13 August 2006

Interesting?



well, considering arthur c. clarke predicted this style of fuel back in the 60's. i've been lauding it for years. but everyone told me i was insane. but i built the castle, and it sunk into the swamp! i mean, shit, with a hand crank and two nails you could crack water. and we all did in elementary school. so, it stands to reason this is viable. plus the welding shit is cool as fuck.

-----

oh, and scooter:
This is how i will end this debate with you.

*********update: i have closed comments, not because i am tired of the argument, or am disheartened by defeat, but because the comment number is 69. and i am childish and laugh at dick and fart jokes. you can carry on this argument in my newest post if you wish**********

69 comments:

Scooter said...

The electricity needed to crack the hydrogen is more than the energy you get from the hydrogen. That you can do it is irrelevant; you get out less than what you put in.

Algae biodiesel, on the other hand... sun and carbon dioxied are free, and you can get back most of the water you use as well.

Simply put; my idea MAKES energy, while yours TAKES energy.

Chuck said...

That there is some cool shit, but the auto companies will never let us stray to Far from using gas seeing they hand in hand. but lets all hope for the best.

Chuck said...

hay my link on you page still dose not work.

it is

Chuckslittlelife.blogspot.com

joe said...

And what's Scooter's idea?

Scooter said...

Jesus. Do a google search on my blog, Joe.

Rev said...

Can't just link to it...

Noooooooo, that'd be too easy......

Kristin said...

Welding. That's sexy.

Drunken Chud said...

scooter, a moving car, or rather a running car, creates all the energy needed to crack the water. what's more, water is water. and it returns to water. requires no refinery, no growth, no nothing. just pump into tank, turn car on, and away you go. totally 100% renewable. and uses less fluid capacity per mile than gasoline. oh, and it doesn't polute at all. so, wait, you say, a clean burning, 100% renewable fuel source? i don't have to grow anything, or mine anything, or refine anything? nah, it's retarded. let's stick to ethenol.

Drunken Chud said...

welding is sexy kristin. especially if you're a she welder by day, and a stripper by night. just trying to make it on her own and get into the repetorie dance company using her raw talent and sexy stripper moves.

Kristin said...

First when there's nothing
but a slow glowing dream
that your fear seems to hide
deep inside your mind.

All alone I have cried
silent tears full of pride
in a world made of steel,
made of stone.

Well, I hear the music,
close my eyes, feel the rhythm,
wrap around, take a hold
of my heart.

What a feeling.
Bein's believin'.
I can have it all, now I'm dancing for my life.
Take your passion
and make it happen.
Pictures come alive, you can dance right through your life...

joe said...

Sorry Scoot-man... you two debate a lot of things, I can never keep up.

Scooter said...

"YOU CAN TRANSPORT IT AS WATER! both oxygen and hydrogen are combustable. both become viable fuel sources, that return to WATER after they combust."

Oxygen is not combustible. It is an... oxidizer. Moreover, if people are going to crack water to produce hydrogen in their cars, they will need a battery or a fuel source that contains more energy than what is in the hydrogen.

Since that is the case, it makes more economic and physical sense to just have an electric car or a car that runs on a carbon-based renewable fuel.

Cracking hydrogen TAKES energy, Algae biodiesel and Thermally converted diesel MAKES energy.

I have the laws of physics on my side, you have gullible reporters that don't know that hydrogen doesn't produce a visible flame on yours.

joe said...

Couldn't an electric/hydro hybrid work? Charge via braking to create the energy to crack water?

Scooter said...

Why crack hydrogen when a battery has less thermal entropy, Joe?

Steph said...

Fight, fight, fight, fight.

Drunken Chud said...

com·bus·tion (kəm-bŭs'chən)
n.
1.The process of burning.
2.A chemical change, especially oxidation, accompanied by the production of heat and light.

scooter, you have crap. i have the entire space industry behind me. considering they use liquid O2 and liquid H for... oh... half a century. besides, they use gaseous H to run the engines, then burn the liquids. but, they have to liquify them for transportability. in my model, water is the liquid, then the hydrogen and oxygen are sperated, used to burn each other, then returned from whence they came. no greenhouse emissions. simple, easy. oh, and another thing, if a water truck crashes on the road, hazmat is not neaded. plus, if you use water, in effect we force the fuel delivery industry to change. i mean, who's gonna pay $0.99/gal when they can run the tap, go to the lake, go to the shore, go to the river, flush the toilet a couple times etc?

