Why nonsense, I've heard plenty of similar stories and of the petrol companies buying up the rights. Maybe urban myths I guess but I don't see the idea as being all that implausible.
So....by the time this is in cars we'll probably have liquid metal, right? I mean having to drop metal alloy every 4 hours into a car engine would be quite annoying and bleh.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
The only way you are going to get hydrogen out of water is by putting in more energy than you take out. The energy must come from somewhere. Their system might even work, but the idea that it uses water as "fuel" is just retarded. The fuel would be the mysterious "alloy" that strips the oxygen off of the hydrogen. The energy source in that case would be the unstable alloy (see the effect of pure sodium in water.) You aren't going to be able to mine anything in large quantities that has this property, because the earth has a lot of water on it. The fact that the article doesn't understand that fact, and even goes on to suggest that water contains a huge amount of energy unrelated to the energy required to break it, (lol) makes me pretty certain that the whole thing is just anadulterated quackery.
I don't know what you just said but it sounded smart <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hydrogen: This fuel is complete in itself. It does not need oxygen from the atmosphere to burn, which is an improvement over fossil fuels in saving the oxygen in our air supply. In fact, when hydrogen burns perfectly, nothing at all comes out of the tail pipe. If salt and metal alloy are used to create hydrogen, then there will be residues of that in the exhaust, but hydrogen fuel does not contribute oxygen to the atmosphere.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
when I read that, I had to ask myself, where does the hydrogen go, then? matter can be neither created nor destroyed, right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In Tokyo, Japan, for example, the oxygen content of the air has dipped to 6 or 7 percent. If it reaches 5 percent, people will begin to die. Tokyo has even put oxygen disbursement centers on its street corners, so that people can get emergency oxygen if they need it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DiscoZombie+Jul 21 2005, 04:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Jul 21 2005, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know what you just said but it sounded smart <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hydrogen: This fuel is complete in itself. It does not need oxygen from the atmosphere to burn, which is an improvement over fossil fuels in saving the oxygen in our air supply. In fact, when hydrogen burns perfectly, nothing at all comes out of the tail pipe. If salt and metal alloy are used to create hydrogen, then there will be residues of that in the exhaust, but hydrogen fuel does not contribute oxygen to the atmosphere.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
when I read that, I had to ask myself, where does the hydrogen go, then? matter can be neither created nor destroyed, right? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, when you're dealing with hydrogen in an engine it usally does use oxygen with that whole 2H2 + O2 = 2H20. So when you burn hydrogen in air you get water.
Perhaps the thing you're asking is: Does it use that mysterious E=mc^2 stuf...and no, no it doesn't; the journalist is just an idiot.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited July 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-DiscoZombie+Jul 21 2005, 04:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Jul 21 2005, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know what you just said but it sounded smart <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The underlying ideas aren't very complicated. Think about it as boulders on a hill. You put energy in to move the boulders up the hill. You can get energy out when the rocks fall down the hill, because they hit something of use at the bottom and make it move.
No matter how it is that you get the rocks up the hill, you can't get more energy out when they roll back down then you put in to get them up to the top. You can cleverly grease up the hill so its easier for them to slide down, you can use a big lever to help you get them up the hill. You can use a dynamite charge to blow them up the hill.
But no matter what, you aren't getting any more energy out of the rocks falling then you put in to get them up there in the first place.
That is the situation with hydrogen and water. Water is at the bottom of the hill, pure hydrogen is at the top. You have to put more energy in to make hydrogen than you get out when you turn it into water.
in the analogous situation with gasoline, gasoline is at the top of the hill, and carbon dioxide and water are at the bottom. You give it a little shove (lighting it) and it tumbles down the hill. Gasoline got to the top of the hill by being formed over millions of years from collected sunlight. You can synthesize gasoline, and then burn it, but you aren't producing any net energy in the process.
Its important to be clear about hydrogen fuel cells and the like. They are not energy <i>sources</i>. They are energy transmission methods. You can get energy from one place to another using hydrogen, but you can't get any net energy out of it if you had to make it first.
