PDA

View Full Version : Hydrogen Enhanced Vehicles



Lysandor
09-14-2008, 20:08
http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm

I'm giving this serious thought in regards to my 1989 GMC Suburban R2500 2WD 5.4L TBI. If this is accurate, I should be able to install a system that would increase power and efficiency by 30-40% without too much trouble.

I'm also planning on converting to LPG/CNG for the main fuel to run it. With the HHO enhancement (assuming it even works) I should be able to do phenomenal things with my +12 Giant SUV of Earth Killing.

No matter how good it gets though, I ain't painting my shit green.

Thoughts?

chimp
09-14-2008, 20:12
http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm

I'm giving this serious thought in regards to my 1989 GMC Suburban R2500 2WD 5.4L TBI. If this is accurate, I should be able to install a system that would increase power and efficiency by 30-40% without too much trouble.

I'm also planning on converting to LPG/CNG for the main fuel to run it. With the HHO enhancement (assuming it even works) I should be able to do phenomenal things with my +12 Giant SUV of Earth Killing.

No matter how good it gets though, I ain't painting my shit green.





Thoughts?

This is the 175275305188 WATER4FUEL thread ive seen on forumfall, and it always ends up with a confused debate on whether or not you can totally replace water for hyrodgen, whether brownings gas is real, does this mean I can stop buying gas altogether, and reams of other bullshit.

Basically you dont sound like a retard, and seem to have twigged that the idea is to increase efficiency, not replace your fuel source all together. However I am always dubious of a site with a number in the name, and water4gas frankly sounds like a pile of bullshit.

If its too good to be true. Im skeptical on those kind of gains youd be seeing as well.


Edit - just looked at the url you posted, and lost ALL respect for you. If I have to spell it out any further, then I think you need to take a few more chemistry classes.

alfaroverall
09-14-2008, 20:16
The only basic way to generate hydrogen from water is through electrolysis. This process requires 486 kJ of energy per mole (18.02 grams) of water. Burning this in oxygen then releases 486 kJ of energy per mole. (If you're not intricately familiar with joules as a unit, that's quite a bit. 486 kJ of energy is enough to bring almost 1.2 L of liquid water from 0 C to 100 C.) In both processes, energy is lost; some electrons used for electrolysis do not push the reaction forward at all, and some (in fact, most) of the heat released in the combustion does not drive the intended purpose of the combustion in the first place. The first law of thermodynamics tells us pretty much all of this.

tl;dr version: Water can't be used as fuel. It can only be used as an indirect way of using electricity as fuel. By that very definition it won't be quite as efficient, but it may be more economically viable, practical, etc. to do it this way.

Drunkenork
09-14-2008, 20:17
Law of thermodynamics.

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 20:22
Edit - just looked at the url you posted, and lost ALL respect for you. If I have to spell it out any further, then I think you need to take a few more chemistry classes.

Are you saying that adding hydrogen to the existing combustion will end up making the process less efficient?

As for respect, I require none. I just require logical science one way or the other. Sofar all the arguments I've seen are based on the idea that this is the only fuel source involved, which is as you pointed out not at all the case.

Drunkenork
09-14-2008, 20:27
Are you saying that adding hydrogen to the existing combustion will end up making the process less efficient?

As for respect, I require none. I just require logical science one way or the other. Sofar all the arguments I've seen are based on the idea that this is the only fuel source involved, which is as you pointed out not at all the case.

I'll post it once more for you.

Law of thermodynamics.

Here is a wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

There are better places to get this info, but this should give you a start.

chimp
09-14-2008, 20:29
Are you saying that adding hydrogen to the existing combustion will end up making the process less efficient?

As for respect, I require none. I just require logical science one way or the other. Sofar all the arguments I've seen are based on the idea that this is the only fuel source involved, which is as you pointed out not at all the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement

Alfar is right. The potential gains you might see from having a more efficient engine are generally negated by the fact that the electrolysis taking place is pretty inefficient, as is the combustion of hydrogen. Both of those being steps you could avoid by not bothering with.

The only time you might see a gain is with engines that have problems with knocking, or with very old and low performance anyway. Most modern engines Id highly doubt you would see any difference in performance.

Just LOOK at the website, and the things its claiming. It sounds like it was written by a child, and/or someone with absolutely no background in science what so ever.

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 20:32
Well, unless I'm completely missing the point, the law of thermodynamics says it is possible for this to work. Using a third thermodynamic system (hydrogen enhancement), you make the output of the second (actual combustion, which is very inefficient) as efficient as the first (electricity generation). Or at least moreso efficient, obviously some variables exist.

I'm open to being wrong, but I almost think I'll need to try it myself ultimately.

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 20:35
Just LOOK at the website, and the things its claiming. It sounds like it was written by a child, and/or someone with absolutely no background in science what so ever.

Which is why I'm even asking about this. Ignoring the site entirely since all it wants to do is sell you instruction manuals, my understanding of the scientific side of this seems to me like it should work.

chimp
09-14-2008, 20:36
you make the output of the second (actual combustion, which is very inefficient) as efficient as the first (electricity generation)

I'm open to being wrong, but I almost think I'll need to try it myself ultimately.

"you make the output of the second (actual combustion, which is very inefficient) as efficient as the first (electricity generation)"

No.

Seriously no offence, but you seem to not understand basic thermodynamics, and if looking at that website didnt set off raging alarm bells in your head, I suggest you not hang around people who sell magic beans.

stalwart
09-14-2008, 20:37
Well, unless I'm completely missing the point, the law of thermodynamics says it is possible for this to work. Using a third thermodynamic system (hydrogen enhancement), you make the output of the second (actual combustion, which is very inefficient) as efficient as the first (electricity generation). Or at least moreso efficient, obviously some variables exist.

I'm open to being wrong, but I almost think I'll need to try it myself ultimately.

dude, this has been proven to be a complete ponzi scheme. the guy is getting sued by several class action lawsuits for promising something that can't be delivered. he's made millions, but looks like he'll lose it all.

if you for some reason still want to buy into the system while it's failing, by all means, go for it.

the main product that you get when you buy this stuff, is a book on how you can sell it. they even set up a website for you to refer people through.

Davinchy
09-14-2008, 20:37
I think they are just saying, you can't produce energy without putting energy in. There is no magic way to get around that. So If you where to produce hydrogen in your car, which as he said can only feasibly be done through electrolysis, it would take more energy to produce the hydrogen than you would gain by putting it back into the system.

Anyway it just can't work. Sorry

Drunkenork
09-14-2008, 20:39
I think they are just saying, you can't produce energy without putting energy in. There is no magic way to get around that. So If you where to produce hydrogen in your car, which as he said can only feasibly be done through electrolysis, it would take more energy to produce the hydrogen than you would gain by putting it back into the system.

Anyway it just can't work. Sorry


GJ.

stalwart
09-14-2008, 20:40
also, electrolysis in itself is a very efficient process... you really don't lose all that much energy that you put into the system. when they say "inefficient process" what they really mean is that you have to put a lot of energy in to get the same back. drilling for oil is much less "efficient," but because the earth and other forces have put so much more energy into it for you already, it's a much better solution.

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 20:40
This is the problem I've been running into quite a bit. Nobody can say exactly why it won't work without copy and pasting wikipedia or getting into a detailed explanation that isn't even addressing the actual question. Most everyone assumes it is just an old fuel idea brought up again, not that it is an additive to the existing system. Electricity from the engine is going to be generated either way, so why not use some of it to hopefully make the engine operate better?

Either way, I won't be giving money to the people behind the website, I can build and install the system myself tomorrow. I just want more opinions on it.

Drunkenork
09-14-2008, 20:43
The reason this tends to work on my older cars is because you are creating a lean condition which can show horsepower gains and increased fule economy. What they don't explain is that this puts the engine under strain and you are likely to break something.

A better method would be to make sure your engine is running as good as possible. Make sure your filters are clean, oil changed, timing is correct, no vacuum leaks, tires correct pressure and aligned. You will get a increase of gas mileage, your car will last longer properly cared for.

stalwart
09-14-2008, 20:43
This is the problem I've been running into quite a bit. Nobody can say exactly why it won't work without copy and pasting wikipedia or getting into a detailed explanation that isn't even addressing the actual question. Most everyone assumes it is just an old fuel idea brought up again, not that it is an additive to the existing system. Electricity from the engine is going to be generated either way, so why not use some of it to hopefully make the engine operate better?