Drunken Chud said...

chuck, fixed.

Scooter said...

Dude, think about it. If oxygen were combustible, the atmosphere would be on fire.

Drunken Chud said...

dude, think about it, if oxygen weren't present, how much combustion would occur?

Scooter said...

Yup. It's an oxidizer... not a combustible agent.

Drunken Chud said...

did you read the definition of combustion? i even bolded and italicized the important part "A chemical change, especially oxidation, accompanied by the production of heat and light." do you see the oxidation? PART OF THE DEFINITION OF COMBUSTION. now you're just arguing semantics, as losers of arguments are wont to do.

Scooter said...

Oxygen, by itself, does not burn. It freely bonds with any combustible agent, true, but once that agent is completely converted into a bunch of "oxides" it stops reacting.

Granted, oxygen is not "inert", thank god, but chemical reactions can occur without it.

Combustion however, needs it. Doesn't mean that it itself combusts. There are three legs on the fire tripod; heat, oxygen, and a combustible agent. Once the combustible agent is gone, there might be oxygen and heat left over, but ain't nothing happening.

That's why oxygen, while essential to the oxidation process, is not considered combustible. It TAKES the electrons of other elements.

You need it, but it's not a fuel source.

joe said...

Watching this fight is better than Melrose Place... Now drown Pacey's ass in the Creek.

Scooter said...

Aw, drown Pacey? But he made it with a cougar!

Chuck said...

Chud-- thanks


FIGHT FIGHT hehe

Drunken Chud said...

as i said before: "now you're just arguing semantics, as losers of arguments are wont to do."

Scooter said...

What the hell are you talking about? Show me a liquid oxygen rocket, and I will show you a combustible agent to go along with it.

It's an OXIDIZER! An essential part of the combustion process, but not the combustible agent, THE FUEL, itself.

As such, the hydrogen is the combustible gas, the oxygen is the oxidizer, and the spark the heat source.

Counting oxygen as fuel is simply wrong.

Chuck said...

In chemistry and manufacturing, electrolysis is a method of separating bonded elements and compounds by passing an electric current through them.


is this what you are talking about chud. it is my understanding that they would be using elecrolysis to crack the water so to speak?

joe said...

Chuck - I believe that's what he means, which then in turn means my idea of the hydrogen/electric hybrid would work wonders.

Scooter said...

That being said, joe, it makes more sense to crack hydrogen from gasoline than water. Water is an incompressible medium, and so is gasoline.

However, let's say we completely cracked a gallon of water. That comes out to about .92 pounds of hydrogen to 7.37 pounds of oxygen.

So, a 5,000 gallon tanker truck carrying water would have 4,600 pounds of hydrogen and 38,650 pounds of water.

Remember, oxygen is an oxidizer, not a fuel. Seeing as 5,000 gallons of gasoline has 575 million BTUS and 4,600 pounds of hydrogen has 10,621.4 BTUs...

Yeah, you have to compress it.

Drunken Chud said...

yes, oxygen is an oxidizer. and without it, there would be no combustion. so to not consider it "fuel" is retarded. oxygen fuels combustion. so shut up and put your hand down. the teacher's not calling on you right now. as far as taking hydrogen from gasoline??? wtf? yeah, why don't we waste time, energy and resources and still use petroleum. CUZ THAT SOUNDS FUCKING SMART! scooter, shut your mouth, and open your ears for a minute. the guy in the video has a car that he can run on water. it's completely renewable. returns to water when it's done burning, and is free to anyone who wants it. take a bucket, go to the lake. in michigan, you're never more than 6 miles from a lake, river or stream. here's the other thing: you're arguing this as if it's a hypothetical. this guy has one. he made a car that runs on water. 4 ounces of water per 100 miles. so basically a truck hauling 5000 gallons of water would be enough to fuel 16 million cars, one mile. by comparison, if 250,000 people had cars that got 50mpg on gas, that same truck would propel them one mile. i still don't see why you're arguing against this. i mean, 3200mpg??? thank you, i'll take that. even if it's a gas water hybrid with gas being used off the line then the switch to water. hell, electric for that matter. shit.

Scooter said...

