o8k
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 742
- Reaction score
- 3
oh and by the way, LOL prepetual motion machines positive unity motors and all that that jazz...
Hydrogen generator in the KJ
- Thread starter chirokj
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
icarl
Full Access Member
tjkj2002
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 10,612
- Reaction score
- 41
It would take over 20 years operating your KJ before that car would start saving you money.
icarl
Full Access Member
Here's a more realistic all-electric option. I'm curious to see where this one ends up.
Again, just noting... using electricity to move the car. Not electricity converted to hydrogen at 50% loss, then converted back into forward motion.
http://www.aptera.com/
Again, just noting... using electricity to move the car. Not electricity converted to hydrogen at 50% loss, then converted back into forward motion.
http://www.aptera.com/
sydbro
Full Access Member
I read about the water4gas thing and Im not sure I buy into it. The whole thing works off of altering your air intake, MAS, and PCV. Messing with most of these components may cause your vehicle to fail state emmision inspections no matter how efficiently your engine is running. Secondly, if I understand this correctly, you are entering droplets of water into your intake. The site even says the system "steam cleans" your engine. Now Im no PHD but I do know that when iron gets wet, it eventually rusts. The other option I saw on the site was acetone or xylene. Those chemicals will just destroy rings and seals. I want to see what happens to these engines after +30k miles. I fall into the camp of "If it were that easy everyone one would do it" Detroit would be all over this if it really worked.
same here. the water4gas site is a bit different than what im doing and seems like a very bad idea and vacum leaks abound and rust.
icarl
Full Access Member
I heard an alternative for the battery is in the works called a "ultracapacitor" being made by EEStor. The ultracapacitor is solid state so no chemicals and will be able to hold 10x more charge than a traditional lead-acid battery. It will also improve upon lithium ion batterie capacity and cost 1/2 as much to produce. Also, It only takes about 5 minutes to recharge. Also, the ultracapcitors last the lifetime of your vehicle so you do not have to replace them every few years like traditional electric cars. There is a car company in Canada called Zenn Motors that is under contract with EEStor to start producing electric vehicles with this new technology. The US military will also be using them.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0416/p13s01-sten.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0416/p13s01-sten.html
indieaz
Full Access Member
^ Ultracapacitors aren't new. The problem is until there has never been a way to make them store a large amount of energy. I posted this on another forum and a bunch of engineers (one of them who works for a company that deals with batteries etc) were discussing this...it seems one guy in particular has dealt with these guys before and it seems they are likely touting something that is incomplete and unproven.
icarl
Full Access Member
Boy, tough crowd. Remember engineers and scientists are skeptical by nature. i know this because i was an engineer - at least for awhile when in University before i switched to computer technology. Despite being unproven to the general public, the potential of these things are amazing if EEStor claims are true. They overcome capacity issues by using nanotube technology combined with a type of material used for maximum efficiency. Remember, these are not batteries but are solid state devices - no chemicals. Ultracapacitors have been around for 50 years or so but until now they have not overcome some problems like you mentioned before. We will have to wait and see what comes out of this technology. According to EEStor these new ultracapacitors are less than 1/2 production cost of lithium ion batteries, can work in low temp applications, are safer than batteries, last way longer, can recharge in a few minutes, and now have more capacity.
Actually, I think they're making some progress on this. To wit:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor
The only issue here is, energy is energy. So in the end, are we making stuff more efficient, or just moving the source of energy from one place to the other. I guess the hope would be is that you're using some sort of carbon neutral (if that's your thing, man) way of producing said energy, making it cheaper etc.
C.W.
Full Access Member
Any updates on the install, flair?
Got an email today advertising this:
http://www.5starshine.com/info-fuel-mpg-booster.html
What do you guys think?
Got an email today advertising this:
http://www.5starshine.com/info-fuel-mpg-booster.html
What do you guys think?
ive been running it for a few days now and nothing has went wrong. im gonna run it for about a month and then get back here with what ive found and also put up a video of it. ive noticed some things already but will wait to see if it changes. i just want to be sure im not fooling myself with high expectations. we will see.
C.W.
Full Access Member
Okay Flair, it's been 29 days. How about an update?
sydbro
Full Access Member
Im no scientist but what little understanding I do have of this water for gas thing is that it takes a significant amount of electricity to separate the hydrogen from water. I dont believe that a standard car battery is capable of doing that. From what I have read about water for gas, it sounds very fishy. The way it appears, it would seem that some amount of pure water WILL be entering your intake. They even state that the system will "steam clean your engine". Anyone else see a problem here. We need to step back and take a hard look at the reality. There is no replacement for oil. Oil is what makes the economies of the world work. Even if we found some substitute tommorow, it could take many years or decades to change infrustructures to deliver it. If it was so simple to convert water to hydrogen then the car manufacturers would be mass producing them to gain a competitive advantage.
