Cars could one day run only on water
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
consider the additional weight of the batteries and to power consumed to mover them
I am convinced electric is the answer but the question is free recharge as well as the basic power curve to become efficient.
To be efficient you need to generate two to three times the power to charge batteries.
Now with that said you can power a basic ecno-box with one motor and back feed 2 generators off the wheels.
I am convinced electric is the answer but the question is free recharge as well as the basic power curve to become efficient.
To be efficient you need to generate two to three times the power to charge batteries.
Now with that said you can power a basic ecno-box with one motor and back feed 2 generators off the wheels.
I have wondered about that
why not have several generators attached to the wheels and drive train ?
Attach a couple more wheels for more generators because when going down a hill, or even a mild slope which you do almost 50% of the time, you would have free electricity
How much energy does it take to spin a magnet??
You also have the wind created by the vehicle as a source of electricity
I am working on my PHD thesis, perpetual energy though circular man training.
Basically you get about 50 gay guys about the same height. Have them face front to back, arrange them in a circle. When the first guy thrusts the energy will flow around the circle and make its way back to the first guy. If all the guys start trusting in concert with the energy wave, the energy will build very quickly. If you can attach some sort of generator to the circular man train, you would have a source of perpetual energy.
Also if you eat your own shit, you can form a closed system in which you can survive without food. Same goes for piss.
HHO is used as a catalyst for combustion of normal fuels, and allows you to extract more energy from combustion than the energy lost from creating HHO from H20.
Basically you get about 50 gay guys about the same height. Have them face front to back, arrange them in a circle. When the first guy thrusts the energy will flow around the circle and make its way back to the first guy. If all the guys start trusting in concert with the energy wave, the energy will build very quickly. If you can attach some sort of generator to the circular man train, you would have a source of perpetual energy.
Also if you eat your own shit, you can form a closed system in which you can survive without food. Same goes for piss.
HHO is used as a catalyst for combustion of normal fuels, and allows you to extract more energy from combustion than the energy lost from creating HHO from H20.
the problem with this theory is the resistance that those additonal wheels and generators/alternators create would effectively brake the vehicle to the point where you won't be generating enough (or possibly any) electricity.
I believe hybrid vehicles use this technology to charge their batteries while braking......You have to remember: when you put a load on a generator, the force required to turn that generator increases. I don't think anyone has invented a system where an electric motor running a generator produces excess electricity.
I can't believe that anyone would believe that. Well, I can believe that Fox news would buy it....
You're right, of course, at least under the current laws of physics. Entropy ensures that you never get out quite as much energy as you put in. Some is always lost or dissipated in ways that cannot be harnessed. If we could make energy out of nothing we would have been running on the excess for years and not burned a drop of oil since the industrial revolution.
Car could one day run only on water. That is going to happen
the day when all fossil fuel, uranium and all non-renewable resources
are fully depleted and there is noting else other than water that is
(hopefully) abundant. It will be the same type of car driven by
Fred Flinstone. So more precisely it is going to run on water and food
the drivers need as the source of strength to start the engine.
the day when all fossil fuel, uranium and all non-renewable resources
are fully depleted and there is noting else other than water that is
(hopefully) abundant. It will be the same type of car driven by
Fred Flinstone. So more precisely it is going to run on water and food
the drivers need as the source of strength to start the engine.
Just some interesting random shit....
Google " zero point energy " and spend an hour reading...
E=MC2 is one of the least understood equations ever.. just think of the "=" sign as being the bridge that relates how much energy is released if you turn matter into pure energy, it speaks as to how much energy is released if you unbind the atomic structure of matter. a glass of water has enough potential energy to run Toronto for a week.
An atomic bomb actually blows itself out before it really gets going, it operates at less than 1% efficiency.
A nuclear reactor is just an a bomb that is going off rrreeaaallll slow. It doesn't create electricity, it just makes heat to make steam to spin a turbine that makes electricity..
There is no free lunch, the US patent office will not accept applications for anything that proposes that it will create more energy than it consumes.
Sure, you could use a solar panel to make electricity to separate H2O into hydrogen and oxygen ( a 9 volt battery and two pennies is all you need to see that in action), release the oxygen, compress the hydrogen, burn it in your car and have nothing but water vapour come out the tailpipe as a result of the combustion, another solar panel to power the compressor and a hydrogen storage unit in the car.. or use the hydrogen in a hydrogen conversion power cell to get electricity to run an electric car but the infrastructure to be able to fill up away from home doesn't exist....
Why does the US have heavy tarrifs on imported ethanol? Ethanol from corn is a net loss of energy, it costs more energy to make it than it produces. In Brazil, sugar cane grows year round, produces more ethanol energy than it takes to make, yet is tarrifed as an import into the united states. The cost of pork has rissen because their feed ( corn ) is being used, to make ethanol. The percentage of ethanol in gasoline in the US is a legislated requirement... do you think it was lobbied by the people who grow corn??