Either way, I won't be giving money to the people behind the website, I can build and install the system myself tomorrow. I just want more opinions on it.

so, there is a reason that your engine produces that extra energy... because during spiked usage times, it needs that energy to compensate for the difference when you are accelerating, etc. if you were to cut into this "overhead," you'd see a huge performance loss.

chimp
09-14-2008, 20:43
Also, there are a bunch of domains like water4gasisascam.com, which go on to suggest that although it looks dodgy - its genuine. They then link back to the sites and contain all the pictures and bullshit on how to buy the book

Obviously sites set up by the same person. If this doesnt just scream FUCKING SCAMMMMMMM AAAAARGHHHHHHHh

you need your ears cleaned out

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 20:44
Well I'm converting to LPG/CNG regardless, just considering further enhancements.

Drunkenork
09-14-2008, 20:46
Well I'm converting to LPG/CNG regardless, just considering further enhancements.

Well best of luck with it, I really hope it works the way you hope it will.

chimp
09-14-2008, 20:47
also, electrolysis in itself is a very efficient process... you really don't lose all that much energy that you put into the system. when they say "inefficient process" what they really mean is that you have to put a lot of energy in to get the same back. drilling for oil is much less "efficient," but because the earth and other forces have put so much more energy into it for you already, it's a much better solution.

Sorry again this is total bollocks, learn some fucking chemistry.

Heat being given off by the electrolysis tank? Wasted energy.

No reaction is ever close to 100% efficient. When you couple the energy required to split water into hydrogen, with the highly inefficient combustion of hydrogen - the energy you produce is FAR less than the energy required to produce the combustible in the first place.

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 20:51
Well best of luck with it, I really hope it works the way you hope it will.

That would be nice, in this day and age anything that helps would be nice. If it doesn't work, can just take it back out.

chimp
09-14-2008, 20:54
That would be nice, in this day and age anything that helps would be nice. If it doesn't work, can just take it back out.

Ive not read over it because its so badly designed it makes my eyes bleed, but Im sure I read somewhere "Drill a hole here" and pointed to a part of your engine.

Exactly how much engine modification does it require? Im no expert, but im pretty sure if you start drilling shit in your engine, it wont be quite as simple to just take it back out.

stalwart
09-14-2008, 20:58
Sorry again this is total bollocks, learn some fucking chemistry.

Heat being given off by the electrolysis tank? Wasted energy.

No reaction is ever close to 100% efficient. When you couple the energy required to split water into hydrogen, with the highly inefficient combustion of hydrogen - the energy you produce is FAR less than the energy required to produce the combustible in the first place.

woah. big mistake. i work with hydrogen fuel cells. don't be fucking retarded, and reread what i said.

in terms of efficiency, making hydrogen from water is MUCH more efficient that how much energy has to go into making "gasoline"

it's just that all the work has been done over millions of years by other forces.

stalwart
09-14-2008, 20:59
lys, do you have a good source of natural gas?

chimp
09-14-2008, 21:04
woah. big mistake. i work with hydrogen fuel cells. don't be fucking retarded, and reread what i said.

in terms of efficiency, making hydrogen from water is MUCH more efficient that how much energy has to go into making "gasoline"

it's just that all the work has been done over millions of years by other forces.

You phrased it like a retard, but my bad - I see what you meant, I just thought you were being a lay retard. Your point was making one unit of a combustible from water takes less energy than making one unit of combustible from crude oil or something like that?


not really sure why thats relevant, since the energy will all come from the power grid, from your power stations.

What IS your point?

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 21:06
lys, do you have a good source of natural gas?

Taquitos, Bean Burritos, Chimichangas, and Eggs.




I live in Vegas, LPG isn't as common here, but many gas stations have it, but I can also get a CNG fuel pump installed in my garage with the appropriate permits etc.

Anyway, I found another site that seems to give more credit to the water based HHO system: http://www.auto-facts.org/water4gas-scam.html

Malhavok
09-14-2008, 21:07
Hydrogen gas injection can be used as an effective fuel additive, the problem is where to store the hydrogen and how to generate it. The most common method is a small electrolysis brick that connects to the cars battery and converts H2 and injects it as you drive. The problem is it's very difficult to generate enough hydrogen this way to make much of a difference. The more sophisticated systems rely on a pressurized tank and a home electrolysis bench run. This is more efficient as electricity from the grid is much cheaper than electricity and can convert greater quantities of H2. It's also more expensive.

Financially alone it's not really worth it. As a nerdish hobby and if you enjoy bragging about your gas mileage during small talk then maybe.

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 21:08
Ive not read over it because its so badly designed it makes my eyes bleed, but Im sure I read somewhere "Drill a hole here" and pointed to a part of your engine.

Exactly how much engine modification does it require? Im no expert, but im pretty sure if you start drilling shit in your engine, it wont be quite as simple to just take it back out.

Unless I'm missing something all you have to actually modify is to make it possible to have the HHO enter your intake manifold with the regular airflow, and if you have a turbo, it has to be before it in the airflow.

alfaroverall
09-14-2008, 21:13
Hydrogen gas injection can be used as an effective fuel additive, the problem is where to store the hydrogen and how to generate it. The most common method is a small electrolysis brick that connects to the cars battery and converts H2 and injects it as you drive. The problem is it's very difficult to generate enough hydrogen this way to make much of a difference. The more sophisticated systems rely on a pressurized tank and a home electrolysis bench run. This is more efficient as electricity from the grid is much cheaper than electricity and can convert greater quantities of H2. It's also more expensive.

Financially alone it's not really worth it. As a nerdish hobby and if you enjoy bragging about your gas mileage during small talk then maybe.
Solar generation of hydrogen using a home electrolysis system followed by injection of the hydrogen into a fuel tank could work quite well. That is energy that currently isn't really going anywhere useful, and so could potentially give some nice benefits.

On the other hand, you could always just use a photovoltaic cell to partially charge a pure electric vehicle's battery...

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 21:20
Solar generation of hydrogen using a home electrolysis system followed by injection of the hydrogen into a fuel tank could work quite well. That is energy that currently isn't really going anywhere useful, and so could potentially give some nice benefits.

On the other hand, you could always just use a photovoltaic cell to partially charge a pure electric vehicle's battery...

That is another thought I had, my Suburban has a very large surface area for the roof. I could generate the electricity for the generation of HHO without even feeding off the electricity the engine already generates (plus have myself a nice way to save my battery life and even completely act as a back up when it fails). That way the HHO put into the combustion process can only improve it...provided it doesn't do harm of course.

Malhavok
09-14-2008, 21:36
HHO is water.

The HHO you are referring to is retard shorthand for Oxyhydrogen which is 2H2 + O2.

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 21:41
Ok.

GetInTheVan
09-14-2008, 21:50
OP i'd recommend looking into Stanley Meyer's research to aid you in building an efficient on-demand hydrogen generation system.

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 21:53
OP i'd recommend looking into Stanley Meyer's research to aid you in building an efficient on-demand hydrogen generation system.

I'll look into it. I'm pretty serious about maximizing the efficiency of my 'typical American' monstrosity. I figure if I can beat a Prius at it's own game with one of the biggest SUVs on the planet...I'm doing alright.

EDIT: Very funny. Found to be a fraud AND was a completely different system altogether.

GetInTheVan
09-14-2008, 21:59
I'll look into it. I'm pretty serious about maximizing the efficiency of my 'typical American' monstrosity. I figure if I can beat a Prius at it's own game with one of the biggest SUVs on the planet...I'm doing alright.

EDIT: Very funny. Found to be a fraud AND was a completely different system altogether.

After a 1 minute google search or a glance at wikipedia? funny indeed.

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 22:01
After a 1 minute google search or a glance at wikipedia? funny indeed.

Is there more to it than that? I figured you were just being a creative troll.

stalwart
09-14-2008, 22:18
lysander, if you want to do it, go for it... it seems that you've already made the decision. let us know how it works out, and when it's good, come back and tell us how well it worked.


You phrased it like a retard, but my bad - I see what you meant, I just thought you were being a lay retard. Your point was making one unit of a combustible from water takes less energy than making one unit of combustible from crude oil or something like that?


not really sure why thats relevant, since the energy will all come from the power grid, from your power stations.