Ok, who isn't listening here? Oxygen... TAKES electrons. That makes it a REACTIVE agent. Hydrogen GIVES electrons. That makes it the ACTIVE part of the combustion process.

You need oxygen, but without an element or molecule to bond with oxygen...

THERE IS NO HEAT, THERE IS NO LIGHT, THERE IS NO OXIDATION!

That makes oxygen the DEPENDENT part of the reaction.

We don't burn oxgen. We let it react with other compounds.

I am sorry to break it to you, Chud, but I know more about this. The guy in the video is lying. Hydrogen cannot produce a visible flame in a lighted environment. The first ten seconds... blue flame. Whatever the hell HHO is, it isn't what is powering the torch.

Secondly, he might be using only four ounces of water per 100 miles, but he isn't only burning hydrogen. four ounces of water contains .23 pounds of hydrogen. .23 pounds of hydrogen contains .532 BTUs.

Using the oxygen and hydrogen to create a more complete burn of the GASOLINE he is using... I buy that.

Going 100 miles on four ounces of water, alone... bullshit.

Absolutely, if we started running our cars on 100% oxygen with a hydrogen kicker, they will be more fuel efficient. Indeed, you might be able to get 100 miles to the gallon of GASOLINE. I haven't run the numbers.

However, if you EVER tell me that you went 100 miles in a Ford Station wagon on .532 BTUs, I will kick you in the nuts and call you Sally.

It doesn't exist, he does not have a car that runs on water alone, and carbon will always have more electrons than hydrogen.

The laws of physics are immutable. Fox fact checkers be damned.

Drunken Chud said...

wouldn't that make oxygen THE part of combustion? as you said: "You need oxygen, but without an element or molecule to bond with oxygen..."

so... without oxygen the combustion wouldn't happen??? so... what's the dependant part? anyhow, enough of that. i stopped arguing oxygen a while ago, you've kept it up.

and as to your hydrogen burns colorless, from the The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition: "A jet of hydrogen burns in air with a very hot blue flame. The flame produced by a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen gases (as in the oxyhydrogen blowpipe) is extremely hot and is used in welding and to melt quartz and certain glasses." so, uh, there's that.

Scooter said...

Columbia Electronics? You are putting your faith in the author of an electronics encyclopedia rather than from a chemisty standpoint?

A Hydrogen flame in air is nearly invisible. It just is. Have you ever watched the Space Shuttle launch? The flames coming off of the Shuttle itself are from hydrogen. They aren't blue.

A hydrogen torch is many times less powerful than the back end of the Space Shuttle. Think about it.

Drunken Chud said...

scooter, stop. you're making yourself sound like an idiot. it's not an electronics encyclopedia you dolt. it's columbia university's electronic encyclopedia, 6th edition. by electronic, they mean, transferred from print, to digital media.

trust me when i say i take columbias word, over say... yours. i mean, where's your accreditation?

Scooter said...

Ok, I looked at your source. It just says "hot blue flame". Ok, fine. I admit it. In a totally dark room, you can see a blue flame coming from a hydrogen torch.

In a room lighted by fluorescent bulbs, no fucking way.

The Canadians agree with me.

Drunken Chud said...

fuck the canadians, they can't even spell center right. and they simply said, "nearly invisible". the reason for this is the temp at which hydrogen burns. so, by paring back the mixture and making it ogygen lean, you would have a cooler burning flame. thus, a blue flame. remember scooter, temp generally dictates color. unless it's metallic, but, then who cares.

Stickler said...

I want one of those engines!

Drunken Chud said...

everybody does stick. everybody does. except scooter who hates jesus and america.

Scooter said...

No, Everybody wants it, even me. The problem is, I KNOW THAT IT SIMPLY IS FREAKING IMPOSSIBLE.

Look, .532 btus won't even start the engine on that Ford, let alone propel it 100 miles.

Drunken Chud said...

you're just jealous scooter. i understand it.

Stickler said...

My favorite part of this blog is watching Scooter and Chud fight, I really believe you guys should have a team blog where you just figh tabout things. I would be a fan!

Scooter said...

This isn't fighting. This is, metaphorically, me as Monty Python's King Arthur slicing off Chud as the Black Knight's appendages with the first and second laws of thermodynamics with a chemistry chaser.