Moultano I think you are missing the point. The idea isn't to make it the most efficient fuel but to be <i>alot more</i> environmentally friendly than gasoline.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Thaldarin+Jul 21 2005, 05:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thaldarin @ Jul 21 2005, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Moultano I think you are missing the point. The idea isn't to make it the most efficient fuel but to be <i>alot more</i> environmentally friendly than gasoline. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh I know, and hydrogen cars would be great to use, but the thing people have to understand (and a lot don't) is that hydrogen doesn't replace gasoline infrastructurally. It just shifts the burden of coming up with the energy to somewhere else. So for instance, the energy would be coming out of the power grid rather than from gasoline, even if it gets stored in hydrogen temporarily.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jul 21 2005, 05:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jul 21 2005, 05:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Thaldarin+Jul 21 2005, 05:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thaldarin @ Jul 21 2005, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Moultano I think you are missing the point. The idea isn't to make it the most efficient fuel but to be <i>alot more</i> environmentally friendly than gasoline. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh I know, and hydrogen cars would be great to use, but the thing people have to understand (and a lot don't) is that hydrogen doesn't replace gasoline infrastructurally. It just shifts the burden of coming up with the energy to somewhere else. So for instance, the energy would be coming out of the power grid rather than from gasoline, even if it gets stored in hydrogen temporarily. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But this means if we ...ever... have fusion power it could easily convert [fossil fuel] run economics into whatever fuel source we want (hydrogen). The problem right now...is that most of our power plants are Oil, Natural Gas or Coal anyway (or nuclear, but thanks to START we don't get to recycle Uranium...), effectively just making powerplants make more pollution so cars can make less (circumvent the problem so others deal with it somewhere else <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
BreakthroughTexture Artist (ns_prometheus)Join Date: 2005-03-27Member: 46620Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Jul 21 2005, 05:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Jul 21 2005, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> am i the only one not understanding why they want gasoline engines to become hydrogen engines when there already is hydrogen engines <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There's hydrogen cells and engines. They made a hydrogen engine (which combusts), whereas hydrogen cells create electricity by transfering electrons of one metal to another.
<!--QuoteBegin-Breakthrough+Jul 21 2005, 11:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Breakthrough @ Jul 21 2005, 11:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Jul 21 2005, 05:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Jul 21 2005, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> am i the only one not understanding why they want gasoline engines to become hydrogen engines when there already is hydrogen engines <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's hydrogen cells and engines. They made a hydrogen engine (which combusts), whereas hydrogen cells create electricity by transfering electrons of one metal to another. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd also imagine it would be cheaper to convert a gasoline engine to hydrogren engine rather than buying a brand new hydrogen engine.
The thing about hydrogen fuel is that people usually think of it like fossil fuel. It isn't. If there were vast subterranean hydrogen gas pockets that we could pump up and burn, then it would be similar in use to fossil fuel. But that is not the case.
Rather, hydrogen can be used as a medium for energy storage. So far, we lack an efficient way to store energy. Batteries are heavy, bulky, polluting, and they don't pack a lot of charge. Hydrogen doesn't have these problems, and it can be re-used indefinitely. Use energy to break water into hydrogen and oxygen ("charging the battery"). Transport hydrogen to where you need energy. Use a combustion engine or fuel cell to fuse hydrogen and oxygen into water, releasing the stored energy in the process ("discharging the battery"). Repeat ad infinitum. Hydrogen as fuel gives us access to a wide range of energy sources that were previously not very viable, simply because they are either unreliable (such as wind and solar power) and there is no way to store the energy for times when the sun is obscured and the wind isn't blowing, or because they are only available locally and there is no way to transport the energy (most notably geothermal energy). The latter problem is partially solved through the power grid, but cars are among the biggest pollutants, and how do you make a car run on solar, wind or thermal energy? An electrical car, running on batteries? Again, you have the problem of batteries - big, heavy, limited storage capacity.
But the oil companies wouldn't like to see that. If a cleaner alternative to oil becomes viable, you might very well see a ban on the sticky, smelly, dirty stuff in all areas except where they're absolutely necessary (which is still a very big area). Reduced demand would lead to lower prices, something that the oil companies wouldn't like. You can bet that the petrochemical industry (plastics and such) would love it, but they're not the ones buying these technologies and making sure that they aren't implemented.
If you ask me, if you are deliberately holding back a technology by holding the patents or rights to it and not using them, you should lose the right to those patents. :/
I agree with moultano. Narry a chemical equation in sight.
Btw, Perth (where I live) is one of the few cities trialing H2 fuel cell buses. It's pretty cool seeing the white plume of water vapour streaming off the top of them as they go by <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hydrogen: This fuel is complete in itself. It does not need oxygen from the atmosphere to burn, which is an improvement over fossil fuels in saving the oxygen in our air supply. In fact, when hydrogen burns perfectly, nothing at all comes out of the tail pipe. If salt and metal alloy are used to create hydrogen, then there will be residues of that in the exhaust, but hydrogen fuel does not contribute oxygen to the atmosphere.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
when I read that, I had to ask myself, where does the hydrogen go, then? matter can be neither created nor destroyed, right?
Wow that's a pretty good help for paramedics too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hydrogen: This fuel is complete in itself. It does not need oxygen from the atmosphere to burn, which is an improvement over fossil fuels in saving the oxygen in our air supply. In fact, when hydrogen burns perfectly, nothing at all comes out of the tail pipe. If salt and metal alloy are used to create hydrogen, then there will be residues of that in the exhaust, but hydrogen fuel does not contribute oxygen to the atmosphere.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
when I read that, I had to ask myself, where does the hydrogen go, then? matter can be neither created nor destroyed, right? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, when you're dealing with hydrogen in an engine it usally does use oxygen with that whole 2H2 + O2 = 2H20. So when you burn hydrogen in air you get water.