What IS your point?

i find it annoying when people say "it's an inefficient process" simply because in the case of oil, the work has already been done by other forces.

Spineless_DoO
09-14-2008, 22:32
Look companies are already making vehicles that run fully on water. It can be done with a 9v battery. The only thing holding back this tech is big oil and the moisture problems with current engine tech. These are not piston engine vehicles they are using and they cost alot of money. Within 5 years there is no reason we cant have affordable vehicles that run on water.

You can take all your thermodynamics and throw them away because at this time the one thing holding us back from dropping gas engines is the current price of this tech bottom line.

stalwart
09-14-2008, 22:40
Look companies are already making vehicles that run fully on water. It can be done with a 9v battery. The only thing holding back this tech is big oil and the moisture problems with current engine tech. These are not piston engine vehicles they are using and they cost alot of money. Within 5 years there is no reason we cant have affordable vehicles that run on water.

You can take all your thermodynamics and throw them away because at this time the one thing holding us back from dropping gas engines is the current price of this tech bottom line.

cars that run on water. :: sigh ::

i hope you are trolling.

alfaroverall
09-14-2008, 22:45
Look companies are already making vehicles that run fully on water. It can be done with a 9v battery. The only thing holding back this tech is big oil and the moisture problems with current engine tech. These are not piston engine vehicles they are using and they cost alot of money. Within 5 years there is no reason we cant have affordable vehicles that run on water.

You can take all your thermodynamics and throw them away because at this time the one thing holding us back from dropping gas engines is the current price of this tech bottom line.
What powers a 9v battery initially, do you know? It depends where you are, but in most places it's mostly coal. In some areas it's more nuclear. But nowhere is it a truly renewable resource. Also, 1 9v battery is not enough to perform electrolysis. You use dozens of them in synchrony to perform a task like that.

Also, seriously, electric motors are more efficient than batteries that are used to electrolyze water to liberate hydrogen which is in turn combusted. Fundamental thermodynamics which, if they were somehow incorrect, would destroy our entire knowledge of the universe, tell us that. The question is if it is more economically viable to use the electrolysis of water instead of straight electricity. From a purely energy-based standpoint, using electricity alone is vastly superior.

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 23:50
We are talking about vehicles though. As fun as philosphical science is, it doesn't really apply to a motor vehicle in the application being discussed.

Drunkenork
09-14-2008, 23:52
You can take all your thermodynamics and throw them away because at this time the one thing holding us back from dropping gas engines is the current price of this tech bottom line.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Lysandor
09-14-2008, 23:55
lysander, if you want to do it, go for it... it seems that you've already made the decision. let us know how it works out, and when it's good, come back and tell us how well it worked.

I'm pretty sure I am going to at least try it. Ignoring the silliness of the site in the OP, the stuff seems genuine enough. The worst that could happen is I turn my Suburban into a homeless shelter.

stalwart
09-15-2008, 00:18
I'm pretty sure I am going to at least try it. Ignoring the silliness of the site in the OP, the stuff seems genuine enough. The worst that could happen is I turn my Suburban into a homeless shelter.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/water4gas.html

well, read this. if you really want to believe that this guy that has been running scams like this for his whole life (and been VERY successful - even though he's been caught) has found a miracle cure for gasoline cost woes.. then okay.

alfaroverall
09-15-2008, 00:24
We are talking about vehicles though. As fun as philosphical science is, it doesn't really apply to a motor vehicle in the application being discussed.
...Yes, yes it does. Fundamental science can't just be circumvented. Granted, if you could radically decrease the waste energy of a combustion engine by introducing hydrogen to it via on-the-fly electrolysis of water, you'd have a case. But that's unlikely, because hydrogen combustion is just as inefficient as, if not more inefficient than, fossil fuel combustion.

There's a reason scientists and engineers learn all this theoretical stuff in order to become scientists and engineers.

stalwart
09-15-2008, 03:17
There's a reason scientists and engineers learn all this theoretical stuff in order to become scientists and engineers.

those classes are a waste of time. they should be cut in half. you can learn the basics of graduate level chemistry while writing your thesis... no need to waste my fucking time.

Drunkenork
09-15-2008, 03:24
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/water4gas.html

well, read this. if you really want to believe that this guy that has been running scams like this for his whole life (and been VERY successful - even though he's been caught) has found a miracle cure for gasoline cost woes.. then okay.


........................

alfaroverall
09-15-2008, 03:25
those classes are a waste of time. they should be cut in half. you can learn the basics of graduate level chemistry while writing your thesis... no need to waste my fucking time.
Some of the stuff is a waste of time. For example, learning the computation of the equilibrium constant is completely useless, because in practice you can't possibly measure the equilibrium constant with any degree of accuracy. Gibbs free energy, however, is much more likely to be useful, at least at the conceptual level, because it tells you that:
exothermic reactions which decrease entropy occur at low temperatures
exothermic reactions that increase entropy occur period
endothermic reactions which increase entropy occur at high temperatures
endothermic reactions which decrease entropy never happen
LeChatelier's Principle is also useful because it allows you to increase your yield of a given product in different ways. The Haber Process uses high pressures to increase yield of ammonia gas, for example.

Granted, I'm in gen chem II right now (we're studying reaction rates, which are also useful at the conceptual level but not at the mathematical level so much), so I don't have much room to talk, but I think a good bit of the stuff is useful. Get back to me in 5 years when I have my master's and can actually talk about this.

Titus Ultor
09-15-2008, 04:07
Oil is still nominally more efficient so long as we have some of it still in liquid form in the ground which can be easily reached. We're already nearing the point where the readily accessible liquid crude oil reserves aren't reaching rising demand, so this isn't really a relevant argument when we're talking ten to twenty years in the future. India and China, large countries with sprawling cities more akin to American counterparts than to European, will have a lot of drivers and a lot of driving to do. Demand will outstrip supply pretty damn soon.

NO energy process is going to produce more energy than it takes to manufacture, unless the earth has already done the work for us. Mother Nature has only done so much work producing fuel for us to utilize for our industrialized economies, and solar and wind power aren't nearly space-or-cost-efficient enough using current or horizon-level technology to power steel vehicles with passengers and cargo at 70mph.

For that sort of extreme demand, we need combustion and burning hydrogen from water is by far the most efficient way to satisfy that demand. The fact that the electrolysis of water wastes more energy in an equation that the parts could produce when recombining is irrelevant -- the fact that a common and available compound can be translated to something combustible which can power a car's locomotion is all that matters.

Lysandor
09-15-2008, 07:11
Even with all the discussion here, I might as well try it. I won't be spending any money on the 'scammer', and my truck isn't irreplacable. I spose holding off on the conversion would be a good idea until I've tried this.

Septus
09-15-2008, 07:23
For that sort of extreme demand, we need combustion and burning hydrogen from water is by far the most efficient way to satisfy that demand. The fact that the electrolysis of water wastes more energy in an equation that the parts could produce when recombining is irrelevant -- the fact that a common and available compound can be translated to something combustible which can power a car's locomotion is all that matters.

The fact that electrolysis wastes more (or much of the) energy than the energy derived from combustion is irrelevant? Are you high?

Leonon
09-15-2008, 07:43
You'd likely get better returns by filling a truck bed with batteries, replacing the engine with an electric one, and hooking the batteries to it. Be sure to cover the batteries and have a way to charge them using grid power though.

If you absolutely must have a water powered car I'd suggest trying the Crowler Six Stroke (http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE) model. Though it looks like quite a bit more work to assemble than an electrolysis mason jar.

stalwart
09-15-2008, 08:34
........................

WTF is this? /post.


Some of the stuff is a waste of time. For example, learning the computation of the equilibrium constant is completely useless, because in practice you can't possibly measure the equilibrium constant with any degree of accuracy. Gibbs free energy, however, is much more likely to be useful, at least at the conceptual level, because it tells you that:
exothermic reactions which decrease entropy occur at low temperatures
exothermic reactions that increase entropy occur period
endothermic reactions which increase entropy occur at high temperatures
endothermic reactions which decrease entropy never happen
LeChatelier's Principle is also useful because it allows you to increase your yield of a given product in different ways. The Haber Process uses high pressures to increase yield of ammonia gas, for example.

