You are in error. EEstor's ultracapacitors can charge in minutes.
http://media.cleantech.com/3174/eestors-weir-speaks-about-ultracapacitor-milestone

If this specific version turns out to be swamp gas, there are other variants in design-to-production stages, such as Maxwell's.

There are a number of synthetic gasoline concepts coming, from everything from Algae on down to switchgrass. No, not ethanol, gas. High-test at two bucks a gallon.

[balrog666]

You are in error. EEstor's ultracapacitors can charge in minutes.
http://media.cleantech.com/3174/eestors-weir-speaks-about-ultracapacitor-milestone

If this specific version turns out to be swamp gas, there are other variants in design-to-production stages, such as Maxwell's.

There are a number of synthetic gasoline concepts coming, from everything from Algae on down to switchgrass. No, not ethanol, gas. High-test at two bucks a gallon.


Good thing we all have simple, safe, 400-amp circuits in our garages! :rolleyes:


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Prometheus]

Good thing we all have simple, safe, 400-amp circuits in our garages! :rolleyes:


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Just like we all have gasoline pumps and underground storage tanks. :rolleyes:

[davefoc]

Good thing we all have simple, safe, 400-amp circuits in our garages! :rolleyes:


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm not quite sure what you meant by this but if the energy density of a charged super cap can be made high enough it would be of tremendous value for urban vehicles as part of a regenerative braking system. An urban vehicle stops and starts frequently and a regenerative braking system doesn't need to store energy for a large range. If there isn't enough capacity to store all the energy from a long mountain descent, no problem, long mountain descents aren't part of the route for most urban vehicles.

Given the appropriate electronics for voltage regulation and charging a supercap is better than a battery in most ways. It charges faster, it can discharge faster, they generally last longer and it is very efficient in that it supplies almost all the energy used to charge it. The problem with them up to now is that they don't store enough energy to be generally useful for transportation. As e-sabbath noted, several companies are working on this.

[robinson]

Only because you threw it badly.

What part of "bogus" do you not understand?

[balrog666]

I'm not quite sure what you meant by this but if the energy density of a charged super cap can be made high enough it would be of tremendous value for urban vehicles as part of a regenerative braking system. An urban vehicle stops and starts frequently and a regenerative braking system doesn't need to store energy for a large range. If there isn't enough capacity to store all the energy from a long mountain descent, no problem, long mountain descents aren't part of the route for most urban vehicles.

Given the appropriate electronics for voltage regulation and charging a supercap is better than a battery in most ways. It charges faster, it can discharge faster, they generally last longer and it is very efficient in that it supplies almost all the energy used to charge it. The problem with them up to now is that they don't store enough energy to be generally useful for transportation. As e-sabbath noted, several companies are working on this.


If you are going to fully charge your ultra-capacitor in 5 minutes, do a little bit of simple math about the power you are pumping in over that time. It simply isn't something you are going to be doing at home.

So it's going to take a lot of safety equipment on every single car, the charging station, and the connection interlock so you don't accidentally fry yourself whenever you need a charge.

And, in addition to being able to dump all that into your car in 5 minutes, obtaining, storing, and replenishing the needed power at some charging station is another distinct problem that needs to be solved too, especially as the current grid won't let you do that. And building all those charging stations will not be cheap either - no one is going to do it without a significant guarantee of profit and government protection+limited liability on all those Darwin-Award-winners who will manage to bypass the safety interlocks and fry themselves by sticking a body part where it shouldn't go.

So, in addition to the inherently high risks, it all sounds very expensive to me and, in the end, all you will accomplish is transferring the power generation from your car to an already overburdened national grid.

I think I'll stick with my internal combustion engine. ;)

[davefoc]

If you are going to fully charge your ultra-capacitor in 5 minutes, do a little bit of simple math about the power you are pumping in over that time. It simply isn't something you are going to be doing at home.

