Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

New Thread On Fuel


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 red59convt

red59convt

  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:49 AM

Posted 22 April 2006 - 07:33 PM

Because the other thread concerning fuel has many pages to it, I wanted to start out fresh with a new thread.
I read every post in the other thread, and not once did I see any mention of the greatest source of fuel on the planet, one which more than likely would never be depleted.
What is needed is to immediately stop all research on hydrogen and fossil possibilities and concentrate on a way to not only build an engine capable of running on water, but find ways to de-salinize the
oceans water so it can be used for fuel.
The current research is grossly mis directed, and headed in the direction where (like oil) only a few will control it's production and marketing.
We would be no better off with hydrogen or electric than we are now.
With the oceans as fuel, the unlimited supply would insure it could not be controlled by a few.
The only possible monopoly in the system would be by those manufacturing and marketing te desalinization devices.
With the inexhaustible supply of ocean water, the price would remain stable for years and years.
The research going on now and the immediate future is aimed soley at alternative fuels.
What good is that to everyone today?
There are millions and millions of cars running on gas today, and those will never run on hydrogen or electric power.
A modified engine for existing vehicles is what is needed, not fuels that they are not equipped to run on.
I say spend the time and money on research that deals with a strong benefit for everyone.
My finances certainly don't dictate that I can purchase a new vehicle that will run on hydrogen fuel.
I am sure there are many in the same boat as I.
I would sooner spend $2000.00 on an engine retro fit that will use de-salinized salt water. then spend $30.000.00 that I don't have on a new car that will burn hydrogen that some fat cat controls the supply of.
The ocean's unlimited supply is the only way to go with this fuel situation.
We can land a man on the moon, travel years in the exploration of distant planets, landing exactly on target, but yet we sit here like a bunch of dummies, not seeing the forest for the trees.
The fuel of the future is what most of this earth is comprised of.
The oceans are there, always have been, and always will be.
It is pure insanity to not take advantage of this un depletable source.
Bob.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!


  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:49 AM

Posted 22 April 2006 - 11:09 PM

Why not just post this in the same thread? That way the replies stay in one area and not spread out....

#3 ddeerrff

ddeerrff

    Retired


  • Malware Response Team
  • 2,725 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US
  • Local time:01:49 AM

Posted 22 April 2006 - 11:55 PM

H2O is already at a very low energy state - there is no practical way to extract any further energy from it.

Edited by ddeerrff, 24 April 2006 - 09:33 AM.

Derfram
~~~~~~

#4 ddeerrff

ddeerrff

    Retired


  • Malware Response Team
  • 2,725 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US
  • Local time:01:49 AM

Posted 24 April 2006 - 09:33 AM

My apologies. That came out a little harsh. Edited to remove my 'political' comments.
Derfram
~~~~~~

#5 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:49 AM

Posted 24 April 2006 - 01:54 PM

The one reason no one with the money wants to research water engines is because they won't be able to profit from it. The government won't be able to tax the water you use from your garden hose.

H2O is already at a very low energy state - there is no practical way to extract any further energy from it.

I beg to differ. I read in a PopSci article that for a science fair project a kid made a rocket that was powered off of just water. Hell if you can make a rocket out of water (not the liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen like NASA), then with a little more help a life size vechile engine shouldn't be too far away.

MOD NOTE* Please refrain from quoting every single post that you reply to. We already read it once, and I get tired of having to scroll past all of the extra mess just to read the two lines that you entered.~g

Edited by groovicus, 24 April 2006 - 05:15 PM.


#6 ddeerrff

ddeerrff

    Retired


  • Malware Response Team
  • 2,725 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US
  • Local time:01:49 AM

Posted 24 April 2006 - 05:02 PM

H2O is already at a very low energy state - there is no practical way to extract any further energy from it.


I beg to differ. I read in a PopSci article that for a science fair project a kid made a rocket that was powered off of just water. Hell if you can make a rocket out of water (not the liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen like NASA), then with a little more help a life size vechile engine shouldn't be too far away.


Got any kind of link? Most likely this would be a 'water rocket' where water is expelled by presurized air. The water is not providing any energy, the compressed air is the potential energy source.

H2O is already 'at the bottom of the chemical energy hill' as is CO2.
Derfram
~~~~~~

#7 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:49 AM

Posted 24 April 2006 - 07:39 PM

It wasn't online, I'll dig up the article and scan it.

However, it wasn't powered as "presurized air," somehow the rocket (or whatever engine powered it sepereated the Hydrogen and Oxygen and burnt the hydrogen and expelled the oxygen.)

Found some related sites to it on Google:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/01/model...ogen_fuel_.html (actually company that made it)

http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2005/...ng_an_auto.html (skeptical view)

I guess I was wrong about the kid, however this is still interesting. We have the technology to simply turn water into fuel.

And check this out:

miniature internal combustion engine-based radio controlled car which operates on hydrogen fuel. The system incorporates a hydrogen/oxygen generator transfer system, and modified internal combustion engine platform.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/07/hy...en_powere_1.php

Edited by yano, 24 April 2006 - 07:45 PM.


#8 ddeerrff

ddeerrff

    Retired


  • Malware Response Team
  • 2,725 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US
  • Local time:01:49 AM

Posted 24 April 2006 - 11:18 PM

I'm familiar with the Estes product. The way it works is that a battery is used to break the water down into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Then the two are burned to provide the thrust.

However, conservation of energy applies here. All the energy you get out when you burn the hydrogen and oxygen were put into the system by the battery.

The only way to get energy out of water is to first put energy in to break it down into H2 and O2 - then react the two to get out energy. In a 100% efficient system the amount of energy out would be the same as the amount of energy put in to electrolyze the water. No system is 100%, so you get less energy out than you put in.
Derfram
~~~~~~