Granted, I'm in gen chem II right now (we're studying reaction rates, which are also useful at the conceptual level but not at the mathematical level so much), so I don't have much room to talk, but I think a good bit of the stuff is useful. Get back to me in 5 years when I have my master's and can actually talk about this.

when i speak of "wasting time with lower level chemistry classes" it's not because the information they teach is a waste of time, but the way they teach it.

i hate cookbook'd information such that i was taught in chem 101-299. until chem 301, I didn't learn shit. I could BS my way through it. in the same way that i'm pissed at people that call electrolysis "inefficient," i'm pissed at people that call 101-299, "useful."

it's not because of the info or true usefulness of the information, it's because of the manner that it's taught.


Oil is still nominally more efficient so long as we have some of it still in liquid form in the ground which can be easily reached. We're already nearing the point where the readily accessible liquid crude oil reserves aren't reaching rising demand, so this isn't really a relevant argument when we're talking ten to twenty years in the future. India and China, large countries with sprawling cities more akin to American counterparts than to European, will have a lot of drivers and a lot of driving to do. Demand will outstrip supply pretty damn soon.

NO energy process is going to produce more energy than it takes to manufacture, unless the earth has already done the work for us. Mother Nature has only done so much work producing fuel for us to utilize for our industrialized economies, and solar and wind power aren't nearly space-or-cost-efficient enough using current or horizon-level technology to power steel vehicles with passengers and cargo at 70mph.

For that sort of extreme demand, we need combustion and burning hydrogen from water is by far the most efficient way to satisfy that demand. The fact that the electrolysis of water wastes more energy in an equation that the parts could produce when recombining is irrelevant -- the fact that a common and available compound can be translated to something combustible which can power a car's locomotion is all that matters.

either way, you are using the word "inefficient" incorrectly. fucking stop it. the process itself isn't "inefficient," it's just the fact that other ways (using oil) are "BETTER" because of the way they are produced.

the energy that went into producing the hydrogen that we use for hydrogen fuel cells was produced MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY than the energy that is yielded from octane. that's because the earth spend 10000000000000x the energy producing that octane. the only reason we think it's better is because we didn't have to exert that energy in ANY FORM.

given all this, i still approve of your post MUCH MORE than the craptastic shit that i've seen here thus far (crimp or chimp or crump or whatever the fuck that retard's name is).


Even with all the discussion here, I might as well try it. I won't be spending any money on the 'scammer', and my truck isn't irreplacable. I spose holding off on the conversion would be a good idea until I've tried this.

this is what you need to realize:

If you have a cheap, inexhaustible source of natural gas: Go for the CNG conversion for your car.

However, I beg you, Lys... do not think that HHO is anything else besides H2O. the "2" in that formula means "two" of the "H". AKA, HHO = H2O. H2O = water.

Because I work with fuel cells, plasma cracking, and hydrogen peroxide cells FOR A FUCKING LIVING... let me BEG YOU... don't think you can get one more unit out of any amount of water than you can by drinking it.... (can you get "full" by drinking water?... that shit will kill you)

our bodies learned to survive on the bits of energy it could. if by mixing "HHO" or "H2O" (the same thing) with ANY amount of ANY other compound... we could make more energy... our bodies would have ALREADY been doing it. water is there for a medium for these reactions to exist.

acting like water contributed ANY WAY to the energy output of these equations would be a SIN against the basic priciples of chemistry... AKA... the transfer ONE electron from Lithium... it takes 1.7 V no matter WHAT WAY you do it.

trust me. present day "cutting edge" research is done by looking at our environment and "natural selection" and seen how it's already dealt with our problems. this douchebag... having done no actual research... knows NOTHING that i don't already know. PLEASE don't think this HHO gas scheme is worth a DAMN.

i've already tried it, i've already convinced coworkers against it, and i've already convinced forumfallers against it... please don't make me do it again.

our bodies, after 4 billion years of evolution, still produce energy off of someone else's work. if we could, for some miraculous reason, produce 15-184% energy from the "overhead" that our body's produce (much in the same way that the energy that you are talking about that our car produces), we would have already been doing it... IT WOULD ALREADY HAVE DONE IT. and we would have already cheated and copied that work...


You'd likely get better returns by filling a truck bed with batteries, replacing the engine with an electric one, and hooking the batteries to it. Be sure to cover the batteries and have a way to charge them using grid power though.


as much as i hate to use the work "efficient" like the way you asshats do, i guess i sort of have to agree. tesla came up with this shit 100 years ago and he's still better than you at it.

converting a nuclear reaction in vegas at a plant is still 100000000x better than your retard ass trying to put whatever kind of "solar panels" on the roof of your car is. it's a shame that charging alkaline batteries in "brussels," then transporting those batteries via gas, then manufacturing your car using those batteries, THEN powering your CAR using those batteries is than you trying to power your shitty little car by shitty little panels is.



EDIT: A TL : DR : I'M A DRUNK IRISHMAN. I STILL KNOW MOAR THAN YOU. PLEASE STOP TRYING BEFORE YOU USE MORE RESOURCES THAN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE IS WORTH. it's been done before and only because some retard got in his head that it might be a good idea. FUCKING STOP IT.

edit2: it might be worth you trying... because next time, you might actually fucking listen to the "experts" in the world that this dude is telling you not to listen to. either way... you not doing it a second time might be worth it.

edit3: i'm still drunk and i see several grammatical errors. AKA: i don't give a shit enough to correct them. please don't remind me of them because i'm not going to respond.

stalwart
09-15-2008, 08:46
my post is funny, whether you look at it like the way of a drunken man trying to explain the complex shit he works with to the drunken man that has no idea what he's talking about.

either way, i doubt anyone responds to that shit more than picking out a few points and moving on.

edit: which sorta invalidates the whole conversation. Lys... you're wasting your time. what you are trying to do is not novel. if it were... and a great idea, we'd all be doing it. give it up already.

spend your time inventing something new.

Lysandor
09-15-2008, 10:38
Well you certainly seem to feel pretty strongly about the subject. What would you suggest other than going ahead with the CNG/LPG conversion, which I plan to do anyway? Im sure there are ways to stretch out the efficiency of a 20 year old internal combustion engine.

Titus Ultor
09-15-2008, 11:19
The fact that electrolysis wastes more (or much of the) energy than the energy derived from combustion is irrelevant? Are you high?

No, I'm not, unfortunately. I hope you are, because otherwise you're fucktarded.

Let me put this simply. Hydrogen+oxygen+fire can move a car. Water can not, at least not with out some massive waterwheel contraption. However, there are very cheap and efficient ways to create the electric power needed to create hydrogen+oxygen from water, which can then be used to move a car. Therefore, even though it takes up an equal amount of energy (plus heat loss) to create the hydrogen, it still may be more useful to use hydrogen.

The difficulty, really, is the transportation of the volatile hydrogen -- not the chemical equation. But don't worry, I'm sure your simplistic understanding and application of the First Law of Thermodynamics (or parroting thereof, really) actually does show up the huge amount of scientists with doctorates working in the field.

Fucking dumb asses, all of you.


the energy that went into producing the hydrogen that we use for hydrogen fuel cells was produced MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY than the energy that is yielded from octane. that's because the earth spend 10000000000000x the energy producing that octane. the only reason we think it's better is because we didn't have to exert that energy in ANY FORM.

Which is pretty much what I said, dude. Try reading. But oil's not going to last forever and ever amen, and is only going to get more and more cost-inefficient, nearly exponentially so, as supply decreases and demand increases (by about threefold as China and India industrialize, which is happening very rapidly). I'm more of an advocate of electric-powered cars, since it's a more simple exchange of voltage to locomotion than hydrogen fuel cells.

Lysandor
09-15-2008, 12:29
Ok, just so this clear.

If I power the electrolysis process entirely off of an independent solar panel/battery system and have the product added to the engine combustion, will it add enough efficiency to the engine with tweaking to justify the effort of doing it?

Titus Ultor
09-15-2008, 12:44
Ok, just so this clear.

If I power the electrolysis process entirely off of an independent solar panel/battery system and have the product added to the engine combustion, will it add enough efficiency to the engine with tweaking to justify the effort of doing it?