So it's going to take a lot of safety equipment on every single car, the charging station, and the connection interlock so you don't accidentally fry yourself whenever you need a charge.

And, in addition to being able to dump all that into your car in 5 minutes, obtaining, storing, and replenishing the needed power at some charging station is another distinct problem that needs to be solved too, especially as the current grid won't let you do that. And building all those charging stations will not be cheap either - no one is going to do it without a significant guarantee of profit and government protection+limited liability on all those Darwin-Award-winners who will manage to bypass the safety interlocks and fry themselves by sticking a body part where it shouldn't go.

So, in addition to the inherently high risks, it all sounds very expensive to me and, in the end, all you will accomplish is transferring the power generation from your car to an already overburdened national grid.

I think I'll stick with my internal combustion engine. ;)

Stick away, but ...

There's no need to charge the cap that fast at home. But if it was an issue then super cap based charging stations would work. Or even lead acid battery charging stations if that proved to be more cost effective.

Every aspect of moving bodies from one place to another is dangerous. If you want to avoid the dangers of transportation, stay home. Dangerous voltages exist inside all hybrids today. I haven't heard about any deaths. But I'd expect some, especially as the number of hybrids gets into the tens of millions. Super cap systems are not necessarily more dangerous than hybrids. The super caps themselves have a lower output impedance than batteries so they could theoretically dump a higher instantaneous current than batteries. That's not a significant issue as far as electric shock because the impedance of the connection to the human and through the human is much larger than the output impedance of the battery or the super cap power source.

There is probably a greater safety hazard from a short across a super cap than a short across a battery and you probably wouldn't want your face near by if it happens.

But a super cap equipped vehicle can have a smaller gas tank and the added safety from that probably overwhelms any reduced safety from the super caps. All together safety won't be much of an issue for or against super caps. Cost, reliability, energy density, and possibly other issues are likely to be much more significant.

[Toke]

There is probably a greater safety hazard from a short across a super cap than a short across a battery and you probably wouldn't want your face near by if it happens.
You would want to be far from the car.

But think positive.
When someone looks too hard at a hollywood car, it will no longer be the boring old flameball, there will be a whole new set of special effects.

Supercap cars will be no more likely to explode than gasoline ones.

[bruto]

tAll together safety won't be much of an issue for or against super caps. Cost, reliability, energy density, and possibly other issues are likely to be much more significant. Does that include crash safety? I'm trying to imagine what a crash-induced short in a supercap large enough to drive a car might look like. I don't know, but it seems a little daunting.

[davefoc]

Does that include crash safety? I'm trying to imagine what a crash-induced short in a supercap large enough to drive a car might look like. I don't know, but it seems a little daunting.

Caveat, I'm a retired electrical engineer and not an expert on super-caps.

My guess is that most accidental shorts across a high value super cap will vaporize the contacting metal and possibly destroy the super cap depending on how solid a short is established.

It is conceivable that you might get something approaching a significant explosion if you forced a heavy, low resistance bus bar right across the super cap contacts. An event like that might not be possible in an accident.

But an actual short would be very unlikely given routine design precautions, that would solidly encase the super caps and provide short circuit protection. The power could not be used directly out of the super caps in any event. It needs to be regulated and controlled and I suspect that the super cap module and not the super caps themselves would be replaced as part of maintenance procedures. If entry into the super cap module was possible at all by service personnel it would certainly be protected with interlocks.

[Toke]

Agree with Davefoc

If catastrofic shorts were an realistic risk they would not go out on the road.

Safety measures are designed with the user in mind.
That is, idiotproofing is scaled to whoever is expected to use the gear.

My ships main swichtboard need a key to open the back, the people opening them are the engineers or me, the electrician. We know not to touch the big cobber busbars.

A regular fusebox can be opened by hand, but have a cover over the dangerus parts.

[balrog666]

Caveat, I'm a retired electrical engineer and not an expert on super-caps.

