Gravity, the water molecules weigh less than the surrounding air so gravity pulls the denser surrounding air (gases) down pushing the water molecules up. Just like in the oceans, warm water doesn't rise, cold water sinks because it is denser pushing the warmer water up. And I will admit my study of such things was more than 30 years ago when I studied oceanography in conjuction with a biology major I was pursuing but gave up for more lucrative things. So I will stand to be corrected.
Solar heat is the enegy that vaporizes water and then gravity is the energy behind hydro-electric generation. This has nothing to do with obtaining hydrogen as a fuel because water vapor is not hydrogen but instead it's just water in a vapor state. On an interesting side note water vapor is the largest single greenhouse gas in the atmosphere with CO2 coming in second. The primary difference is that water vapor recycles so it is relatively constant while CO2 levels in the atmosphere are dramatically increasing.
gravity is a given on earth whatever energy lifts the water into the tub of this water wheel, is where the kinetic energy comes from
It has been around since the 1920's and tech goes back about 80 years before that. In the 1920s, German engineer Rudolph Erren converted the internal combustion engines of trucks, buses and submarines to run on hydrogen and hydrogen mixtures. http://www.ehow.com/facts_7148401_history-hydrogen-power.html Seems very funny that something that has been around for so long and produces no C02 admissions has not been mass produced but we can thank the oil companies for that.
It doesn't free up anything. You just burn less gas. Put a load on the alternator and the burn more gas. For every watt of load on the alternator an additional watt of fuel must be consumed plus losses.
no kidding. The brake regeneration system provides the additional wattage. Energy normally used to power the electrical system is now freed up for creation of hydrogen and oxygen, at the same level of fuel consumption. Waste energy has been converted to fuel.
Just like hydrogen technology has a long research history, thorium does as well. Throughout the 1960's and early 1970's, Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran a molten salt reactor that was more efficient than the current light water reactors. Research showed that thorium reactors are safer, slightly better in terms of waste management, and the thorium itself not practical for making nuclear weapons. In 1971, Richard Nixon decided to kill the research and development in favor of light water reactors, a very dangerous nuclear technology.
The United States does not need to kill big oil to expand alternative energy sources. If we can develop a modern commercial thorium nuclear technological industry, it could actually be used to help bolster domestic oil refining by negotiating free trade agreements with say Iran by providing thorium technology and refined oil in exchange for unrefined oil and uranium. It could be a great tool in nuclear disarmament.
No!!! You are saying that since we saved gas in charging the battery we then spend that gas on making hydrogen. No process is 100% efficient. Electrolysis is very inefficient. You are burning more gas to make the same amount of energy. There is no improvement in millage using gas to make hydrogen.
you are using energy from brake regeneration to make hydrogen. This is energy that is normally wasted. ( the gasoline is already spent) It charges the battery instead of the alternator. The alternator now can spin at 5 volts and still produce the electricity needed for hydrolysis, a much lower load than normal. what part of the brake regenerator supplies the additional energy is elusive ?
Hydrogen - fuel of their future. The first electric car was capacitor driven, idea goes back to 1835 (thus a fundamental idea) Today we have stuff like nanotube enhanced ultracapacitors/modules which can do the job (need to be develloped through, but not happening, system does not want to see such advanced and good technology) and last very long (up to a century, a century long no waste), much longer than a hydrogen cell or lithium batteries) Hydrogen is better for airplanes and space flight (were brute power is needed) Electromagnetic car designed by Sibrandus Stratingh in 1835 http://schrijfspecialist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/wagen1-1.gif They keep continue with fuels and their dangerous energies, oil, coal, nuclear, biomass (destroys old forests and micro ecology) and inefficient energies, wind and solar panels (turbines need many reparations, solar panels wear out, need to be recyled) Geothermical and tidal are suppressed (even by Greenpeace and WNF) Nothing good will happen soon, the world is heading for global empire rapidly, because masses of people give their vote to 'thieir leaders' (in Norway, French, Russia already majority gave away their power this and last year)
There is nothing elusive about the use of kenetic energy but the fact is that only a very small percentage of it can be captured. The vehicle is still going to have to use brakes because the generator cannot slow the vehicle fast enough in most situations. The brakes convert the kenetic energy of the vehicle into heat very rapidly to slow the vehicle whereas channeling it back through a generator takes time unless it's a really huge generator. If it's a huge generator it both costs a lot and weighs a lot. When it weighs a lot then all of that mass has be be accellerated when the vehicle accellerates and that adds to the energy required to move the vehicle. So the issue isn't whether the understanding of converting kenetic energy into electricity can be done but the fact that only a small percentage of this energy can be converted. It's also silly to use this to separate hydrogen from the oxygen in water because that is very inefficient but instead it would make more sense to store it as electricity to power the vehicle. It would still be a small recovery of energy, which is good, but it isn't a magic bullet because the amount of energy recovered is relatively small.
Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a method of transferring energy like the electron. Therefore this whole argument is moot.
the argument is about utilizing more of the energy liberated when carbon-carbon bonds are broken, the majority of which is wasted.
There is also overrun energy to recapture. And the hybrids provide a significant amount of energy to the electrical needs of the car, as well as adding rotational energy to the motor under certain conditions. Regeneration technology also has great room for improvement and innovation. Lowering the Free energy of hydrolysis has room for great improvement and materials sciences is making great strides in creating catalyst beds with ever increasing surface area for reaction. Efficiency of burn with H2 and O2 gasses added to the mix has the potential for great improvement. Also much energy is lost to heat which can be recaptured and added to the reaction. This is also valid area for development. Converting recapturedl energy directly to rotational energy has little room for improvement. Every little bit helps. If 30% of waste energy can be converted to useful work, we will have made great strides.
I don't think you get the point. If you capture energy from breaking the most efficient use of that energy is to charge the battery. This reduces the resistance on the alternator raising gas millage. It makes no sense to use that energy to make hydrogen. None! You are wasting energy. Lets not forget your original statement. You originally said that there is excess electricity produce by the alternator. A statement that violates numerous physical laws. This is a common con. Hydrogen con artists use this all the time. People are dumb enough to think that there is extra electricity being produced by the alternator because they don't know (*)(*)(*)(*) about physics. You have since changed your story more than once to keep from admitting that you were wrong. Why cant people on this forum admit when they are wrong. We have had put up with 7 pages so far of your mental gymnastics. You are no physicists or engineer. You thought that the alternator produced extra electricity that was unused. This is a common mistake of the layman and many con-artists us this misunderstanding to sell bogus hydrogen scams. Admit that you were wrong and move on.
I'm not exactly sure of what is meant by "waste energy" but would assume this is kinetic energy that is dissipated as heat during braking of a vehicle. I would think that 30% is overly optimistic and it doesn't address any of the energy used to actually move the vehicle but instead only that energy to accelerate the vehicle. Because of the limitations on the size of the generator/alternator due to weight and cost considerations the maximum amount of "waste energy" that is recoverable would require it to be recovered over a very long distance. For example it might require 1/2 mile to decelerate from 35 mph to zero to recover the maximum amount of kinetic energy. Accelerating and decelerating between stop lights doesn’t provide the opportunity to do that and the use of brakes is going to consume most of the kinetic energy and turn it into heat. Of course when driving distances most of the energy comsumed is related to overcoming wind resistance and friction and all of that energy is lost. Even when recovering kinetic energy and converting it into electrical energy there is a substantial loss due to heat. Generators do get hot when converting rotating energy into electrical energy. Finally, using that electrical energy to create hydogen is so inefficient as to not even be a worthwhile consideration. But, as noted, a little bit is better than none but I would make a guess that the actual energy that can be recoved is less than 10% of just the "waste" energy which otherwise would have been lost as heat during braking. That would likely equate to about 1%-2% net recovery of the total energy usage of the vehicle. It looks great on paper but is relatively worthless in reality because of the cost of the recovery system and the additional energy required to accelerate the mass of the recovery system.
He simply doesn't want to admit that he was wrong so he is now arguing that what he meant by "from excess electricity coming from the cars alternator" was actually installing energy capture technology to free up that power of produced by the alternator to crack hydrogen. This of course makes no sense. Any increase in gas millage is the result of the energy capture technology not the hydrogen. Installing the hydrogen fuel cell will actually lower the gas millage after you have installed the energy capture tech. In short squidward is simply engaging on the common mental gymnastics we see posters on this board engage in when they dont want to admit that they were wrong.
I'm very much an advocate of hydrogen fuel cell powered cars but we do need a source of hydrogen other than natual gas and water is the obvious source. For that we will require a huge amount of electical energy probably from nuclear fusion. I don't believe thorium reactors can produce enough energy for this purpose although they could be excellent for general electrical production. In reality I believe that viable hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are 20-50 years from being a reality but they are what's really needed for long distance transportation. For short distant transportation (i.e. 40 miles or less which comprises about 85% of our transportation needs) I see pure electric cars but once agian we need a very high increase in electrical power generation that can probably only be met with nuclear fusion.
The problem with that ideal solution is economics. If you use electricity to crack the hydrogen it is inherently more expensive than cracking hydrogen from natural gas. Cracked hydrogen from water cant compete on the open market. Ultimately what those who favor a hydrogen economy will have to abuse government power to limit hydrogen production solely to more expensive cracked hydrogen from water.