We can't really tell you without you giving us numbers, in which case you could easily do it yourself.

Spinewire
09-15-2008, 12:46
It's a shame you lot could not convert your cars to run of hot air

stalwart
09-15-2008, 12:56
Well you certainly seem to feel pretty strongly about the subject. What would you suggest other than going ahead with the CNG/LPG conversion, which I plan to do anyway? Im sure there are ways to stretch out the efficiency of a 20 year old internal combustion engine.

convert it into running off of used vegetable oil if nothing else. go to McD's and tell them that you want to set it up where you can dispose of their oil for them.

it's fucking free at that point.

Lysandor
09-15-2008, 13:37
convert it into running off of used vegetable oil if nothing else. go to McD's and tell them that you want to set it up where you can dispose of their oil for them.

it's fucking free at that point.

I considered that, but I plan to travel with this vehicle. And LPG/CNG are far easier to get reliably.

alfaroverall
09-15-2008, 14:05
when i speak of "wasting time with lower level chemistry classes" it's not because the information they teach is a waste of time, but the way they teach it.

i hate cookbook'd information such that i was taught in chem 101-299. until chem 301, I didn't learn shit. I could BS my way through it. in the same way that i'm pissed at people that call electrolysis "inefficient," i'm pissed at people that call 101-299, "useful."

it's not because of the info or true usefulness of the information, it's because of the manner that it's taught.
Ah yes, that much I agree with. Ironically enough, I'm in 212 right now (I got a 211 credit in high school from IB chem) and of the 14 or so chapters we discuss this semester, I don't know 2 of them. I shit you not; IB is just weird in what it teaches, and so I have to sit through this entire course for two chapters. (AP chem gets out of 212 at my school.) If I'd known this in advance, I would've just ordered the books in advance, read over those chapters, and tested out...but no. Now I get to just sit there, wasting 4 credit hours and about $600 worth of tuition.

I'm a perfect example of what you're talking about.

Pcheez
09-15-2008, 14:16
You have any idea of the temperature you need to keep LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) at to sustain its form ?

LPG for everyday automobiles in its pure form is not feasible.

Lysandor
09-15-2008, 14:35
You have any idea of the temperature you need to keep LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) at to sustain its form ?

LPG for everyday automobiles in its pure form is not feasible.

You should tell the taxi companies (in Vegas) that what they have been doing for over a year isnt going to work then.

Pcheez
09-15-2008, 14:41
You should tell the taxi companies (in Vegas) that what they have been doing for over a year isnt going to work then.

If they are running on pure LPG that requires some -70 C to maintain liquid form (been a while since i worked with LPG carriers) , then they just blew my mind.

Im not "down" with what cabbies are up to these days tho, so i could be outdated on lpg

alfaroverall
09-15-2008, 14:45
If they are running on pure LPG that requires some -70 C to maintain liquid form (been a while since i worked with LPG carriers) , then they just blew my mind.

Im not "down" with what cabbies are up to these days tho, so i could be outdated on lpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_petroleum_gas#Usage_in_vehicle s seems to imply that somehow or other it's doable, although in practical terms gasoline is "better" if taxes are neglected.

Jovien
09-15-2008, 15:00
I have thought about this a lot, and have come to a rather interesting conclusion.

Humanity is capable of doing absolutely anything it like, fly in the sky, fly through space, terraform entire solar systems.

All that is required is energy. If you can produce enough energy you can do anything. But thats the thing, the universe doesn't hand out infinite energy for nothing. Barring Zero Point Power, the most efficient energy production method is matter / antimatter annihilation. This yields, 100% of the converted matter into energy. But not necessarily usable energy.

No matter what level of technology you look at the basic principles the same, matter fuel converted into energy using various methods into various forms at various efficiencies.

Petrol and Nuclear power can BOTH yield massive amounts of energy in the process of energy collection is looked at and refine, after all nuclear power plants use stream turbines to convert the nuclear reation into energy via heating water into stream, jesus HOW primitive is that???

If we could harness the raw power of a nuclear reaction and convert all of it into electricity then we would have plenty of power to go around.

The same applies to the process of combustion. Essentially a internal combustion engine only converts the kinetic energy of the combustion into further kinetic energy that turns a motor and generates electricity. This method is wholy inefficient has we have lost a massive amount of the energy released from the combustion in the form of heat, light and other energies and lost much more transferring that energy to the generator.

If we developed a truly efficient petrolum engine with 90% or higher efficiency, and used the oil we have wasted in over a century of inefficient petrolum powered engines, we would be rolling in excess power and oil, instead we are suffering from depleting supplies and gas guzzling engines consuming gallons of refined oil when a few pints should be more than enough.

:( oh well.

Lysandor
09-15-2008, 17:04
Well the people going on about thermodynamics really are missing the point. The point is to have more mpg of fuel, not make it more efficient on a napkin.

stalwart
09-15-2008, 17:17
Well the people going on about thermodynamics really are missing the point. The point is to have more mpg of fuel, not make it more efficient on a napkin.

no, adding water (HHO) to your gas will not give you better gas mileage in any way, shape, or form.

also, adding H2 and O2 to your gas will not improve your gas mileage enough to make it work the investment.

alfaroverall
09-15-2008, 18:06
Well the people going on about thermodynamics really are missing the point. The point is to have more mpg of fuel, not make it more efficient on a napkin.
That napkin is what models your real mpg. The napkin can't model exactly how much energy you will lose (this fact is the basis of the entire field of catalysis) but it can tell you that you will indeed lose energy.

I'd be curious to run a calorimetry experiment on the electrolysis of water and subsequent combustion of the hydrogen, to see how much energy is lost in a typical electrolytic+combustive situation and then do the same thing with gasoline. The first experiment would be easy; the second would be a little harder (combusting gasoline in a laboratory setting is probably not that easy or at least safe to do compared to most student experiments. The gasoline experiment also wouldn't take into account acquisition of oil and refining of it to gasoline, which is a big deal). Granted, both of these are probably quite a ways away from what it would be in a car (for example, you have to spark the combustion of the hydrogen in the electrolytic situation, whereas there's already combustion going on in a car) but it would give us an idea of how much more efficiency one would need to acquire to overcome the difficulties with the hydrogen "method."

Personally, I think electric vehicles are the best way to go, but all I have on which to base this is the fact that less energy is wasted in building and charging a battery than is wasting electrolyzing hydrogen and combusting it (or even using it in a fuel cell). This of course assumes that the materials for the battery are relatively easy to obtain, to which I don't quite know what to respond, since I don't quite know how lithium supplies are right now.

Stalwart, any thoughts? You're more experienced on this than I am. What would be best, neglecting all issues of R&D: a pure electric vehicle, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, or a combustive hydrogen vehicle? In both cases the hydrogen would come from electrolysis of water, since hydrogen obtained from dehydrogenation of hydrocarbons will become foolish to use soon enough.

Drunkenork
09-15-2008, 18:12
convert it into running off of used vegetable oil if nothing else. go to McD's and tell them that you want to set it up where you can dispose of their oil for them.

it's fucking free at that point.

Don't think his Burban is a diesel from what it sounded like.

alfaroverall
09-15-2008, 18:15
Don't think his Burban is a diesel from what it sounded like.
Not even getting into the fact that biodiesel production isn't exactly cheap or even energy efficient....

Drunkenork
09-15-2008, 18:18
I agree after all the costs. And I agree electric is a better way to go. But in all honesty, Natural gas is probably the best ticket right now imho.

Lysandor
09-15-2008, 18:38
Don't think his Burban is a diesel from what it sounded like.

Right, it's the standard Chevy 350 small block.

Thaeds
09-15-2008, 19:54
For that sort of extreme demand, we need combustion and burning hydrogen from water is by far the most efficient way to satisfy that demand. The fact that the electrolysis of water wastes more energy in an equation that the parts could produce when recombining is irrelevant -- the fact that a common and available compound can be translated to something combustible which can power a car's locomotion is all that matters.

I'm sick of all the fucking psudo intellectuals in this thread.

IF YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS STFU AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE.

Sorry for only quoting one guy here, he's not special. All of the tards here deserve to be flammed equally but I can't stand reading this thread any longer.

To respond to the person whom I quoted, your understanding is fundamentally flawed, at a level so great won't even understand me when I correct you, but I'll try anyway.