My guess is that most accidental shorts across a high value super cap will vaporize the contacting metal and possibly destroy the super cap depending on how solid a short is established.

It is conceivable that you might get something approaching a significant explosion if you forced a heavy, low resistance bus bar right across the super cap contacts. An event like that might not be possible in an accident.

But an actual short would be very unlikely given routine design precautions, that would solidly encase the super caps and provide short circuit protection. The power could not be used directly out of the super caps in any event. It needs to be regulated and controlled and I suspect that the super cap module and not the super caps themselves would be replaced as part of maintenance procedures. If entry into the super cap module was possible at all by service personnel it would certainly be protected with interlocks.


Call me when you get there and I'll put my lawyer on standby mode. :rolleyes:

[davefoc]

Call me when you get there and I'll put my lawyer on standby mode. :rolleyes:

Your implication is that super caps provide some sort of uniquely great safety hazard.

If you've ever seen an automobile engulfed in the flame from a gas tank on fire you realize that there is a whole lot of energy required to make a car go very far and no matter how that energy is stored there is the potential for serious safety problems.

Even in the best case scenarios for super caps right now I don't think the energy density of super caps rivals the energy density of gasoline. It still seems likely to me that a super cap equipped hybrid vehicle would be safer than a standard vehicle if the gas tank size could be reduced. But at any rate I suspect the safety difference between a standard vehicle and a super cap hybrid is small and perhaps insignificant.

I also suspect that a super cap hybrid would be somewhat safer than a lithium ion hybrid. Fire risk has been a serious problem for lithium ion batteries although great strides have been made in reducing it.

Optimal battery performance is usually around room temperature and it degrades substantially as the temperature deviates above or below about 20 degrees C. Super cap performance I suspect is less sensitive to temperature variation. Overall Super caps are a great solution if they can be made with sufficient energy density and they can be made cheap enough. Time will tell how that turns out.

As an aside, I wonder if XYNG has noticed the huge difference between water-for-fuel developers and the super cap developers. On the one hand we have a lot of garage shop tinkerers claiming to have discovered new fundamental physical laws who have no credible independent testing to back up their claims and on the other hand we have super caps which are being developed by well funded research groups who aren't making claims that are inconsistent with established science and who are submitting their developments to outside labs for testing. Can XYNG see why, for many of us Klein and the like are not credible and the super cap developers are credible?

As a second aside we used super caps for battery backup in the hand held computers I used to design. Back then the energy density of super caps was far less and the output impedance was far higher than the newer technology super caps.

[davefoc]

Agree with Davefoc

If catastrofic shorts were an realistic risk they would not go out on the road.

Safety measures are designed with the user in mind.
That is, idiotproofing is scaled to whoever is expected to use the gear.

My ships main swichtboard need a key to open the back, the people opening them are the engineers or me, the electrician. We know not to touch the big cobber busbars.

A regular fusebox can be opened by hand, but have a cover over the dangerus parts.

I wonder what would happen to a lead acid battery if one attempted to create the highest current short possible. Clearly the routine shorting through jumper cables isn't all that dangerous or I wouldn't be here having shorted out a battery by accident a few times. But if you took a big hunk of copper and had some mechanism to push it down on to the contacts simultaneously what would happen? I suspect the battery would out gas tremendously and the hydrogen would catch on fire and if you were nearby you probably would get burned. That might be an interesting mythbuster experiment. One thing for sure you're going to need a new battery.

[bruto]

I wonder what would happen to a lead acid battery if one attempted to create the highest current short possible. Clearly the routine shorting through jumper cables isn't all that dangerous or I wouldn't be here having shorted out a battery by accident a few times. But if you took a big hunk of copper and had some mechanism to push it down on to the contacts simultaneously what would happen? I suspect the battery would out gas tremendously and the hydrogen would catch on fire and if you were nearby you probably would get burned. That might be an interesting mythbuster experiment. One thing for sure you're going to need a new battery. From what I've read, sometimes the battery will just plain explode. Not pretty. From experience, I can say that if you over-draw from a battery and it doesn't explode, it can melt and buckle plates, cause internal shorting and just kill the battery. I've killed a couple of car batteries over the years in diesels. Even if the battery is initially healthy enough to crank the engine, it gets too hot, and its life is very short.

