Water Fuel

[Chris Elston 79]

Check this out guys! WaterFuel.wmv

[TimWilborne 108]

Perpetual Motion? I would like to see some more details of this. It still takes power to normally split hydrogen although there is a chemical, though can't remember the name at this time, that is found in the Atlantic Ocean that will split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen without the need for electricity. But the chemical used is a none renewable resource. I may be completely wrong but I think that hydrogen is a good storage method for electricity at best. In my opinion even though it has a bad reputation in the US, nuclear power is the way to go for now. Edited 15 May 2006 by TWControls

[TimWilborne 108]

I have not looked at the site thoroughly yet but THIS appears to be the company

[TimWilborne 108]

Look like THIS is the section about the vehicle

[Sleepy Wombat 27]

Since the car tests were done in 2003 why has'nt the world embraced it or heard more about it ? How old is the clip....I especially love the web site saying place your order here...... A bit of a cynic i am, i am.... Anyways this is the future of water power http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6943201001782160188

[Camel 1]

Thats nothing new.... If you listen during the clip he says he uses hydrolisys to generate hydrogen. The only thing he may have done special is increase the efficiency of hydrolisys. Hydrolisys has been around for years the only problem is it consumes more energy than it produces. TWControls, could you be talking about hydride?

[TConnolly 13]

Intersting. The physics behind the device are not new, though the construction of the device may be novel. Be aware that this is not a net-positive energy device. It consumes energy to split the water molecule, and if the laws of thermodynamics are to be believed (and they are), it takes slightly more energy than what can be extracted back out. The same can be said for bio-fuels also, it takes slightly more energy to produce them than can be extracted from the fuel at a later time. However these are the kinds of technologies which will be required to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and also to produce more environmentally friendly fuel sources. Even though the net energy consumption will have to go up in order to produce and then use alternative fuels, this energy can come from renewable sources as well as domestic sources of coal and natural gas which are used to generate electricity at power plants where efficiency and environmental cleanliness can be the highest. TW - you mentioned nuclear power. While I view nuclear power as a clean safe source of power, I understand that the energy available in the currently known quantity of fissible uranium on the planet is less than the energy availalble in known fossil fuel (oil, coal, gas) deposits. Without a viable technology for fusion, nuclear fission power is also a limited power source because it is not renewable. We must develop fusion technology for nuclear power to remain viable for the centuries to come. Eventually I think we will figure it out - but in the meantime, we shouldn't fool ourselves. Edited 15 May 2006 by Alaric

[Chris Elston 79]

Do you think we will ever have portable nuclear power? Like in our cars?

[TConnolly 13]

I don't know if it will be viable for small mobile applications or not. At least for the current state of technology and for the imaginable future state of technology, its not likely. Nuclear reactions produce heat which is then converted to electricity - requiring some sort of fluid to expand through a turbine and then condense - which requires a lot of space. Other thermo-electric conversio methods such as used by plutonium powered space probes like Cassini are not capable of delivering the energy needed to move a reasonably sized vehicle/cargo. I am careful to note however that the constraint is the imaginable state of future technology. And our current state is way beyond what was even imaginable just a century ago, so who knows, but I doubt that a Mr. Fusion power car is just around the corner. Edited 15 May 2006 by Alaric

[Sleepy Wombat 27]

Here are a few useful links regarding extracting hydrogen, even one you can try at home boys and girls.... But I still like the link to the video clip below... Link 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6943201001782160188 Link 2 Something to try at home Link 3 Hydrogen Fuel Cells - The latest news Link 4 the patent submitted by Klien MR HHO "Bed time reading" Funny i always thought that HHO is water...... Link 5 Others dispelling the myth

[TimWilborne 108]

I don't know a lot about the workings of nuclear reactors but how young is nuclear technology is the question I think we need to ask. Also uranium is not the only fuel that you can put in a fission reactor. And there is also fusion after that. Another thing is that our method of harnessing the energy of the reaction is very crude. Pretty much heat water to turn a turbine. I don't know the exact efficiency but I would say it is not that good. Edited 15 May 2006 by TWControls

[Sleepy Wombat 27]

Woo hoo bring on Nuclear ----- Australia has the largest reserves of Uranium in the world --- the land down under would certainly be a resouce power house then ! Mabey then i could affor my own jet plane to get around in etc opps time to wake up.... As Homer said in a classic mexican accent... First you get the sugar...Then you get the money....Then you get the women....