Energy is energy. Cars, homes, whatever can run on whatever the fuck they want, it's all the same. You don't need a "powerful" source of energy to move a fucking car. You do need an engine that can provide enough power, but whether it comes from hydrogen, gasoline, compressed air, batteries, or a fucking digestive tract it doesnt matter.

In a "hydrogen" car, what is actually "powering" the car is not the hydrogen. The hydrogen is just a battery to store energy. What powers a typical car is not gas, the gas is just stored energy from old plants/animals. The animals ate plants and the plants got their energy from the sun. In the same way a hydrogen car will use energy from whatever machine splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. If that machine is run by fossil fuels then you are still feeding off of the earths stored energy supply.

If you have an electric car you are using energy from the electric grid, which is most likely powered by coal power plants. You are still using fossil fuels to power your car.

The only differences in using electric/hydrogen cars are the efficiencies with which they use this fuel, and the differences in pollutants from a coal power plant versus a car (MUCH less pollution from a power plant than a car, per energy created).

The ONLY way that you could improve the efficiency of an engine in a closed system is by reducing the WASTED energy of the gasoline. Using the gasoline to split water, then recombining it trying to get more energy does not work. Now, if the gasoline reacted with hydrogen and formed a enw compound which had a significantly greater expansion when combusted, and gave off less heat, maybe it would improve efficiency, because less heat means more motion for the same amount of stored energy, and the heat is mostly wasted. BUT IT DOESN'T SO IT WONT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not even going to bother organizing this post better because the people who understand it already agree with me cause it's fucking science, and the people who are not able to understand it are going to flame or whatever cause they don't have a fucking clue and can't see why.

TL;DR
If you don't understand highschool chemistry and physics do not post in this thread. Everything you think is total fucking bullshit.

Lysandor
09-15-2008, 20:10
Now, if the gasoline reacted with hydrogen and formed a enw compound which had a significantly greater expansion when combusted, and gave off less heat, maybe it would improve efficiency, because less heat means more motion for the same amount of stored energy, and the heat is mostly wasted. BUT IT DOESN'T SO IT WONT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, one of the claims people make who push this is that the engine runs cooler.

Drunkenork
09-15-2008, 20:14
hmm. It shouldn't. If the engine is running correctly it wants to operate at a specific temp. too low of a temp or too high of a temp damages the engine after prolonged usage. That is why engine are made to get to a specific temperature and the cooling system kick in to keep it there.

Lysandor
09-15-2008, 20:16
Like I said, I'm looking for all sorts of input on this...I've seen some interesting stuff both for it and against it. I'm half tempted to buy an old beater for a couple hundred just to see what happens.

Drunkenork
09-15-2008, 20:17
I think if you were going to go ahead and do it. I think buying the beater is the best thing you can do.

stalwart
09-15-2008, 20:54
Actually, one of the claims people make who push this is that the engine runs cooler.

are you **really** still basing your decision on the claims that these people make? the same people that say, "trust me, buy the book -- don't ask experts -- buy the book and you'll understand. all your dreams will come true"

Lysandor
09-15-2008, 22:47
are you **really** still basing your decision on the claims that these people make? the same people that say, "trust me, buy the book -- don't ask experts -- buy the book and you'll understand. all your dreams will come true"

I'm not buying the book regardless. That guy running his blow torch on 'water' was rather convincing.

Malhavok
09-15-2008, 23:33
No, I'm not, unfortunately. I hope you are, because otherwise you're fucktarded.

Let me put this simply. Hydrogen+oxygen+fire can move a car. Water can not, at least not with out some massive waterwheel contraption. However, there are very cheap and efficient ways to create the electric power needed to create hydrogen+oxygen from water, which can then be used to move a car. Therefore, even though it takes up an equal amount of energy (plus heat loss) to create the hydrogen, it still may be more useful to use hydrogen.


There are ways to create very cheap electrical power? Such as? I mean seriously, go talk to some venture capitalists like now. You're the next billionaire! Oh, wait, no actually you're just probably an idiot that lives with mommy and doesn't pay the electric bill. But on the off chance that you aren't go talk to a venture capitalist anyway.

Titus Ultor
09-15-2008, 23:39
There are ways to create very cheap electrical power? Such as? I mean seriously, go talk to some venture capitalists like now. You're the next billionaire! Oh, wait, no actually you're just probably an idiot that lives with mommy and doesn't pay the electric bill. But on the off chance that you aren't go talk to a venture capitalist anyway.

Relatively cheap to using gasoline, retard. I pay my utilities and rent like anyone else -- I know it's hard, but don't be a queer.

If you've got an actual argument, please try posting again.

alfaroverall
09-15-2008, 23:39
There are ways to create very cheap electrical power? Such as? I mean seriously, go talk to some venture capitalists like now. You're the next billionaire! Oh, wait, no actually you're just probably an idiot that lives with mommy and doesn't pay the electric bill. But on the off chance that you aren't go talk to a venture capitalist anyway.
Compared to the cost of gasoline right now, he's right. His phrasing is bad, but he's right. Using water as a medium for using energy derived from electricity (which is both more efficient and cheaper than energy derived from gasoline, joule for joule) may be better than using electricity directly in a vehicle situation. The answer to that question is one that can really only be found by those involved in R&D. That either of these would be much better than using gasoline engines, however, is pretty much perfectly clear.

Edit: I see Titus basically said the same thing as me just before I did...

Titus Ultor
09-15-2008, 23:50
TL;DR
If you don't understand highschool chemistry and physics do not post in this thread. Everything you think is total fucking bullshit.

Most of my power comes from a nuclear power plant, iirc.

Everything else you said pretty much just further explains what I was saying. Thanks for agreeing with me, though.

[b]If you don't understand high school English (note two words in high school), do not post in this thread. Even if you're just agreeing with me without particularly realizing it.

alfaroverall
09-15-2008, 23:54
Most of my power comes from a nuclear power plant, iirc.

Everything else you said pretty much just further explains what I was saying. Thanks for agreeing with me, though.

[b]If you don't understand high school English (note two words in high school), do not post in this thread. Even if you're just agreeing with me without particularly realizing it.
He was snapping particularly at:

The fact that the electrolysis of water wastes more energy in an equation that the parts could produce when recombining is irrelevant
at which snapping is justified, imo.

Titus Ultor
09-16-2008, 00:01
He was snapping particularly at:

at which snapping is justified, imo.

You can say that, but I explained what it meant immediately thereafter and it's not that hard of a concept to grasp: energy from a wall can't (at this point) drive a car fast for long distances without being painfully inefficient due to hardware costs; energy from a wall used to produce hydrogen and water can then be used to power a car at relatively low cost.

All things being equal, as I said before, electric cars are probably the best option, particularly as our fuel cell technology improves. Besides that, after oil and biofuels, hydrogen is one of the better options available.

Malhavok
09-16-2008, 00:07
Relatively cheap to using gasoline, retard. I pay my utilities and rent like anyone else -- I know it's hard, but don't be a queer.

If you've got an actual argument, please try posting again.

Nope, sorry. Just because you're ignorant and too lazy to rectify your ignorance doesn't make me a retard.

A gallon of gas contains roughly 35 kWh.
kWh of electricity is highly dependent on region, in April 2008 it averaged $0.11 per kWh
Cost of a electricity to yield an equal amount of energy as a gallon of gas?
35*.11=$3.85.

Well, fuck me. That's about what a gallon of gas costs now isn't it? Funny how that works. The advantage, or rather potential advantage, of electric power comes from efficiency, not because electricity is cheap cause it's not. ICEs are terribly inefficient. Electric engines are very efficient. Storing electricity is expensive in terms of both capacity and pumping losses. The hold back on electric cars is storage. Hydrogen is a cheap way of doing so, but uh yah it's still got the problems of being inefficient like all ICEs. Hydrogen ICEs are much more efficient than gasoline ICEs (like 2-3x as efficient), but with hydrogen you face the pumping losses during pressurization and electrolysis.

Titus Ultor
09-16-2008, 00:09
Nope, sorry. Just because you're ignorant and too lazy to rectify your ignorance doesn't make me a retard.



Where the fuck in California are you getting gas for $3.85? We're at a dollar above that and there's little to suggest it's going to continue to drop back down for all that long with China and India ramping up demand.