We only have the "man made global warming" crowd to blame for our nations current gas prices. Notice that they have stopped calling it "global warming" and now all you hear is "man made climate change". This change is due to all the scientific scrutiny that this hoax has been subjected to. We need to explore for our own resources and stop dumping trillions into countries who hate us and everything we stand for.
Sorry to go off like this but I am getting so frustrated. We are Americans and we can do just about anything when we put our hearts and minds into it. The fact that we rely so heavily on other countries (when we dont have to) is very scary.
We only have the "man made global warming" crowd to blame for our nations current gas prices. Notice that they have stopped calling it "global warming" and now all you hear is "man made climate change". This change is due to all the scientific scrutiny that this hoax has been subjected to. We need to explore for our own resources and stop dumping trillions into countries who hate us and everything we stand for.
Sorry to go off like this but I am getting so frustrated. We are Americans and we can do just about anything when we put our hearts and minds into it. The fact that we rely so heavily on other countries (when we dont have to) is very scary.
indieaz
Full Access Member
The infrastructure to deliver electricity is already there. Sure, some areas might need additional generating capacity, but a DOE study from a couple years ago showed that if tomorrow 80% of the US switched to driving electrics, the grid could handle it. We aren't going to be 80% electric overnight...you are right i'tll take years for everyone to switch. Thus expanding our electric generation will not be an issue. Not to mention you could charge your car with a wind generator or solar panels at home if needed. Now THAT is energy independence.
I work some climate scientists...oen of them rides a bicycle to work every day rain or shine. Sorry, but the idea that climate change is false is being perpetuated by companies who will profit by us continuing to use fossil fuels. Everyone is always claiming the "global warming psychos" are perpetuating a myth to make money. If we all started using less oil and coal...how are scientists going to profit? The argument makes zero sense. If we continue to use oil and coal who profits? Oil and gas companies (some of whom are one in the same).
Most "scrutiny" for man made global warming that exists comes from those who have little or not experience in climate science (one of the most recent a mechanical engineer who's biggest claim to fame is exploring the wreckage of the titanic).
Even if the majority of scientists turn out to be wrong...what's wrong with cleaner air and energy independence? Evne if we drill ANWR and off the coast, we simply can't produce as much as we use . The only way to be energy independent is to use less oil.
VTNomad
Full Access Member
My Rant
You're way off track with a lot of your comments. First off, the grid, in all areas, can't handle the increase capacity that plug-in electric hybrids would generate. For example, remember the rolling blackouts, or brownout in California a few years ago? I do, I was living there. Where do you think that power comes from? Burning hydrocarbons at power plants. 80% of this country's energy comes from the burning of hydrocarbons. It doesn't matter if you burn them in a car, or at a power plant, the same emissions are produced. Burning them in cars may actually be better for the environment. At least the cars can spread the emissions, where a power plants burps them all out in one place.
Global warming, is it real or not? It is definately real, but is it man made? Can pumping out CO2 in the quantities that we do warm the planet? Could something else be causing it, or is it a natural process? Is it bad for the environment, is it bad for us?
In my opinion, we're pretty arrogant to think that we're capable of creating such a global phenonmenom. I don't think we have the ability. The environment is dynamic, always changing. The climate has been warmer in the past, it has also been colder. We're probably just warming up from a period known as the Little Ice Age. Or it could be changes in planetary, solar, galactic or universal cycles. Most people are thinking of global warming in term of a few decades, since the Industrial Revolution, a conceivable timescale for most people. They need to be thinking in terms of tens of thousands of years, we're is just a blink in geologic time.
We don't have records that go back that far, so there is no reliable data. We don't have an "Earth Lab" where we can run experiments and view actions and reactions. Anyone, whether scientist or not, that makes the claim that global warming is bad for the environment is a bloody fool. The planet, and every living thing on it is adaptable, the climate changes, life adapts, species that die out are replaced by new species, over the course of thousands of years. No one will be able to witness an even of that time frame.
One thing is for sure, if global warming is occurring, more energy, in the form of heat, will be available to living organisms. Living organisms (plants) that use carbon dioxide to produce more living organisms, thus removing the carbon dioxide from the air, and negating the effects of global warming. The Earth is very good at balancing acts.
Now, on to the hydrogen thing, it's complete bull. You're separating water, only to recombine it? A fundament law of physics states that 'Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, it can only change forms'. Another law is that you can not have 100% efficient reactions (i.e. no net loss). Burning of hydrogen produces water vapor! The MOST POTENT of ALL GREENHOUSE GASES on the planet! Water vapor contribes more than twice the warming effect of CO2.
The ONLY environemtnally friendly form of energy that is environmentally friendly and that can sustain or power needs is nuclear fission. Nuclear energy uses heat produced from radioactive elements, elements that have been present on the Earth since it's formation. We don't make them produce more heat, we merely concentrate them to produce more heat at one location, which is used to heat water, which turns large generators. Which is the same thing that coal fired power plants do.