Let's look at what I have said;

1. It is physically impossible to use less energy to crack water than the energy inside the water. Since you have to put more energy into doing it than you get out, I'VE JUST WON THE ARGUMENT.

2. Sun, water, C02, and algae will conspire to gather energy which can be extracted at a fraction of the overall energy content in the algae. This does not break the first or second laws, because the sun will shine whether or not there is an algae pool underneath it or not. As algae biodiesel will forever be more energy efficient than electrolysis of water, I'VE JUST WON THE ARGUMENT.

3. 5,000 gallons of gasoline; 575 million btus. 4,600 pounds of hydrogen; 10,621.4 btus. Since it is hysterically insane to ship water since it is an incompressible medium, and since all the energy needed to compress gaseous hydrogen, or H2, is lost when it is uncompressed, I JUST PROVED THAT YOU NEED TO COMPRESS HYDROGEN AT A LOSS.

4. Hydrogen flames are dependent upon oxygen and pressure. The Space shuttle's flames are barely visible, a hydrogen torch that is oxygen lean is blue in a lighted environment. We're both right, but look at the score.

5. Oxygen takes the electrons of hydrogen. It is not a fuel in a hydrogen fire. In a fluorine fire, ok, yes oxygen is a fuel. Since we aren't talking about fluorine, COUNTING OXYGEN AS A FUEL IS WRONG.

6. Four ounces of water= .532 btus. A british thermic unit measures the energy needed to raise a pound of water by one degree fahrenheit. You need 143 btus to melt a pound of ice. THAT FORD MIGHT BE USING WATER, BUT IT AIN'T ONLY USING WATER.

7. Fuck it... The dude blowing smoke up the ass of that Fox reporter ought to be locked up for fraud, and the reporter needs to attend a physics class at a community college.

This isn't fighting, stick, this is me beating Chud to death with a physics textbook.

Drunken Chud said...

1. you keep using this energy to energy comparison to say that you win. but here's what you keep lying to yourself about. water costs nothing. shipping water, is already paid by homeowners as a utility. or, if you're in the sticks, you have a well. now, algae bio diesel needs a place to be farmed (at a cost) a place to be refined (at a higher cost) it needs to be shipped (more cost) and a place to distribute it (yet another cost). you can make all the arguments in the world for bio diesel. but i'll take free and readily available, over just replacing gasoline with algae. so, in fact, i win both 1 and 2.

3. you keep using btus to make your argument, yes, while the btus are important for diesel, they are much less so for an ICE. just as the octane rating is nary as important for a diesel. hydrogen has an octane rating of 125. your compression problem? let me see, how does an internal combustion engine work... what are the steps of the actual mechanics... let's, step one is intake... i know step three is combustion, and i know step four is exhaust... but i can't for the life of me remember what step 2 is... OH YEAH, IT'S FUCKING COMPRESSION YOU DOLT! so, you see, using the motion of the vehicle to generate the electricity for the cracking of the water to have the gasses immediately compressed and ignited is wrong how? how? HOW I SAY?

4. yes are both right on this one, but, now look at the score.

5. ok, to be fair, i misspoke in a previous comment and i knew it when i did and have just kept that argument going to enrage you.

6. one thing you may not be taking into account, as far as the 4 ounces are concerned, and htis is pure hyperbole yet, not totally unfounded, is that it may actually run 4 gallons of water through the motor, but since after combustion it returns to water, he may be recycling the water, and 4 ounces of loss may be the consumption for 100 miles. i don't know, since i didn't interview the guy.

7. you need to pull your head out of your ass and realizing that reporters are infallible. (lol, yeah, i can't say that with a straight face)

stickler, this isn't fighting, this just me letting inigo montoya know that i'm not left handed either.

meDoc said...

Chud, you seriously need some chemistry 101 here...

Let's forget the entire discussion you've been having, and start from the beginning.

If you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen, energy is released and water is formed. This is because the hydrogen and oxygen form strong bonds between them, and these strong bonds require less energy to remain stable.

This is why an engine could run on hydrogen as fuel.

Now, here is the whole problem in your argumentation, that you don't seem to have grasped. If you plan on using water as a medium for your hydrogen, which is what this guy is proposing, then you have to break those strong bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the water molecules. Due to the basic laws of chemistry, the energy required to perform this process is exactly the same as you released by burning the hydrogen.
In other words, cracking water to get hydrogen requires the same amount of energy as you gain by burning hydrogen to get water! To this you will have to add the wasted energy, as you can never practically gain a 100% energy transfer in such a situation.