Drunkenork
09-16-2008, 00:13
I was getting it at 3.90 here in Irvine.


Also, for the natural gas. If you wanted to see what the costs are around in So.Cal here is a link. I think This is the best option.

http://www.cngprices.com/

Malhavok
09-16-2008, 00:19
Where the fuck in California are you getting gas for $3.85? We're at a dollar above that and there's little to suggest it's going to continue to drop back down for all that long with China and India ramping up demand.

I'd have to look to pay that much. In the central valley it's about 3.60-3.70/gallon.

edit: Want CNG! I was very seriously looking at the Civic GX. $5,000 tax credit and another $750 for the home refueling thingy. If they'd just build some stations and I was actually in the market for a new car I'd be sold on one.

Gloomrender
09-16-2008, 00:21
This is a web-page format commonly used by crooked salesmen to sell bullshit products and services.

I'm gonna have to go with the "Too good to be true" argument on this one. They're probably selling a piece of junk, or nothing at all.

Thaeds
09-16-2008, 02:48
Most of my power comes from a nuclear power plant, iirc.

Everything else you said pretty much just further explains what I was saying. Thanks for agreeing with me, though.

[b]If you don't understand high school English (note two words in high school), do not post in this thread. Even if you're just agreeing with me without particularly realizing it.

You are criticizing me for posting in a scientific thread where the OP asked a scientific question and claiming I don't understand highschool english because I didn't make it two words instead of one? What total semantical bullshit. That's a case of "I'll try and nullify your argument by showing you were wrong about something completely unrelated". My argument however that people answering a scientific question without knowing science need to stfu is valid.

Btw I had more severe problems with grammar in that post than "highschool" so I have no idea why you chose to pick that out unless you didn't notice them. I'd say it's ironic but it's actually the norm on these forums so I'll drop it now.

As for your pussy explosion defense mechanism kneejerk response, I was not flaming you. I even went through the trouble of explaining that in my post and apologized for only using that one quote.


Sorry for only quoting one guy here, he's not special. All of the tards here deserve to be flammed equally but I can't stand reading this thread any longer.

You're not special. I'm flaming this whole idea and everyone who argues that it "might" work without understanding chemistry and physics. Flame me for being an asshole, or troll me for being right, don't flame me because you're so arrogant that you thought I was talking all about you. I went out of my way to show you that you were only a small part of the problem.

I don't think I read the rest of your post to be honest, so I have no idea if the rest of what I said agreed with you. If it did, fabulous. You're smarter than a lot of the people in this thread. If it didn't, but you think it did cause you don't know any better that is a fucking shame.

I have no problems with people not knowing physics or chemistry. No problems at all. What I have a problem with is people who don't know physics or chemistry arguing with people that do. That's fucking insane. It's like arguing the world is flat or that God takes the sun to heaven and has a fucking teaparty with it during the night.

Oh, and here's some food for thought, even though you're running on nuclear power you are still contributing to fossil fuel emissions. If you weren't using the electricity you are, it would be sent through the grid to someone else, who would otherwise be using fossil fuels. Since we aren't building any new nuclear power plants, and haven't for a long time, but are building coal plants, you cause the same degradation to our stored energy as someone who gets their electricity from a coal plant. Congrats!

Thaeds
09-16-2008, 03:00
He was snapping particularly at:

at which snapping is justified, imo.

I don't know how you remain so calm and collected in this thread. I'm normally super level headed but the ignorance presented here is unfathomable. Props to you for keeping it real.

alfaroverall
09-16-2008, 03:03
I don't know how you remain so calm and collected in this thread. I'm normally super level headed but the ignorance presented here is unfathomable. Props to you for keeping it real.
Thanks. Though I had some more passive-aggressive comments in this thread...just no one responded to them in an aggressive manner this timer around.

Thaeds
09-16-2008, 03:13
energy from a wall can't (at this point) drive a car fast for long distances without being painfully inefficient due to hardware costs; energy from a wall used to produce hydrogen and water can then be used to power a car at relatively low cost.

You are not up to date on your alternative fuels. Electric cars are not "painfully inefficient" (due to hardware costs or otherwise) especially compared to hydrogen cars. Electrolysis of hydrogen is possible but it presents ten fold the problems that a battery powered car does using todays technology, ESPECIALLY in-home electrolysis. It is workable, it is also vastly inferior. Something like 40-60% efficient while battery power is 80-90%. As for going long distances, you are screwed with either. When is the last time you saw a hydrogen pump? (they exist, but GL finding one). As for your cost "analysis" you just don't know what you're talking about. You aren't basing it on anything real, and I'm curios what misconception you are working with.



All things being equal, as I said before, electric cars are probably the best option, particularly as our fuel cell technology improves. Besides that, after oil and biofuels, hydrogen is one of the better options available.

All things being equal hydrogen is a fucking terrible choice. It IS a choice. It's just the most expensive and problematic one there could possibly be. Bio fuels, electric (like you said), or compressed air (doesn't get the attention it deserves) are so much more efficient/cost effective/easy to implement it's not even funny.

Sorry for hurting your feelings or whatever. I'm not an expert in this field or anything, but I've written research papers and kept up to date with recent technology, and you're full of shit. I'm afraid people might read what you say and believe it. Before you get all indignant again though, you should know you're not even half as bad as most of the people here so don't worry your pretty little head about it.

alfaroverall
09-16-2008, 03:58
One thing I wonder is: is it feasible (not possible, feasible, there's a distinction) for us to have fairly frequent (one per 20 square miles?) recharging stations that use extremely high voltage and/or amperage to power up an electric vehicle within just a few minutes? Or would electric vehicles be tied to overnight wall powerups, period?

Gloomrender
09-16-2008, 04:00
One thing I wonder is: is it feasible (not possible, feasible, there's a distinction) for us to have fairly frequent (one per 20 square miles?) recharging stations that use extremely high voltage and/or amperage to power up an electric vehicle within just a few minutes? Or would electric vehicles be tied to overnight wall powerups, period?

It probably depends on how many of what quality batteries can you/do you stuff into your EV...

Thaeds
09-16-2008, 04:08
One thing I wonder is: is it feasible (not possible, feasible, there's a distinction) for us to have fairly frequent (one per 20 square miles?) recharging stations that use extremely high voltage and/or amperage to power up an electric vehicle within just a few minutes? Or would electric vehicles be tied to overnight wall powerups, period?

TBH I haven't heard about it in a long time. One article I read claimed that a large capacity battery (100 miles or so) could be recharged in less than 10 minutes though. That's not violently different from gas which is like 2-3 or so (depending on pump speed ect)?

I would guess technology would only improve from there. Battery tech has made huge advancements in recent years, and I can see it making many more.

I also saw a really cool idea about a station that you pull up to and it just takes out your old battery and puts a fresh one in. That's a nifty idea for fast refueling. The gas stations could then eat the cost of the batteries, and replacement batteries, for a slight increase in the cost per charge. Cool concept but I don't think people will go for it... Sorta against the way our society thinks of property.

Drunkenork
09-16-2008, 04:11
I know this has been out of a bit, and if you are into cars or Alt. fuel cars you probably know it, but I will bring it up. Tesla roadster. Battery powered roadster that is pretty neat, they seemed to really have pushed the envelope on battery powered cars. If you haven't seen or heard of it, check it out.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Thaeds
09-16-2008, 04:17
I know this has been out of a bit, and if you are into cars or Alt. fuel cars you probably know it, but I will bring it up. Tesla roadster. Battery powered roadster that is pretty neat, they seemed to really have pushed the envelope on battery powered cars. If you haven't seen or heard of it, check it out.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

I've seen this before, but had forgotten about it. It is revolutionary and the tech is only going to get better. Excellent post!

The energy cost to drive it is 32 kWH/100 miles, or at 15 cents per kWH (somewhat normal price) about $4.80 for 100 miles. That's little more than a gallon of gas. This also assumes you charge your car during peak hours. Charge it at night (like you would) and it gets closer to $1 for 100 miles.

It's only $109,000 too, which is nothing compared to most sports cars that perform like it does. Though most people can't afford this, it is completely brand new tech so the price will only plummet.

