TheNeedForZ Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I guess I hadn't seen that. Your right. It is free energy. Just burn the fuel in a hydrogen powered engine' date=' have it run an alternator, use the electricity from the upgraded alternator and extra storage batteries to generate additional HHO from a bottle of Evian, then use the HHO to power the engine. Never have to fill the tank again! I guess all one would have to do is park on a hill to get the whole process started, then it is all free energy after that! If you bolt on one of those 200 MPG carburetors and a Magnetic Cyclonification device, you could probably generate enough excess energy to put the local nuc plant out of business. Just put some solar panels on the top of the car and power them backwards so the excess energy gets pumped back into the sun for storage.[/quote'] Classic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartman Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I heard that a few guys came up with this exact same process back during the gas crisis of the 70s and that the big oil companies bought up all their patents and prototypes and then locked them up so the public would have to continue to buy fossil fuels.I think this is just another famous urban legend that's been around in one form or another for many years. Mythbusters just did a show about this and couldn't find any truth about this supposed "big oil company conspiracy'...not that mythbusters knows everything. They researched and tested several ways that advertised reduced gasoline use and some that claimed to eliminate it altogether..and to no one's surprise none of them really worked as claimed. The only thing that did work was running a diesel engine on used cooking oil. They made no changes to the engine and just filtered the cooking oil before use. Not quite the same mileage as using diesel, but pretty impressive nonetheless. I think one of the interesting technologies for the future is the use of ethanol. There was a story about this a week or two ago on Dateline http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12713171/from/RSS/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonsZ Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 I think this is just another famous urban legend that's been around in one form or another for many years. Mythbusters just did a show about this and couldn't find any truth about this supposed "big oil company conspiracy'...not that mythbusters knows everything. They researched and tested several ways that advertised reduced gasoline use and some that claimed to eliminate it altogether..and to no one's surprise none of them really worked as claimed. The only thing that did work was running a diesel engine on used cooking oil. They made no changes to the engine and just filtered the cooking oil before use. Not quite the same mileage as using diesel' date=' but pretty impressive nonetheless. I think one of the interesting technologies for the future is the use of ethanol. There was a story about this a week or two ago on Dateline http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12713171/from/RSS/ If you put a diesel engine in a Z and ran Rice Oil (if it exists), would it be called a ricer? Then what would you cann one that ran on corn oil? A husker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 If I recall correctly, it's been a few years so I may not, ethanol produces less power than oil gallon for gallon, creates more NOx and you'd have to have more than the entire square acreage of the US planted with ethanol crops to power all the cars. Also you need power to convert the corn to ethanol. I guess if you're using a still that could be some firewood, but for mass production you're probably heating the mash with electricity, so how much power are you wasting to get power out of the corn or whatever you're using? Seems to me that it's a stop gap measure at best. I also seem to remember that running diesels on vegetable oil is a better solution as far as how much fuel you get for your crop, vs running gas vehicles on ethanol. Probably the best alternative to oil, and there isn't too much of a need for an alternative IMO, is nuclear plants powering electric cars. Just work on the battery technology a bit and you might actually have something, but that's not likely to be a popular option with the greenies who are so worried about our "Mother". I also like the locomotive idea, where you have a diesel running a generator that powers an electric motor, but no diesel drive to the wheels at all. Unfortunately that's not the best for constant acceleration and deceleration, which is probably why you see it on trains and not cars as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonsZ Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 If I recall correctly' date=' it's been a few years so I may not, ethanol produces less power than oil gallon for gallon, creates more NOx and you'd have to have more than the entire square acreage of the US planted with ethanol crops to power all the cars. Also you need power to convert the corn to ethanol. I guess if you're using a still that could be some firewood, but for mass production you're probably heating the mash with electricity, so how much power are you wasting to get power out of the corn or whatever you're using? Seems to me that it's a stop gap measure at best.[/quote'] Supposedly E85 (mostly ethanol) is created in Brazil in self-sustaining plants that use sugar cane and burn the cane solids for fuel for the distillery so the plant actually makes profit from the operation and the E85 is cheaper than gasoline per gallon. Check it out. they have supposedly weaned themselves off foreign oil dependance entirely. There are a growing number of vehicles in the US that are "e85 compatible" this is a good thing IMO, HOWEVER! We couldn't burn sugar cane stalks without pollution, the added pollution of this no doubt dirty industry could be devistating to our air quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Read some articles online, and that certainly looks like a better way to make ethanol than growing corn and then using electricity from burning coal or natural gas to refine it. I don't think farmers in MI are going to be able to grow sugarcane, but maybe there is another plant that would be a better choice than corn. Thanks for the tip though Brandon. Very interesting stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-TARD Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 They need to find a way to use solar energy to distill the sugar cane/corn mash. Like the big solar hazmat burning thing in the movie "Sahara", only not gay. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cygnusx1 Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Tidal power. Do you know how much energy it takes to raise an ocean up 12"!! MONGO ENERGY. How do we convert it though...that's the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollum Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 From an article I read in popular science there's well over 50 designs out for tide/wave power plants. Any they're not all based on the same idea. It's amazing how many different ways engineers are arroching this. The problem in the past hasn't been getting it to work, but getting it to last. Most of these plants were designed to be efficient and once a huge storm came by it would serious damage things. In a storm the engery of the ocean rises dramatically, can you imagine a windmill in 300MPH winds, because that's not outside the question for water. The energy differences between a normall day and a storm is insane. So modern engineers are starting to think outside the box to come up with bright ideas on building a plant for strength and durability first, energy creation second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Very interesting' date=' use the SUn to store the energy, OF COURSE! We know this will work definately, You forgot about the "BIG OIL CONSPIRACY". Big oil will soon shut him down. It's BIG OIL that came up with the first law of thermodynamics, then added the next two laws just to confuse us and make it seem scientific. If you can handle the truth, the truth is: Water mixed with common carbon naturally decomposes into crude oil. Think about it, why do you find vast deposits of oil with what? WATER! Once this puppy gets out the oil companies will be crushed as people simply fill their tanks with water wait a few hours and Pow instant gasoline. All you need is a little gasoline residue in the tank to start the process. Have you tried it? then don't knock it.[/quote'] There are actual patent buying departments at the likes of Chevron and such. My neighbor used to own a company that worked on buses. Apparently, a guy from the Chevron patent buying department came down to check out an injection part on a bus. He had some pretty neat little computer toys for scanning and viewing the part blueprint that shouldn't have existed in the 80's. If I had a huge invested interest in a big company, you bet my butt I'd have a group that bought patents and reverse engineered them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 If I recall correctly' date=' it's been a few years so I may not, ethanol produces less power than oil gallon for gallon, creates more NOx and you'd have to have more than the entire square acreage of the US planted with ethanol crops to power all the cars. Also you need power to convert the corn to ethanol. I guess if you're using a still that could be some firewood, but for mass production you're probably heating the mash with electricity, so how much power are you wasting to get power out of the corn or whatever you're using? Seems to me that it's a stop gap measure at best. I also seem to remember that running diesels on vegetable oil is a better solution as far as how much fuel you get for your crop, vs running gas vehicles on ethanol. Probably the best alternative to oil, and there isn't too much of a need for an alternative IMO, is nuclear plants powering electric cars. Just work on the battery technology a bit and you might actually have something, but that's not likely to be a popular option with the greenies who are so worried about our "Mother". I also like the locomotive idea, where you have a diesel running a generator that powers an electric motor, but no diesel drive to the wheels at all. Unfortunately that's not the best for constant acceleration and deceleration, which is probably why you see it on trains and not cars as it is.[/quote'] I have another story...I was flying out to work an ALMS race when I met a guy who was contracted by the government to head up security analysis of nuclear plants in the event of a terrorist attack. He said the technology has changed so much in the last 30 years. No more fuel rods, but balls. Something about getting rid of the wierd shaped concrete stacks as they weren't needed anymore, etc... If the U.S. would allow new plants to be built and push out fossil fuel energy, we would be far better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonsZ Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I have another story...I was flying out to work an ALMS race when I met a guy who was contracted by the government to head up security analysis of nuclear plants in the event of a terrorist attack. He said the technology has changed so much in the last 30 years. No more fuel rods, but balls. Something about getting rid of the wierd shaped concrete stacks as they weren't needed anymore, etc... If the U.S. would allow new plants to be built and push out fossil fuel energy, we would be far better off. Nuclear energy is lesser of all evils for energy production, and has the added benefit of being the cheapest, IF lawers didn't sue the hell out of them every time they tried to make a plant. You would almost have to make the plant in secret and then make power in secret to make it profitable. Underground perhapse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlderThanMe Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 HEY these water as fuel guys are coming to my welding class tomorrow!!! My instructor is very skeptical about it. They asked if we had a Oxygen bottle but did not need a regulator...that is 2200 psi!!! I don't think they know what they are doing to be safe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nienberg.11 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 maybe they have their own regulator to suit their purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlderThanMe Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I don't think so...they should be able to use a regular regulator...the guy "didn't know" if he needed a regulator... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nienberg.11 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Well look on the bright side, the worst that can happen is the oxygen bottle shooting through a few walls and people. It's bound to stop sooner or later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlderThanMe Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 or their water-molecule splitting mechanism could go haywire and nuke the school and leave a huge crater in the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nienberg.11 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 In any case you need to let us know if it lives up to the hype. ...and if they pull up in a water powered escort:wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlderThanMe Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 if I live after the hype... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonsZ Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I think oxygen at 150 atmospheres could definately burn water. I'd like a spectrograph of the exhaust from that reaction. I doubt it would be pure water. Although I would not doube some weird reactions causing some super radical molecules like Aquygen? But to be honest anything spuing high pressure oxygen could easily heat a surface to 10000 degrees F like they claim. Don't forget to wear your welding mask at least #14 that's 4k F higher than tig welding and would no doubt pump UV out like a B***. On the "bright side" it should be a brillient color to be the last thing you ever see if you were flashed. I bet you could make Tri-Tanium with that much heat. Maybe even Dilithium? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.