This all means that the battery used for the process of cracking the water will have to contain more energy than you will gain from burning the hydrogen you get.

In other words, you could just as well build an electrical motor for your car.


This all amounts to the first law of thermodynamics, which basically relates to the energy being constant. If you take water, separate it into hydrogen, burn the hydrogen and get water in return, you have simply gone in a circle. There is no gain of energy.

In your last post, your point nr. 6. talks about loss of 4 ounces of water. Where would this water have gone? If you claim that its mass has become energy, then you claim that this is a nuclear reaction...

Sorry dude, but you are very wrong on all accounts, don't know how to make it any clearer...

meDoc said...

Just to add a few comments regarding the various points you responded to in your last comment:

1 and 2:
Here you really show how little grasp you have of basic chemistry. Scooter is talking about the energy from the processes itself, not regarding transporting the water and all that.
Algae grow all by themselves, because they have a method of harvesting energy from the sun, unlike us humans. As such, algae are a source of energy for us, just like any other plant. It doesn't require any energy input from us.

Converting water into hydrogen and oxygen, however, requires energy input from us, as I explained previously. Hydrogen is not an energy source. When it is used as a rocket fuel, it is because of its properties as an energy carrier. The energy "stored" in the hydrogen, so to speak, came from another source before the launch.

3:
The compression issue is not about what happens in the engine itself, but rather that whenever hydrogen is used as fuel, it is heavily compressed (as in liquid). Water takes up much more space than hydrogen, and can't be compressed. Since you apparently plan on recycling the water anyway, this would not be an issue to you, but it should.

4:
Basically irrelevant to this discussion anyway...

5:
Ok, you've admitted that one.

6:
See above...

7:
This Fox-reporter is truly showing a lack of journalistic credibility I have seldom encountered...

Parmadman said...

In defense of my friend scooter, the main reason that hydrogen is not yet ready to take its place at the top of the fuel feeding chain is the cost of the electricity to release atomic hydrogen from water prohibits it as a cost-effective fuel for now. If we can construct something on the order of 60 - 100 nuclear power plants to act as the supplier of electricity for the purpose of powering the electrolysis of atomic hydrogen from water it might become viable, but since this will cost several tens of billions of dollars (and at least 30 years) to do this will not happen soon.

Believe me when I say that I truly wish it were not so...

Paramadman

Parmadman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stickler said...

Wait, Wait...SO is this news article fraudalent. And if it is why hasn't anyone linked to the site that says it is? I rest my case!

Scooter said...

Digg it, stick.

Drunken Chud said...

well scooter, you were right about one thing, the guy was using the water to create a more efficient burn. i looked up his Us Patent and there it was. doesn't change the fact i think this technology is the future.

Silverhill said...

drunken chud, I've just read through this lot and I must say that I'm glad that you acknowledge at least some rightness on Scooter's part. You need to acknowledge more, however, especially if you have indeed read the patent application. Remember this part?

"...[the design includes] heat sink means for removing an excess heat generated by the electrolyzer..."
There's that lost energy that Scooter and meDoc were mentioning -- Second Law, you know. You can't get something for nothing!

Or how about this part:

"The applied voltage to [the] electrolyzer is provided through [a] solenoid by [the] electrolyzer battery."
Note that the inventor is using a battery to perform the electrolysis. Where does the battery get its energy? From the vehicle's motion, you say (I guess you mean from regenerative braking)? Guess what -- the Second Law gets you again. You can't recover all the kinetic energy as electric energy, so there's another net loss in the system. You can reduce certain systems' losses, but you can't eliminate them. It's fundamentally a losing game.

Further, this "HHO" torch sounds as if it is simply a version of an oxyhydrogen torch where the reactants are the hydrogen ions and hydroxyl ions obtained by partially splitting water. Big deal. Greater energy is had from a full H2-O2 reaction, but even it does not achieve a temperature "greater than that of the surface of the Sun" (as stated in the Fox News report). It gets to about 4000°C; the photosphere temperature is nearly 6000°C. There is an even hotter flame possible, but even it does not reach 4800°C.