Drunkenork
09-16-2008, 04:20
Yup, pretty inexpensive! Although, I wonder what replacement costs on one of those racks of batteries, another concern I would have would be the amount of ground pollution caused by those batteries.

Thaeds
09-16-2008, 04:39
Yup, pretty inexpensive! Although, I wonder what replacement costs on one of those racks of batteries, another concern I would have would be the amount of ground pollution caused by those batteries.

Lithium Ion batteries are not nearly as hazerdous as most are. Though it doesn't matter much cause they would be recycled anyway. The batteries last well over 100,000 miles, and then start to diminish, but I would imagine by that point (10-15 years or so) batteries will be much cheaper.

Another reason it's awesome is that there are so few moving parts and so little heat generated. You'll save tons of money in maintenence and oil changes and all that jazz, though I do imagine getting work done when you need it (if ever) it would be a bitch.

Drunkenork
09-16-2008, 04:42
hehe My experience with expensive stuff is, if it moves, it breaks lol.

Titus Ultor
09-16-2008, 07:02
As for your pussy explosion defense mechanism kneejerk response, I was not flaming you. I even went through the trouble of explaining that in my post and apologized for only using that one quote.


You new around here or something? What I did is called "discussion" in Forumfall, and "not flaming" is not an option. The rest of your post is slightly tl;dr so I didn't read anything but random sentences, minus the part where you claim to know so much about physics and chemistry when you've displayed no qualifications or actual knowledge beyond what agreeing to me displayed in the first place.

I picked out "high school" because of the irony in context of the rest of your post.

Pcheez
09-16-2008, 08:06
You new around here or something? What I did is called "discussion" in Forumfall, and "not flaming" is not an option. The rest of your post is slightly tl;dr so I didn't read anything but random sentences, minus the part where you claim to know so much about physics and chemistry when you've displayed no qualifications or actual knowledge beyond what agreeing to me displayed in the first place.

I picked out "high school" because of the irony in context of the rest of your post.

Are you familiar with the stupefying size of my penis ?


/thread

Malhavok
09-16-2008, 08:10
Actually, the performance is pretty poor given the price. From all the reviews from people that have actually driven the car the specs are massively inflated.

The Tesla is based on the Elise.
Tesla 0-60 in 5.7 vs Exige S 0-60 in 4.9 (Tesla failed to deliver its performance because they can't find someone to build a transmission that can change gears and last more than a thousand miles)
Tesla well-to-wheel 'mpg' equivalent to 55 mpg, not 100 'mpg' because Tesla failed to deliver again. Lotus Elise 21/26. Twice the 'mpg' is still impressive.
Tesla $100,000+ and rising. Elise MSRP $46,000 and you can get em below MSRP. (that's a lot of gas).
Tesla equivalent of a 2.1 gallon gas tank and even less storage space than an Elise.

The Tesla is still pretty impressive, but at $100,000 it's pretty much a novelty when you can buy its gas powered older brother with better performance for less than half that.

Malhavok
09-16-2008, 08:14
Lithium Ion batteries are not nearly as hazerdous as most are. Though it doesn't matter much cause they would be recycled anyway. The batteries last well over 100,000 miles, and then start to diminish, but I would imagine by that point (10-15 years or so) batteries will be much cheaper.

Another reason it's awesome is that there are so few moving parts and so little heat generated. You'll save tons of money in maintenence and oil changes and all that jazz, though I do imagine getting work done when you need it (if ever) it would be a bitch.

Even recycled they aren't clean to manufacture, and to date they are a non-recyclable in that it costs more to recycle them and return them to usefulness than it does to just make a new one. What that means in English is that Lithium Ion batteries cannot be recycled as barring a government mandate no one will do it.

Surly
09-16-2008, 08:17
Are you familiar with the stupefying size of my penis ?


/thread
It's so big!

Lysandor
09-16-2008, 16:51
I know this has been out of a bit, and if you are into cars or Alt. fuel cars you probably know it, but I will bring it up. Tesla roadster. Battery powered roadster that is pretty neat, they seemed to really have pushed the envelope on battery powered cars. If you haven't seen or heard of it, check it out.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

I'm looking for something more practical.

alfaroverall
09-16-2008, 16:57
http://www.myxpcar.com/
Vehicle made of a new, extremely lightweight yet durable material that is slated to be run on batteries. Its light weight makes it extremely energy efficient (f=ma strikes again) even by comparison with other electric vehicles. These are expected to be on the market around 2010 for less than $5000 each. Pretty exciting imo.

Thaeds
09-16-2008, 19:19
The rest of your post is slightly tl;dr so I didn't read anything but random sentences, minus the part where you claim to know so much about physics and chemistry when you've displayed no qualifications or actual knowledge

Good, because if you had read the rest of my post you most surely would have come up with some insane misinterpretation yet again and made yourself look foolish.

Also, displaying my qualifications... You want me to have my fucking college mail you a transcript of my As in organic chemistry and physics? I said I've done several research projects on this exact topic, what more do you want?

As for me being new, that's such a generic fall back dis on these forums it's just gotten old at this point. I hope you are disappointed in yourself for using it. Again your post focuses on some retard unrelated argument that has nothing to do with anything. Even if I had no qualifications at all, it still wouldn't change the fact that I'm right and you're wrong, and anyone who did have the required knowledge would be able to see that.

Lysandor
09-16-2008, 20:27
I'd have to look to pay that much. In the central valley it's about 3.60-3.70/gallon.

edit: Want CNG! I was very seriously looking at the Civic GX. $5,000 tax credit and another $750 for the home refueling thingy. If they'd just build some stations and I was actually in the market for a new car I'd be sold on one.

If you convert to propane, you can use CNG as well, that is my understanding anyway. I do not know if there is even a difference between the two systems other than availability.

Drunkenork
09-16-2008, 20:30
I'm looking for something more practical.

I think you fully missed the point on that post lol.

Lysandor
09-16-2008, 20:35
I think you fully missed the point on that post lol.

Not exactly, but the idea here is to lessen the cost and improve my driving efficiency. While Tesla Motors has a nice product, it is hardly efficient when all things are considered. You would have to replace it by the time it paid for itself.

Malhavok
09-16-2008, 22:36
If you convert to propane, you can use CNG as well, that is my understanding anyway. I do not know if there is even a difference between the two systems other than availability.

I spent a summer up in the North Coast beating around in an old farm truck that was converted to run on propane. It doesn't provide the fuel savings that CNG does, but then converting to propane is pretty simple. Typically a CNG conversion is MUCH more complex. You're looking at $2,000 to convert to to propane if you pay someone to do it or just a few hundred bucks to rig up something yourself for propane. For CNG the conversion is vehicle dependent, but much more expensive typically $10,000+. CNG tanks = big bucks, propane cylinders are cheap as hell.

I'm not really sure how the cost of propane has moved over the last 5 years in relation to gas. The nice thing about propane was the range. Five years ago the savings weren't all that much. Two large propane cylinders was good for about 1200 miles of driving and you could refill them at any uhaul, RV park,etc. Up in the Northern Coast it was awesome having the range, but holy hell filling that thing up was expensive. Also lack of gas gauge (ghetto conversion) meant not pushing it too far.

Lysandor
09-16-2008, 22:46
Yeah, LPG seems like a good idea if I plan to travel...CNG if I don't. But I already know I plan to be as mobile as possible, so I'll end up with propane probably.

Drunkenork
09-16-2008, 23:00
Not exactly, but the idea here is to lessen the cost and improve my driving efficiency. While Tesla Motors has a nice product, it is hardly efficient when all things are considered. You would have to replace it by the time it paid for itself.

Like I said you missed the point. I was just bringing up how far the technology has started to come. Not for you to buy one lol.

Drunkenork
09-16-2008, 23:01
The Phill system for gnc is neat I think if you have ng in your house already.

Lysandor
09-16-2008, 23:03
Like I said you missed the point. I was just bringing up how far the technology has started to come. Not for you to buy one lol.

And my point is that the technology has to be practical before it matters how far it has come.

Drunkenork
09-16-2008, 23:06
And my point is that the technology has to be practical before it matters how far it has come.

Ya, but I didn't bring it up because of practicality; however, I understand your pov. I think you and I were saying the same thing from 2 different areas.

Lysandor
09-16-2008, 23:22
I hate it when that happens...disagreeing is so much more dramatic.