[Toke]

Even a less than perfect short can blow the top off the battery.
It is very noisy.

[EchoWars]

Used to be a mechanic, and I've seen several batteries explode due to shorts (twice with the same guy, who made trips to the hospital for acid in the eyes both times...he was fine, eventually). Easy to understand when you calculate the power involved.

Say a battery is capable of 600 amps (not unusual) for a short time. With a short (a good, solid one, such as a big wrench), all that current flows from - to + terminal, through the internal resistance of the battery, which, although low, is in the neighborhood of 0.01 ohms.

I² * R = P
600² * 0.01
360,000 * 0.01 = 3600 watts

It can't help but blow up.

[Toke]

U=R X I P = I x U
o.o1 ohm / 12V = 1200A
1200A X 12V = 14400W

[casebro]

I don't think batteries out gas from shorts. That would be the chemistry working the wrong way. I believe the inherent sparks set of the gas accumulated from the last charging.

My own experience is that the led lugs melt, easily. The worst case would be the lugs vaporize, making a cloud of conductive lead, and make a REAL short circuit. It's what happens to elecricians in fuse panels, a poof of plasma shorts EVERYTHING, making an electrical explosion, no batteries needed.

[balrog666]

Your implication is that super caps provide some sort of uniquely great safety hazard.

[snip]

Uh, no. My implication is that super caps provide some sort of new safety hazard and that, most people being rather stupid, many will screw it up in an unexpected, and usually lethal, manner - which is easily predicted. But I don't care about that at all. I only mentioned that because it will act as an inhibitor to building the infrastructure itself - the liability for those deaths will sink the manufacturers, the car companies that use them, and the retailers that sell them and so the issue must be dealt with up front.

My problem with ultra-capacitors is that they are expensive, there is no supporting infrastructure technology (as distinct from supporting infrastructure itself), and that, for use in personal transportation/automobiles (as hyped), they will solve nothing. ;)

[Roadtoad]

Used to be a mechanic, and I've seen several batteries explode due to shorts (twice with the same guy, who made trips to the hospital for acid in the eyes both times...he was fine, eventually). Easy to understand when you calculate the power involved.

Say a battery is capable of 600 amps (not unusual) for a short time. With a short (a good, solid one, such as a big wrench), all that current flows from - to + terminal, through the internal resistance of the battery, which, although low, is in the neighborhood of 0.01 ohms.

I² * R = P
600² * 0.01
360,000 * 0.01 = 3600 watts

It can't help but blow up.

Had batteries blow up on me. I've been lucky so far, no acid in my mug, but it can get pretty scary. I'm just grateful on the rigs I drive, the batteries are well away from me, but even then, it can create serious problems.

I'm a believer that with time, we'll develop the necessary batteries for electric cars, but that time is not yet.

[bruto]

Uh, no. My implication is that super caps provide some sort of new safety hazard and that, most people being rather stupid, many will screw it up in an unexpected, and usually lethal, manner - which is easily predicted. But I don't care about that at all. I only mentioned that because it will act as an inhibitor to building the infrastructure itself - the liability for those deaths will sink the manufacturers, the car companies that use them, and the retailers that sell them and so the issue must be dealt with up front.