The cost of energy consumption usually includes infrastructure, look at your hydro bill, a three hundred dollar bill may only contain a hundred bucks in hydro itself, the rest was distribution, taxes and the "debt retirement"..
Cars will run on water, just not well.... there's no way to "crack" water into hydrogen and oxygen and combust them efficiently, hydrogen also presents some difficult problems for long term use as a fuel source.
Cold fusion is still a lllooonnngg way off into the future.
We're still waiting for superconducters that will work at room temperature..
Less than thirty percent of fuel burned in a car makes it move forward, the rest is heat,.... why does no vehicle have a system to use the heat that is wasted? Boil the water with the engine, let it run a small turbine to make electricity, condense the steam to water and boil it again... it's how a steam engine worked?, Isn't it?... Not the part about electricity, the part about the change of state from steam to water. One gram, ( one cc ) of water gives over 1800 ccs of steam... shouldn't a radiator's job be to convert the steam back to water to be boiled again?
Why do we dump garbage? Everywhere else in the civilized world, they burn it cleanly for electricity or steam based heat for urban areas..
Why is Canada one of the world's leading exporters of modular pre fabricated energy efficient homes, yet the lowest per capita consumer of the same product? Why are virtually all new homes " stick built'?
OK.. I'm done... rant over..
Google " zero point energy " and spend an hour reading...
E=MC2 is one of the least understood equations ever.. just think of the "=" sign as being the bridge that relates how much energy is released if you turn matter into pure energy, it speaks as to how much energy is released if you unbind the atomic structure of matter. a glass of water has enough potential energy to run Toronto for a week.
An atomic bomb actually blows itself out before it really gets going, it operates at less than 1% efficiency.
A nuclear reactor is just an a bomb that is going off rrreeaaallll slow. It doesn't create electricity, it just makes heat to make steam to spin a turbine that makes electricity..
There is no free lunch, the US patent office will not accept applications for anything that proposes that it will create more energy than it consumes.
Sure, you could use a solar panel to make electricity to separate H2O into hydrogen and oxygen ( a 9 volt battery and two pennies is all you need to see that in action), release the oxygen, compress the hydrogen, burn it in your car and have nothing but water vapour come out the tailpipe as a result of the combustion, another solar panel to power the compressor and a hydrogen storage unit in the car.. or use the hydrogen in a hydrogen conversion power cell to get electricity to run an electric car but the infrastructure to be able to fill up away from home doesn't exist....
Why does the US have heavy tarrifs on imported ethanol? Ethanol from corn is a net loss of energy, it costs more energy to make it than it produces. In Brazil, sugar cane grows year round, produces more ethanol energy than it takes to make, yet is tarrifed as an import into the united states. The cost of pork has rissen because their feed ( corn ) is being used, to make ethanol. The percentage of ethanol in gasoline in the US is a legislated requirement... do you think it was lobbied by the people who grow corn??
The cost of energy consumption usually includes infrastructure, look at your hydro bill, a three hundred dollar bill may only contain a hundred bucks in hydro itself, the rest was distribution, taxes and the "debt retirement"..
Cars will run on water, just not well.... there's no way to "crack" water into hydrogen and oxygen and combust them efficiently, hydrogen also presents some difficult problems for long term use as a fuel source.
Cold fusion is still a lllooonnngg way off into the future.
We're still waiting for superconducters that will work at room temperature..
Less than thirty percent of fuel burned in a car makes it move forward, the rest is heat,.... why does no vehicle have a system to use the heat that is wasted? Boil the water with the engine, let it run a small turbine to make electricity, condense the steam to water and boil it again... it's how a steam engine worked?, Isn't it?... Not the part about electricity, the part about the change of state from steam to water. One gram, ( one cc ) of water gives over 1800 ccs of steam... shouldn't a radiator's job be to convert the steam back to water to be boiled again?
Why do we dump garbage? Everywhere else in the civilized world, they burn it cleanly for electricity or steam based heat for urban areas..
Why is Canada one of the world's leading exporters of modular pre fabricated energy efficient homes, yet the lowest per capita consumer of the same product? Why are virtually all new homes " stick built'?
OK.. I'm done... rant over..
You make a lot of good points there Daddy and as for your last, the stick built home, not only are they not as efficient to live in, they are tremendously wasteful in their construction. Now I don't remember the exact amount but the average stick built home produces almost 10 tons of waste. (or something like that) Just think of all the offcuts, drywall, insulation, packaging, etc that gets piled around a house while it's going up? Not to mention the fuel used to get all the trades to the site, operate the machinery used during assembly, excavation etc. The worst part about it is that 90% of this waste is 100% recyclable. Drywall offcuts are just thrown into the vat, the paper removed and is no different than virgin. All the offcuts of lumber can be finger jointed to make full sized lumber again.