I also have a gripe with the imprecision of the language of the patent application. Example:

"Alternative fuel sources for automobile applications include natural gas, propane, wood alcohol, hydrogen fuel cells, and electricity."

No -- electricity is not a "fuel source". (Neither is a fuel cell; it uses, not produces, fuel.) Electricity, here, is the energy produced by a fuel source.

Also, repeated use is made of the word "hydrolysis" where they mean "electrolysis" (of water). Hydrolysis is "Decomposition of a chemical compound by reaction with water, such as the dissociation of a dissolved salt or the catalytic conversion of starch to glucose." (emphasis added)


Buddy, this technology is not "the future", not when it depends critically upon endothermic reactions! Listen to us chemists and physicists, please.

Drunken Chud said...

silverhill, welcome. while i can't speak to the language of the patent, or the mechanics of the torch apart from it makes fire out of HHO gas.

as for the electricity, and regenerative braking, sorry but no. see, cars have an "alternator". it's a neat new invention that makes "'lectricity". so while the motor is runnin' that thar doo hickey is makin' power.

as far as heatsinks, everything has heat sinks. my computer chip has heat sinks, my engine, in fact needs a radiator in order to run. this bothers me nigh.

so no, i will not listen to you. cuz all you've proven is that it would be hard to do. as opposed to building oil rigs, mining oil, trying to discover oil, refine the oil, ship the gas, store the gas, and sell the gas. wow. ya really got me on that one. man, i shoulda thought about that one more.

Anonymous said...

Drunken Chud, you don't understand any of this do you?

meDoc said...

Chud, you really don't get it do you?

"as for the electricity, and regenerative braking, sorry but no. see, cars have an "alternator". it's a neat new invention that makes "'lectricity". so while the motor is runnin' that thar doo hickey is makin' power"

What is making the motor run? It is the hydrogen burning. What produces the hydrogen? It's the electricity in the battery that electrolyses the water. If you spend all the energy from the motor running to charge the battery, you will have no forward motion, and if you choose to have forward motion, you can't charge the battery. Furthermore, any such system will have a loss of energy, so you will never be able to recharge the battery completely by burning the hydrogen produced.

"as far as heatsinks, everything has heat sinks. my computer chip has heat sinks, my engine, in fact needs a radiator in order to run. this bothers me nigh."
What do you think a heatsink does? It assists in having heat dissipate, so that the system doesn't overheat.
Where does this heat come from? It is basically energy that can't be transfered to the system, so it goes to waste.

A heatsink eliminates wasted energy.

Any device that operates with a heatsink does not fully utilize the energy it recieves.

So to summarize:
You can't both use the motor for charging the battery and have the vehicle move. All movement requires energy which will be removed from the system.

The heatsink shows that this system wastes energy, in the form of heat.

Bottom line:
This system does not create energy, as we have repeatedly shown you.
It is simply a system that allows for electricity to run a combustion process, which in turn runs a motor, instead of having the electricity run the motor directly.

Oh, and Stickler, the reason there isn't any articles refuting this story is probably that virtually nobody bought it in the first place.
Let me turn the question around; why is there only a video from fox news reporting this, if it's truly that groundbreaking?

missy said...

Oh wow, a proper debate on a blog!

meDoc said...

Chud (and Stickler), have you ever heard about James Randi? He heads the James Randi Educational Foundation, described as an educational resource on the paranorma, pseudoscientific and the supernatural. He is the guy who offers $1 mill. for anybody who can prove they possess supernatural powers, like telepathy.

He also deals heavily in the pseudoscientific, a description that fits this whole mess quite well. Here is a link to what he has to say about this "invention":
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-05/052606action.html#i3

He is not kind. I quote a bit from his article:
"Incredible! We are apparently immersed in a scientifically-ignorant culture in which the media can’t figure out the simplest of what would have been a grade-school science project for my generation."

"We’re told, in the FOX video, that “people still have trouble believing him” when Klein tells them that his fuel is water. Small wonder. That water has to first be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen through a method known as electrolysis. That process was discovered back in the 1800s, and it uses more energy than can be gained from it by burning the two components – that’s called the Conservation of Energy law, and it hasn’t yet been repealed."

So, are you convinced yet, or must this travesty continue?

Silverhill said...

"...i can't speak to the language of the patent, or the mechanics of the torch apart from it makes fire out of HHO gas."