[TimWilborne 108]

No but that is interesting too. I researched it about 6 years ago. A quick Google couldn't jog my memory but best I can remember it started with an "L" and it might have been an algae found in the Atlantic Ocean or it could have been another ocean, can't remember for sure

[Sleepy Wombat 27]

Green algae produces hydrogen... http://www.futurefarmers.com/survey/algae.php

[TimWilborne 108]

I was reading THIS link I posted earlier and am curious what people make of the following statement

[TConnolly 13]

[monte burns]excellent[/burns] Will you take it back after we are done with it? Surely you have a spot on that great big rock you call home for it...

[Sleepy Wombat 27]

Since we are all getting excited here - excellent - i will throw open another interesting link about global warming and the like. The Nonsense that is global warming The Nonsense that is ozone depletion As Austin Powers said after completing a photo shoot of IVANA, IVANA HUMPALOT...."And i'm..spent"

[TimWilborne 108]

Great links Sleepy

[IamJon 0]

it was mentioned that this technology is not so special because it takes energy to use energy. the special thing is this: the fuel for our cars is gasoline. the byproduct is carbon dioxide and water. the fuel for his car is water. the byproduct is water. you fill your tank once, when you run out, you refill it from (i'm guessing here) a storage tank in the back. just how happy would you be if you only had to fill your gas tank once per year?

[Sleepy Wombat 27]

And what about the so called battery's to store the energy in the car when using water....read deeper into how the thing operated and they required battery's, and i am sure that not only do you need the batterys for stoarge of the so called free energy...but you need them for the electrolysis process!!!! Oh and what are we to do with waste of those batterys ? hmm' what a the outside of batterys made from, usually some form of plastic, which is of course a derivative of oil....hmmm, and how do we chage the battery's in the first place....hmm that requires electricity, which we get from power plants which will inevitably driven by nuclear.... How TW your right....(my cynical spat for the afternnon) he he he...

[Gerry 13]

I watched an interview with Amory Lovins on BBC the other night. He makes various points, but one important one is that in a truly free market, nuclear power plants would be commercially non-viable and never built. The ones that have been built have been with government guaranteed cost plus contracts and long-term purchase contracts for the energy they produce. And, I would guess, subsidised disposal of waste. He advocates 'micro' solutions - small quick-to-build projects over 'mega' projects that take years to come on-line. e.g. wind power. The other big thing, again relying on intrinsic commercial worth, is efficiency. If consumers demand efficiency, they'll get it. SUV's don't necessarily need to be smaller, just lighter, with more efficient engines, and better aero-dynamics. Jet aircraft are a major contributor to ozone depletion and greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. Lovins contends that jets could run far more efficiently on liquid hydrogen - the improvement being such as to make the change commercially sound as well as being environmentally friendly. Look him up on Google - Dr. Amory Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute.

[TimWilborne 108]

I agree that what is coming out of the jets engine would be cleaner, but I have the same problem with this as people who say electric cars are emission free. Where did the power come from that produced the hydrogen ran in the jet? Where did the power come from to charge the batteries in the car? I'm seeing the hydrogen as a grossly inefficient storage battery for the jet.

[IamJon 0]

i dont really understand what you are getting at. our current system, the gasoline engine, uses gas and a battery. no one is arguing that water fuel is free energy or that it is perfect, but it is better than what we have now. i'm assuming this is a controlled system. it isnt using all the water at once, just as we dont use our full tank of gas at once. it is pumped into the system and used as needed, no storage required. at least that is what they should be TRYING to do.

[TimWilborne 108]

It still takes energy to make hydrogen. It may be nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, wind or something else but hydrogen is a method of storing another energy source, it is NOT an energy source. Now two questions 1. Which is a more efficent storage method: Hydrogen or batteries? 2. If we are to use hydrogen, should in be in the form of a traditional combustion engine or some type of fuel cell technology?

[TConnolly 13]

I think he is just trying to point out that you would have to burn perhaps one and a half times (or at least some ratio higher than unity) the gasoline to make enough electricity to make enough hydrogen throgh electrolysis to drive a hundred miles than you would use if you just drove a hundred miles on gasoline. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be violated and no amount of wishing will change that.