As for us burning garbage to heat a boiler to make steam to run a turbine: we used to burn our garbage but that causes innumerable amounts of air pollution and you have zero control really over what you're burning. Any amount of plastic and the toxins released are extremely dangerous.
As rub has pointed out in the many threads of this subject it is a matter of transferring the energy, or making it portable. Hydrogen does consume a lot of electricity to produce but there are places like iceland who use geothermal vents to run electrical generators to make hydrogen gas. Countries like Iceland could become the world producers of hydrogen and since they are also bankrupt or on the verge of it, this could be their savings grace. Now you have the cost to transport it to market, but that is really no different than oil in that respect.
As for creating or adding steam turbines in cars, you now have the weight of those systems to move around which is going to further reduce a vehicle's efficiency.
Until we ween ourselves off our "need" for cars, we're doomed. Really, is there a "need" to drive 100 kms to and from your place of employment? Is there a "need" to transport the same goods from point A to point B and from point B to point A? No. I saw a documentary on POVs and they stated that a POV is about 80% inefficient in so much that the vast majority of the energy they consume is used to simply transport the vehicle, not the load it carries. Think about it: how much does a person weigh and how much does the vehicle weigh? Think of a moped engine. It's what, 20 cc? That's all it takes to move a person.......
Another good example is the old apollo rockets. They were so massive and had so many stages because they had to carry so much fuel to lift just the fuel itself. Like airliners: 30% of the fuel is burned just to carry the fuel they need to make the trip.
Then you have the people who are so against wind turbines because they say they are "eyesores". I disagree, I think they are beautiful and are moving sculptures. I'd love to see the shallows along the scarborough bluffs lined with wind turbines and the turbine fields in the US are beautiful (IMO).
Blue: I don't think the word is entropy. I know there is a technical term that describes the law that, as you say, states that you cannot get as much energy out of a system as you put in.
As for us burning garbage to heat a boiler to make steam to run a turbine: we used to burn our garbage but that causes innumerable amounts of air pollution and you have zero control really over what you're burning. Any amount of plastic and the toxins released are extremely dangerous.
As rub has pointed out in the many threads of this subject it is a matter of transferring the energy, or making it portable. Hydrogen does consume a lot of electricity to produce but there are places like iceland who use geothermal vents to run electrical generators to make hydrogen gas. Countries like Iceland could become the world producers of hydrogen and since they are also bankrupt or on the verge of it, this could be their savings grace. Now you have the cost to transport it to market, but that is really no different than oil in that respect.
As for creating or adding steam turbines in cars, you now have the weight of those systems to move around which is going to further reduce a vehicle's efficiency.
Until we ween ourselves off our "need" for cars, we're doomed. Really, is there a "need" to drive 100 kms to and from your place of employment? Is there a "need" to transport the same goods from point A to point B and from point B to point A? No. I saw a documentary on POVs and they stated that a POV is about 80% inefficient in so much that the vast majority of the energy they consume is used to simply transport the vehicle, not the load it carries. Think about it: how much does a person weigh and how much does the vehicle weigh? Think of a moped engine. It's what, 20 cc? That's all it takes to move a person.......
Another good example is the old apollo rockets. They were so massive and had so many stages because they had to carry so much fuel to lift just the fuel itself. Like airliners: 30% of the fuel is burned just to carry the fuel they need to make the trip.
Then you have the people who are so against wind turbines because they say they are "eyesores". I disagree, I think they are beautiful and are moving sculptures. I'd love to see the shallows along the scarborough bluffs lined with wind turbines and the turbine fields in the US are beautiful (IMO).
Blue: I don't think the word is entropy. I know there is a technical term that describes the law that, as you say, states that you cannot get as much energy out of a system as you put in.
Israeli scientists have addressed concerns about the safety, storage and expense of using hydrogen to power cars.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...o/making-hydrogen-cars-viable/article1541713/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...o/making-hydrogen-cars-viable/article1541713/
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can be transformed but cannot be created or destroyed
However, I am not suggesting a free lunch as I suggested that more generators on moving parts of a car would produce electricity while going down a slope instead of speeding the car or causing braking force to waste energy by dissipating heat
An efficient capture of energy esp in mountainous regions
While going uphill or on even terrain the computer could disengage the generators or direct it to the required braking force
Ya, but the Israeli government is also worried about the iPad. There's a little bit of a credibility problem right now.
Generators require force to make electricity. Imagine a car which slammed on the brakes every time you went down a hill. That would suck!
Electric cars already generate as much electricity as they can - it's called regenerative braking.