The most environmentally friendly thing we can do, would be to wipe out the human race. There are two ways of doing that, mass killings or mass sterilizations. Or better yet, how about a zombie apocalypse? Zombies don't care about trivial things that use energy, they only care about one thing...BRAINS!
The HHO theory:
An electric current is used to break the chemical bonds in water to separate the hydrogen and oxygen (electrolysis). That hydrogen is then combusted and the additional energy of the combustion of hydrogen is added to the energy from the combustion of gasoline, increasing your MPG's. Here's where I found some variation in the HHO theory. Assumption 1: The alternator in your vehicle produces more electricity than you need so you can use this extra free electric energy for electrolysis. If it didn't, your vehicle would stall every time you turned on another electrical component; OR Assumption 2: The amount of electric energy required for electrolysis is far less the amount of chemical energy obtained from the combustion of hydrogen. Or these assumptions are both used. The assumption that the oxygen needed for combustion is also produced with electrolysis, and that no outside oxygen is need. This means that this is a closed system, more on this later.
Scientific Law: The law of conservation of energy: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.
An internal combustion engine converts the chemical energy stored in gasoline to mechanical energy. In the presence of oxygen, a spark is used for ignition. Ignition causes the gas to expand (mechanically), forcing the pistons down, turning the crankshaft, which eventually turns the wheels. (This reaction is quick, and the gases produced are ejected before they have completely expanded. So the theory that HHO adds more gas, or more heat making the gases expand more, or more rapidly, is false). This conversion of chemical energy to mechanical energy also produces heat, and light energy, which your engine does not use. So the mechanical component is the only useful component, and the heat and light produced are wasted. Only 30% of the chemical energy in gasoline is actually converted to useful mechanical energy. The other 70%, since it cannot be destroyed, is converted to useless heat and light.
This mechanical energy in turn, is used to spin an alternator, creating an electric field, essentially converting mechanical energy to electrical energy. There are losses here as well. Slipping and/or stretching of the belt, friction of the bearings, and wind resistance (drag) of the spinning components. The alternator efficiency varies by depending on the alternator, but usually has an efficiency of 45-70%.
I'm not a climatologist, but I do have a Bachelor's of Science in Environmental Health. A degree that gives me a good base of understandig in all the earth sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology and climatology) how they relate to the overall health of the environment, and to public health. However, high school sciences classes (physics, biology and chemistry) provided me with enough of an understanding to know that "If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is".
You're way off track with a lot of your comments. First off, the grid, in all areas, can't handle the increase capacity that plug-in electric hybrids would generate. For example, remember the rolling blackouts, or brownout in California a few years ago? I do, I was living there. Where do you think that power comes from? Burning hydrocarbons at power plants. 80% of this country's energy comes from the burning of hydrocarbons. It doesn't matter if you burn them in a car, or at a power plant, the same emissions are produced. Burning them in cars may actually be better for the environment. At least the cars can spread the emissions, where a power plants burps them all out in one place.
Global warming, is it real or not? It is definately real, but is it man made? Can pumping out CO2 in the quantities that we do warm the planet? Could something else be causing it, or is it a natural process? Is it bad for the environment, is it bad for us?
In my opinion, we're pretty arrogant to think that we're capable of creating such a global phenonmenom. I don't think we have the ability. The environment is dynamic, always changing. The climate has been warmer in the past, it has also been colder. We're probably just warming up from a period known as the Little Ice Age. Or it could be changes in planetary, solar, galactic or universal cycles. Most people are thinking of global warming in term of a few decades, since the Industrial Revolution, a conceivable timescale for most people. They need to be thinking in terms of tens of thousands of years, we're is just a blink in geologic time.
We don't have records that go back that far, so there is no reliable data. We don't have an "Earth Lab" where we can run experiments and view actions and reactions. Anyone, whether scientist or not, that makes the claim that global warming is bad for the environment is a bloody fool. The planet, and every living thing on it is adaptable, the climate changes, life adapts, species that die out are replaced by new species, over the course of thousands of years. No one will be able to witness an even of that time frame.
One thing is for sure, if global warming is occurring, more energy, in the form of heat, will be available to living organisms. Living organisms (plants) that use carbon dioxide to produce more living organisms, thus removing the carbon dioxide from the air, and negating the effects of global warming. The Earth is very good at balancing acts.
Now, on to the hydrogen thing, it's complete bull. You're separating water, only to recombine it? A fundament law of physics states that 'Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, it can only change forms'. Another law is that you can not have 100% efficient reactions (i.e. no net loss). Burning of hydrogen produces water vapor! The MOST POTENT of ALL GREENHOUSE GASES on the planet! Water vapor contribes more than twice the warming effect of CO2.
