Running a car on water via electrolysis

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:

> On Feb 12, 10:06 pm, Eeyore >
> wrote:
> > Rarpy wrote:
> > > Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> > > people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> > > hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> > > engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> > > produced the technology to make it happen:
> >
> > >http://hytechapps.com/company/press
> >
> > Sure you can burn hydrogen in an ICE. Just as you can burn lots of gases. It's
> > simply very expensive and inefficient.
> >
> > Graham
>
> No, it isn't that hard nor expensive. The same technology that
> converts engines to run on natural gas can run hydrogen with some
> adjustment. Now, the big kicker is that hydrogen is very low octane,
> so something must be done about that. EGR in massive amounts is one
> solution.

The *hydrogen* is expensive !

Graham

Bob wrote:

> A typical response based on emotions not on science or logic. You need
> to get a basic education in science if you are going to try to argue
> topics of this sort.

And therein lies the problem.

Science isn't considered "cool". Schools aren't teaching it much -- or
if they are, things are muddied up with ideologs trying to foist
"intelligent design" as a "competing theory", or steroid-addled
ex-weightlifters trying to be viewed as smart and green when they drive
a hydrogen-fueled Hummer around!

"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 12, 10:06 pm, Eeyore >
> wrote:
>> Rarpy wrote:
>> > Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
>> > people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
>> > hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
>> > engine

"Debunk" is the correct word, and for almost 80 years. I guess a fool really
is born every minute.

>>, but yet again it seems a

snip

> And of course, as others are pointing out, electrolysis is not free-
> you need to put in as much or more energy than you get out.
>

Not "as much". Not even "or more". A lot more. So much that you would find a
way to use the energy directly.

Al G

On Feb 12, 9:54 pm, "Rarpy" > wrote:
> Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> produced the technology to make it happen:


Nobody dismisses that as a possibility. It is just another explosive
gas whose energy can be converted to a mechanical form.

>
> http://hytechapps.com/company/press
>
> Meanwhile the mafia

With a lead-in like that I'm sure most readers dismissed you as a
kook.

> known as the oil industry
> are making tens of billions more dollars every year
> and their pals in the dying US auto industry even now
> can't comprehend that consumers don't want
> gasoline-guzzlers.


Internal combustion engines will all guzzle some form of energy. The
choice comes down to a matter of overall cost and tradeoffs.

On Feb 12, 10:47 pm, "Don Kelly" > wrote:
> ----------------------------"Rarpy" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> > people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> > hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> > engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> > produced the technology to make it happen:
>
> >http://hytechapps.com/company/press
>
> > Meanwhile the mafia known as the oil industry
> > are making tens of billions more dollars every year
> > and their pals in the dying US auto industry even now
> > can't comprehend that consumers don't want
> > gasoline-guzzlers.
>
> In other words you and the Aquagen people are claiming that, in effect, more
> energy can be produced than that needed to produce it. I also note that it
> is an additive but if it worked that well, it wouled be a primary source of
> perpetual energy.

Yes we do it all the time with GPS,
Which is why we're constantly
Exxon, that you retards are not
only morons, you're ****ing
syncopated NEW JERSEY MORONS.



> Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.
> Can I sell you a slightly used bridge?
>
> --
>
> Don Kelly
> remove the X to answer
>
>

On Feb 12, 8:22 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:


> Better off with ethanol as the chemical battery. 1) Easy to store. 2)
> Easier to run todays cars on. 3) If done right, energy is gained from the
> plant material and it's not just a 'battery'. Of course water is easier
> to come by than the crops for ethanol, so that's the trade off.

No, it's not. Creating ethonol is a net energy loser. That doesn't
mean it sholdn't be done, by creating a new product: transportable
energy from electrical energy and natural gas. It would be far more
efficient to use the NG as CNG in one's vehicle than producing massive
amounts of monoagricultural sugar cane and corn to make ethanol.

David

wrote:

> (Brent P) wrote:
>
> > Better off with ethanol as the chemical battery. 1) Easy to store. 2)
> > Easier to run todays cars on. 3) If done right, energy is gained from the
> > plant material and it's not just a 'battery'. Of course water is easier
> > to come by than the crops for ethanol, so that's the trade off.
>
> No, it's not. Creating ethonol is a net energy loser.

What gave you that idea ?

Graham

On Feb 12, 11:22 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:

> H2 is really a battery, it just allows things like nuke plants and wind
> farms to store the energy chemically. *BUT* H2 is very difficult to store.

The solution to that is to have minimal storage, and just produce the
hydrogen more or less as it is used. I use electricity from a
generator, run by a large V-8 engine, powered by a tank of gasoline.
Since the engine compartment in the car is occupied by the hydrogen
engine, I keep this hydrogen generating apparatus in a large trailer
which I simply tow behind the car.

In article .com>, wrote:
> On Feb 12, 8:22 pm, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>
>> Better off with ethanol as the chemical battery. 1) Easy to store. 2)
>> Easier to run todays cars on. 3) If done right, energy is gained from the
>> plant material and it's not just a 'battery'. Of course water is easier
>> to come by than the crops for ethanol, so that's the trade off.

> No, it's not. Creating ethonol is a net energy loser.

Wrong. It's only a loser if done with poor feed stock and inefficently,
same as everything else. You could make gasoline in some half-assed way
and have it be a net loser.

> That doesn't
> mean it sholdn't be done, by creating a new product: transportable
> energy from electrical energy and natural gas. It would be far more
> efficient to use the NG as CNG in one's vehicle than producing massive
> amounts of monoagricultural sugar cane and corn to make ethanol.

I take it you haven't been paying attention to natural gas prices the
last few years. Might as well keep using gasoline.

In reality though, we aren't running out of oil, the reason to do this is
to restore free market choice. There is no need to replace gasoline 100%
with any one thing or any multiple things. The need is to cut into the
market significantly. Of course the problem is, the taps could be turned
on and drive the price of gasoline way down should alternatives get a
foot hold to knock them off.

In article . com>, z wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:22 pm, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>> H2 is really a battery, it just allows things like nuke plants and wind
>> farms to store the energy chemically. *BUT* H2 is very difficult to store.
>
> The solution to that is to have minimal storage, and just produce the
> hydrogen more or less as it is used. I use electricity from a
> generator, run by a large V-8 engine, powered by a tank of gasoline.
> Since the engine compartment in the car is occupied by the hydrogen
> engine, I keep this hydrogen generating apparatus in a large trailer
> which I simply tow behind the car.

I hope that was for comic relief.