Do you, or does anyone, know what "HHO gas" is supposed to be? It still sounds like merely an oxyhydrogen torch being run at less than peak efficiency (by not fully dissociating the water molecule before recombining it).
As I said, such a thing is not really a big deal.


"see, cars have an "alternator". it's a neat new invention that makes "'lectricity". so while the motor is runnin' that thar doo hickey is makin' power."

Gee, I thought I was the only person who knew that "alternator doo hickeys" were used to supply the electricity for cars! Welcome to the 19th century -- wherein it was demonstrated by the founders of thermodynamics that you can't get something for nothing. The energy needed to run the alternator comes from ... wait for it ... the combustion of the fuel. Most of the fuel's energy goes into moving the wheels; most of the rest is discarded as waste heat; a relatively small portion goes into the generation of electricity. Supplementing the fuel with a bit of hydrogen does not change the fact that the electric energy must be deducted from the total that is supplied by the chemical reactions.


"as far as heatsinks, everything has heat sinks."

Because everything involves processes that are not 100% efficient -- that is, all real processes. There are always losses when converting or transferring energy.


"so no, i will not listen to you.
...
man, i shoulda thought about that one more."

If you're not going to listen to people who have been trained in these fields, and who can therefore try to help you understand, then you should indeed "think about that one more." Unfortunately, however, unless you are one of the great intuitionists like Newton or Tesla or Feynman, just thinking about it is unlikely to help you. (Even they needed outside information, of course, to which they were willing to listen -- unlike you, apparently. Very sad.)

Silverhill said...

(minor edit to the above -- actually, a minority of the fuel's energy goes into motion of the car; most of it is discarded as waste heat.)

Drunken Chud said...

this is really getting fun. hehehehehehehe. anonymous, wow, easy to post in anonymity, pussy.

medoc, you have no clue how a car works do you? see, the combustion turns the crank. you know what the crank does? simultaneously turns the pullies for the alternator and other peripheral systems, but it also spins the transmission. which converts that to forward motion using the least amount of power that it can per gear. cuz all of these problems we presented in the past. well, except for the hydrogen part. so, yes, by turning the motor, you can in fact charge the batter, AND supply the electricity needed while propelling the vehicle. it's what all modern cars do quite well.

i am well aware of what a heat sink does. i am also well aware, yet again, that most everything that converts energy requires a heat sink. yet again, why are you making this an issue? an internal combustion engine requires a radiator (automotive term for liquid heat sink) and a fan (also generally turned by aforementioned crank, though, some are electric (whose motors also have heat sinks). again, who cares?

missy, welcome!

medoc, again, i am not refuting the illegitimacy of the article. i have ceded that fact. time to move on from that.

again, silverhill, i have no clue about the HHO gas.

about the alternators, see above.

listen, i understand that it's an inefficient system. i realize it requires more electrical energy to convert than it makes burning. i get it. doesn't change the fact that electricity can't be burned, and as long as the motor is running from the hydrogen, it can replace the electricity. because alternators come in many shapes, sizes, and some are even dual (cop cars, people with bumpin' systems) so i am not convinced you can't replace the electricity. our cars do it everyday. i get it, i really do. all i'm saying is that this, while impractical is doable. with some refinement and improvement in technology, it could in fact become practical.

Rolligun said...

Chud did you move your blog down here?

Drunken Chud said...

yes, yes i did. rolli.

meDoc said...

Chud, of course I understand how a car works...

"so, yes, by turning the motor, you can in fact charge the batter, AND supply the electricity needed while propelling the vehicle. it's what all modern cars do quite well."

Modern cars do not rely on the battery to propel the vehicle, the battery is only used to start the engine and run the electrical systems. All the energy in a modern fuel-driven car comes from combustion, so having a relatively small amount of that energy diverted to recharge the battery is a small matter.

A car that runs on hydrogen created by electrolysis of water is a different matter. As the battery in this car would provide all the energy that is put into moving the car, it could not recharge the battery at the same time, much the same way a purely electrical car can't recharge its own battery.

"i am well aware of what a heat sink does. i am also well aware, yet again, that most everything that converts energy requires a heat sink. yet again, why are you making this an issue?"

I'm not "making it an issue", I'm just pointing out that the presence of a heat sink indicates energy waste...