#9 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:49 AM

Posted 25 April 2006 - 06:04 AM

No system is 100%, so you get less energy out than you put in.

So if no system is 100% effective, then no matter what it always takes more engergy to put in than you'll get out of it.

#10 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!


  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:49 AM

Posted 25 April 2006 - 09:38 AM

What he is saying is water is even less than others (right D?)

#11 ddeerrff

ddeerrff

    Retired


  • Malware Response Team
  • 2,725 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US
  • Local time:01:49 AM

Posted 25 April 2006 - 01:10 PM

Think of a rock at the top of a hill. The rock has potential energy. Roll the rock down the hill and it will give up it's potential energy. Once it is at the bottom, it has no more energy to give up.

You can give energy back to the rock by lifting it back to the top of the hill. The amount of potential energy it has at the top of the hill is equivalent to what you put in lifting it up there.


A mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is at the top of the hill. When hydrogren and oxygen react (burn), they are 'rolling down the hill'. Once they are at the bottom - fully combined into H2O, they have no further energy to give up.

You can put that energy back into the chemical system by breaking the water back down into H2 and O2. But when you allow them to combine again (burn), you can get no more energy out that you put in.

Water is hydrogen in the fully oxidized state. It's at the bottom of the chemical energy hill.
Derfram
~~~~~~

#12 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!


  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:49 AM

Posted 25 April 2006 - 04:17 PM

I think electric cars are the future....Batteries are getting better.
I read of them making these electric generators they put balloons on and make them float up until they get way in the air where the wind moves very fast at a constant speed always. They run the cable back down to the grown and you always have energy flowing. Sounds like a great idea..

#13 BlackSpyder

BlackSpyder

    Bleeping Big Rig


  • BC Advisor
  • 2,456 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huddleston, VA USA (Home Sweet Home)
  • Local time:02:49 AM

Posted 25 April 2006 - 05:06 PM

I think electric cars are the future....Batteries are getting better.
I read of them making these electric generators they put balloons on and make them float up until they get way in the air where the wind moves very fast at a constant speed always. They run the cable back down to the grown and you always have energy flowing. Sounds like a great idea..


Yeah im gonna tie a balloon w/ a solar genset (as thats the only reason for a balloon) to my truck drive thru a lightening storm and burn up my entire truck. No thanks. Way too many flaws in that logic for me.

Lets all accept the fact that the government is screwing us all and there's nothing we can do about it accept pay the price of fuel.
The EPA is already complaining about hydrogen (oh well a bad idea to start with),
Hybrid cars have no power ( the only way to get more power is to use a bigger engine and motor (Self-defeating))
E-85 is great but no one carries it
And let us not forget the biggest factor in all this
the prez has stock in Big oil so does the VP and they will never slit their own throughts

Posted Image




#14 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:49 AM

Posted 25 April 2006 - 05:42 PM

Hm.. one place where we could get electricity, but it would be difficult, but unlimited is lightning storms. If you could harness the power inside one volt of lightning it would be exponental.

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/tesla-lightning.htm (Nikola Tessla first had the idea)

The average lightning bolt contains a billion volts at 3,000 amps, or 3 billion kilowatts of power, enough energy to run a major city for months. The United States gets hit with 4,000 lightning bolts a day.


If we could catch 30percent of those lightning bolts; that would give us 3,600,000,000,000 (3.6 trillion kilowats of power).

Edited by yano, 25 April 2006 - 05:43 PM.


#15 BanditFlyer

BanditFlyer

  • Members
  • 283 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:10:49 PM

Posted 25 April 2006 - 05:43 PM

*refraining from quoting as per mod note ... Dang! :thumbsup:

PopSci isn't the most reputable source. I realized this after a couple years in the University as a Chemistry major. I was not reading PopSci or Popular Mechanics while majoring in a hard science, but picked up a copy for some strange reason, and that's when I noticed just what a junk-science tabloid it really was - both PopSci and Popular mechanics.

Discover and Scientific American are much better, and, ironically, also easier for a laymen to understand.

I really think the only way to convert water to usable energy is to first break it up into Hydrogen and Oxygen by pouring an awfull lot of energy into it.

Most water rockets are just pneumatic devices that use water basically as a counterbalance, but are actually propelled(or at least the water is propelled) by the potential energy stored in some compressed air, but if you have other info, I'd really like to see a link. Thanks! :flowers:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users