The ONLY environemtnally friendly form of energy that is environmentally friendly and that can sustain or power needs is nuclear fission. Nuclear energy uses heat produced from radioactive elements, elements that have been present on the Earth since it's formation. We don't make them produce more heat, we merely concentrate them to produce more heat at one location, which is used to heat water, which turns large generators. Which is the same thing that coal fired power plants do.
The most environmentally friendly thing we can do, would be to wipe out the human race. There are two ways of doing that, mass killings or mass sterilizations. Or better yet, how about a zombie apocalypse? Zombies don't care about trivial things that use energy, they only care about one thing...BRAINS!
The HHO theory:
An electric current is used to break the chemical bonds in water to separate the hydrogen and oxygen (electrolysis). That hydrogen is then combusted and the additional energy of the combustion of hydrogen is added to the energy from the combustion of gasoline, increasing your MPG's. Here's where I found some variation in the HHO theory. Assumption 1: The alternator in your vehicle produces more electricity than you need so you can use this extra free electric energy for electrolysis. If it didn't, your vehicle would stall every time you turned on another electrical component; OR Assumption 2: The amount of electric energy required for electrolysis is far less the amount of chemical energy obtained from the combustion of hydrogen. Or these assumptions are both used. The assumption that the oxygen needed for combustion is also produced with electrolysis, and that no outside oxygen is need. This means that this is a closed system, more on this later.
Scientific Law: The law of conservation of energy: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.
An internal combustion engine converts the chemical energy stored in gasoline to mechanical energy. In the presence of oxygen, a spark is used for ignition. Ignition causes the gas to expand (mechanically), forcing the pistons down, turning the crankshaft, which eventually turns the wheels. (This reaction is quick, and the gases produced are ejected before they have completely expanded. So the theory that HHO adds more gas, or more heat making the gases expand more, or more rapidly, is false). This conversion of chemical energy to mechanical energy also produces heat, and light energy, which your engine does not use. So the mechanical component is the only useful component, and the heat and light produced are wasted. Only 30% of the chemical energy in gasoline is actually converted to useful mechanical energy. The other 70%, since it cannot be destroyed, is converted to useless heat and light.
This mechanical energy in turn, is used to spin an alternator, creating an electric field, essentially converting mechanical energy to electrical energy. There are losses here as well. Slipping and/or stretching of the belt, friction of the bearings, and wind resistance (drag) of the spinning components. The alternator efficiency varies by depending on the alternator, but usually has an efficiency of 45-70%.
I'm not a climatologist, but I do have a Bachelor's of Science in Environmental Health. A degree that gives me a good base of understandig in all the earth sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology and climatology) how they relate to the overall health of the environment, and to public health. However, high school sciences classes (physics, biology and chemistry) provided me with enough of an understanding to know that "If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is".
sydbro
Full Access Member
Who would profit from the hoax? Youve got to be kidding me. I have 2 words for you "Carbon Credits". CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Every mammal on the planet exhales it and plant life would be impossible without it. There is an enormous amount of money to be made from so called climate change, look at all the companies "going green". The idea that the climate on earth can remain static is absolutely ignorant. These so called scientists cant deny the Ice ages occured and we werent burning oil then. The earths climate is going to change no matter what we do or dont do. I remember back in the 70s, we were being told we were heading for a new ice age and in the 80s we were going to lose our atmosphere thru some hole in the ozone because we used too much hairspray. This to will pass, but we wont be losing aerosol cans, we will be losing much more from our wallets in taxes, and we all know, once a tax is created, it never goes away.
indieaz
Full Access Member
Name one scientist profiting from his research showing global warming is partially man caused. Of course the climate is cyclical. Nobody is arguing it isn't. The point is there is an overall increase in temperature between known cycles that at this time can only be explained through CO2 production.
VTNOMAD said:
I said in my post some areas would need extra generating capacity...I'm well aware of rolling brownouts that can occur in California (we sell them energy) and the northeast. Most parts of the country are not in this situation, however.
And sorry, but the emissions from electric generation pale in comparison to the emissions produced by your car when you are comparing energy production. A coal plant produces way more power per unit of CO2 than your cars engine does. The Coal plants is incredibly more efficient. Also, not all power is coal generated, and only a small part of our electrical power comes from oil. Lots of it is natural gas and nuclear.
As for the effects of global warming. At this point models all suggest bad things. Sure, models aren't perfect, but to just assume that they are wrong is like covering your ears and pretending you can't hear because you don't like the message.
sydbro
Full Access Member
As VTNomad stated, there are a multitude of other possibilities for climate change. To attribte climate change soley on C02 emissions is silly. Like I said before, the climate has been changing for a long time. As far as the scientists profitting, do some research and see whose funding their research or their political leanings. How is it that I am wrong for being skeptical and you are right for believing what you have been told?