Perhaps the thing you're asking is: Does it use that mysterious E=mc^2 stuf...and no, no it doesn't; the journalist is just an idiot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The underlying ideas aren't very complicated. Think about it as boulders on a hill. You put energy in to move the boulders up the hill. You can get energy out when the rocks fall down the hill, because they hit something of use at the bottom and make it move.
No matter how it is that you get the rocks up the hill, you can't get more energy out when they roll back down then you put in to get them up to the top. You can cleverly grease up the hill so its easier for them to slide down, you can use a big lever to help you get them up the hill. You can use a dynamite charge to blow them up the hill.
But no matter what, you aren't getting any more energy out of the rocks falling then you put in to get them up there in the first place.
That is the situation with hydrogen and water. Water is at the bottom of the hill, pure hydrogen is at the top. You have to put more energy in to make hydrogen than you get out when you turn it into water.
in the analogous situation with gasoline, gasoline is at the top of the hill, and carbon dioxide and water are at the bottom. You give it a little shove (lighting it) and it tumbles down the hill. Gasoline got to the top of the hill by being formed over millions of years from collected sunlight. You can synthesize gasoline, and then burn it, but you aren't producing any net energy in the process.
Its important to be clear about hydrogen fuel cells and the like. They are not energy <i>sources</i>. They are energy transmission methods. You can get energy from one place to another using hydrogen, but you can't get any net energy out of it if you had to make it first.
Oh I know, and hydrogen cars would be great to use, but the thing people have to understand (and a lot don't) is that hydrogen doesn't replace gasoline infrastructurally. It just shifts the burden of coming up with the energy to somewhere else. So for instance, the energy would be coming out of the power grid rather than from gasoline, even if it gets stored in hydrogen temporarily.
Oh I know, and hydrogen cars would be great to use, but the thing people have to understand (and a lot don't) is that hydrogen doesn't replace gasoline infrastructurally. It just shifts the burden of coming up with the energy to somewhere else. So for instance, the energy would be coming out of the power grid rather than from gasoline, even if it gets stored in hydrogen temporarily. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But this means if we ...ever... have fusion power it could easily convert [fossil fuel] run economics into whatever fuel source we want (hydrogen). The problem right now...is that most of our power plants are Oil, Natural Gas or Coal anyway (or nuclear, but thanks to START we don't get to recycle Uranium...), effectively just making powerplants make more pollution so cars can make less (circumvent the problem so others deal with it somewhere else <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
There's hydrogen cells and engines. They made a hydrogen engine (which combusts), whereas hydrogen cells create electricity by transfering electrons of one metal to another.
There's hydrogen cells and engines. They made a hydrogen engine (which combusts), whereas hydrogen cells create electricity by transfering electrons of one metal to another. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd also imagine it would be cheaper to convert a gasoline engine to hydrogren engine rather than buying a brand new hydrogen engine.
Rather, hydrogen can be used as a medium for energy storage. So far, we lack an efficient way to store energy. Batteries are heavy, bulky, polluting, and they don't pack a lot of charge. Hydrogen doesn't have these problems, and it can be re-used indefinitely.
Use energy to break water into hydrogen and oxygen ("charging the battery"). Transport hydrogen to where you need energy. Use a combustion engine or fuel cell to fuse hydrogen and oxygen into water, releasing the stored energy in the process ("discharging the battery"). Repeat ad infinitum.
Hydrogen as fuel gives us access to a wide range of energy sources that were previously not very viable, simply because they are either unreliable (such as wind and solar power) and there is no way to store the energy for times when the sun is obscured and the wind isn't blowing, or because they are only available locally and there is no way to transport the energy (most notably geothermal energy). The latter problem is partially solved through the power grid, but cars are among the biggest pollutants, and how do you make a car run on solar, wind or thermal energy? An electrical car, running on batteries? Again, you have the problem of batteries - big, heavy, limited storage capacity.
But the oil companies wouldn't like to see that. If a cleaner alternative to oil becomes viable, you might very well see a ban on the sticky, smelly, dirty stuff in all areas except where they're absolutely necessary (which is still a very big area).
Reduced demand would lead to lower prices, something that the oil companies wouldn't like. You can bet that the petrochemical industry (plastics and such) would love it, but they're not the ones buying these technologies and making sure that they aren't implemented.
If you ask me, if you are deliberately holding back a technology by holding the patents or rights to it and not using them, you should lose the right to those patents. :/
Btw, Perth (where I live) is one of the few cities trialing H2 fuel cell buses. It's pretty cool seeing the white plume of water vapour streaming off the top of them as they go by <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->