"medoc, again, i am not refuting the illegitimacy of the article. i have ceded that fact. time to move on from that."

I must have missed that part. What then, if I may ask, do you argue now? What is it that you believe this invention accomplishes?

Because we are now perfectly clear that it's not using water as an energy source, right?

"again, silverhill, i have no clue about the HHO gas.
I looked it up, according to Wikipedia (I believe) it is just another name for the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen.

"listen, i understand that it's an inefficient system. i realize it requires more electrical energy to convert than it makes burning. i get it. doesn't change the fact that electricity can't be burned, and as long as the motor is running from the hydrogen, it can replace the electricity."

The question is, what is the advantage of using electricity to power a combustion engine? The electricity doesn't create itself, it will have to come from some sort of power plant in the first place. By having hydrogen as an intervening medium, you ensure that much more energy goes to waste than if you used the electricity directly. As long as you don't have clean, cheap and abundant sources of electricity, the overall pollution will increase, the car will be more expensive to run and more energy will go to waste.

So, what is the advantage?

"doesn't change the fact that electricity can't be burned, and as long as the motor is running from the hydrogen, it can replace the electricity. because alternators come in many shapes, sizes, and some are even dual (cop cars, people with bumpin' systems) so i am not convinced you can't replace the electricity. our cars do it everyday. i get it, i really do."

Now you have me confused again...

I thought we agreed that this engine requires more energy to run than will come out. So how, exactly, do you propose that the batteries will be recharged while you drive?

For clarity, why don't you try to explain what parts of the newsreport you agree are false, and what parts you believe are true? What do you believe this invention can do, now or in the future?

Anonymous said...

You have officially won the award for the most comments on one blog post. :)

Drunken Chud said...

medoc, what i was saying before is that you can use the alternators to actually run the electrolysis. in theory, it could work. have a small resevoir of gasoline to actually start the motor and get it running, and put a quick charge back to the battery, then switch over to alternator (or even generator) power and use the hydrogen. just an idea.

yeah, after i looked up the patent i admitted scooter was right, that the car did not in fact run entirely on water. that it was an additive for a more efficient burn. now, i'm simply arguing that it COULD be done. naysayers be damned. why? well, it got scooter to go to the darwin awards forums for help he was so frustrated. i'm actually surprised he didn't go to you guys for help when i was trying to convince him that a moose will eat you if he (or she) is hungry enough. he refutes this, i know it to be true. heh.

Scooter said...

GOD DAMN IT, MOOSE ARE HERBIVORES!

Silverhill said...

(Chud said) "now, i'm simply arguing that it COULD be done. naysayers be damned."

And you remain impervious to the basic science involved, as repeatedly offered here by the "naysayers".

"what i was saying before is that you can use the alternators to actually run the electrolysis. in theory, it could work. have a small resevoir of gasoline to actually start the motor and get it running, and put a quick charge back to the battery, then switch over to alternator (or even generator) power and use the hydrogen. just an idea."

No, just a fantasy! Look at it again: Once the car is started, where does its continued energy come from? You say it would be from the combustion of hydrogen. Where does the hydrogen come from? From electrolysis of water. Where does the electrolyzing energy come from? From the alternator. Where does the alternator's energy come from? From the motion of the crankshaft. Where does the crankshaft's motion come from? From the hydrogen combustion.

Even assuming all of the following: perfect conversion of the hydrogen's chemical energy to kinetic energy of the crankshaft; perfect conversion of the crankshaft's energy to electromagnetic energy in the alternator; and perfect conversion of the electricity to the hydrogen's chemical energy (none of which actually happens), you're still using all of the hydrogen's energy to make hydrogen, with none left over to move the car.

Clear enough, now?

Drunken Chud said...

scooter, a moose WILL eat you! i've seen it! it was out of malice! not necessity. damn moose walked up to my buddy, thwapped him around with his big ol' antlers, then proceeded to feast on the flesh of the injured like a bloodthirsty lycanmoose. it was a grizzly scene. i have nightmares about it.

explain to me again silverhill. but this time use small words.

Silverhill said...

Small words, eh? Fine--no more than one syllable each:

There is no way to get it to work. You have to use real things, and when you do, you find that you can't win this game. You lose, some, each time you try.

quote: "It is true they have eyes to see, and see not, but none are so blind as those who will not see."