My problem with ultra-capacitors is that they are expensive, there is no supporting infrastructure technology (as distinct from supporting infrastructure itself), and that, for use in personal transportation/automobiles (as hyped), they will solve nothing. ;)My partially uneducated guess is that, given the potentially lethal currents involved in charging a super capacitor quickly, and the potential problems of containing that current safely in various crash and burn scenarios, electric cars are more likely to succeed with a combination of better batteries, and some kind of swappable standardized battery pack, that can be topped up remotely and exchanged as we now do with propane bottles. Part of my reason for believing this is that the possibilities for middlemen and for small but very widespread fees and value-added profits and taxes will make this option commercially attractive. As occurs now with propane and other bottled gases, the distributors and fillers will tap off some value along the way, but in return for this, the burden of depreciation will be spread thinly among all consumers. When I go to get a new tank of welding gas or propane for the grill, I pay for the gas, and the handling, and the filling, and the storage, but I also pay a very small fee that insures that the cylinder I get is thoroughly tested for safety. I have "owned" cylinders of acetylene, oxygen and argon for 35 years, but never had the same tank twice, and never had to worry if it was still good. What I own is actually the right to possess a good safe tank.

[balrog666]

My partially uneducated guess is that, given the potentially lethal currents involved in charging a super capacitor quickly, and the potential problems of containing that current safely in various crash and burn scenarios, electric cars are more likely to succeed with a combination of better batteries, and some kind of swappable standardized battery pack, that can be topped up remotely and exchanged as we now do with propane bottles. Part of my reason for believing this is that the possibilities for middlemen and for small but very widespread fees and value-added profits and taxes will make this option commercially attractive. As occurs now with propane and other bottled gases, the distributors and fillers will tap off some value along the way, but in return for this, the burden of depreciation will be spread thinly among all consumers. When I go to get a new tank of welding gas or propane for the grill, I pay for the gas, and the handling, and the filling, and the storage, but I also pay a very small fee that insures that the cylinder I get is thoroughly tested for safety. I have "owned" cylinders of acetylene, oxygen and argon for 35 years, but never had the same tank twice, and never had to worry if it was still good. What I own is actually the right to possess a good safe tank.


Now that is an excellent idea as it eliminates the need for rapid charging entirely as well as the need for any complex infrastructure beyond simple retailing and exchange of charged units.

Of course, you still need a (relatively cheap) standardized unit and something more than a golf cart to use it in.

:bigclap

[davefoc]

I really can't see where all the concerns about super cap safety are coming from.

All over the US people have 6,000 volt transformers buried in their yard as part of the underground distribution of electricity. CRT's are charged to voltages in excess of 20,000 volts with enough energy stored to at least burn nasty holes in you. Trains are powered via electrical systems with power distribution systems that have 600 volt rails exposed to potentially being contacted by humans. All of these electrical dangers and many more have been overcome with appropriate safety mechanisms.

Gasoline in an automobile is a huge danger, almost certainly larger than the danger of either batteries or super caps in an electric car. The often hyped Hydrogen is even more dangerous than gasoline and the round trip efficency of electrolysis and fuel cells is unlikely to ever be as good as the charge and discharge cycles for a super cap.

I don't know if super caps will ever replace batteries or be viable has energy storage mechanisms in regenerative braking systems. But it looks like they probably will play some role in motor vehicles. There are huge potential advantages to super caps over batteries if super caps can be made to store enough energy and they can be made cheap enough . They have wider operating temperature ranges, they are likely to degrade more slowly over time than batteries, they are likely to use less environmentally problematic chemicals in their construction, they are essentially impervious to damage from being discharged too deeply or too little, because of their greater efficiency they require simpler methods for cooling, and it is even conceivable they could cost less.

[David Wong]

There are a number of synthetic gasoline concepts coming, from everything from Algae on down to switchgrass. No, not ethanol, gas. High-test at two bucks a gallon.

The rest of the world doesn't seem to agree with you on this.

[David Wong]

I think I'll stick with my internal combustion engine. ;)

Good thing the fuel for those engines is infinite and will never, ever run out!

[balrog666]

Good thing the fuel for those engines is infinite and will never, ever run out!


With money, anything is possible. ;)

[Roadtoad]

The rest of the world doesn't seem to agree with you on this.

True. The question is whether or not it can be brought to market economically. Right now, the answer is "No."