Water Power invented

[White Doors]

Cool!

[ken0042]

I can't see the link from work, but getting power from water is usually not efficient. To break the hydrogen from the oxygen takes electricity.* So even hydrogen powered vehicles still rely on electricity being generated; often with fossil fuels.

* In case anybody hasn't figured it out with my signature; Dihydrogen Monoxide is the chemical name for water.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by ken0042

* In case anybody hasn't figured it out with my signature; Dihydrogen Monoxide is the chemical name for water.

LOL, I went to the dhmo site earlier. Read like a Happy Fun Ball ad.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ken0042

* In case anybody hasn't figured it out with my signature; Dihydrogen Monoxide is the chemical name for water.

Really? I could've sworn H2O stood for Hats 2 Otters.

[Bobblehead]

I know iceland is big into hydrogen, but they use the geothermal energy they have in abundance to generate electricity & then hydrogen. It would be great if this is practical on a large scale.

[GoinAllTheWay]

**edit**
Double posted somehow....

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Water does NOT hold a lot of energy.
To break water down to it's constituents takes energy, it does not release it.
It's basic thermodynamics. Baring being used in some kind of nuclear reaction, water will never be an energy source.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Water does NOT hold a lot of energy.
To break water down to it's constituents takes energy, it does not release it.
It's basic thermodynamics. Baring being used in some kind of nuclear reaction, water will never be an energy source.

What if you use the electricty from a photocell to break up the water atom and then the hydrogen as the primary fuel source? If the South African claims are true, they have developed a highly efficient photocell capable of producing high volumes of electrical energy from sunlight. Use that to extract the hydrogen and then the hydrogen to power whatever. Combine the two and you have a powerplant that runs on nothing but water and sunshine.

Is that not a reasonable solution to your problem?

[ken0042]

But Lanny, why not use that powerful photocell to generate electricity?

The main reason Hydrogen is "good" is it can be stored and used when it's convenient; like in a car. The big problem with hydrogen is how explosive it is.

And, if every car in the world ran on hydrogen the streets would always be wet from the exhaust. Wet streets cause accidents, and when hydrogen powered cars crash the go boooom!

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Water does NOT hold a lot of energy.

Then you are gonna want to phone The Learning Channel and tell them that. They ran a show a while back stating that it did.

[Kev]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Water does NOT hold a lot of energy.
To break water down to it's constituents takes energy, it does not release it.
It's basic thermodynamics. Baring being used in some kind of nuclear reaction, water will never be an energy source.

It says it combines water and electricity to produce the power, so it's not impossible that the rotation of the engine produces the electricity required to convert it to the right form is it?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Some debunking:

1) Lanny: Ken already touched on it.
Yes, hydrogen and water can be produced from water but that takes a lot of energy. You then do what with the water? Burn it to produce.....WATER. So you're going from one to the other and then back again. This my friend is a great example of the first law of thermodynamics. Thinking you can use electricity to get hydrogen from water and then use that hydrogen is just an extra step of innefficinecy, you're better off using the electricity by itself. If you think this is a source of endless energy, then I've got a great perpetual motion machine I'd like to sell you.

2) GATW: I'd like to see that show, because I'm sure there is just a little bit of crappy science in it, or you misunderstood what they were saying. I wouldn't even doubt if it was just full of crackpots, the Learning chanel doesn't shy away from crazy therories flawed as they may be, anyone see the "Documentary" on Nostrodamus? Yes water can be a source of fuel (Hydrogen being that fuel, but a source of a fuel and a source of energy are totall different), but getting and then using that hydrogen is inneffcient and uses more energy than it produces, the only advantage it gives is that you have a fuel that is transportable, whereas the electicity used to make it is not. If you don't beleive me, I can refer you to one of my professors who had a PHD in Thermodynamics (and had a tendency to flip out on students who tried to make the same arguements some of you guys are), who is pretty knowlegeable on the subject.

3) Kev: I have no idea what you're talking about????? But the last thing you said about converting it (I assume you mean energy) into the right form, is a far cry from being an outright fuel source. We can convert just about anything into a fuel, but the energy we put in will always be less than the useful energy we get out (Of course again barring a nuclear reaction).

Guys, I'm not trying to be a dick, but they are called the LAWS of thermodynamics for a reason.

There is no way to use water as a fuel source, It is possible to use water to react with things to produce fuel (for instance drop some sodium in water and you could use heat it produces to power something, but that's not really practical), but rest assured it is physically impossibe (again nuclear reactions not withstanding), to use only water as source of energy.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by ken0042

But Lanny, why not use that powerful photocell to generate electricity?

The main reason Hydrogen is "good" is it can be stored and used when it's convenient; like in a car. The big problem with hydrogen is how explosive it is.

And, if every car in the world ran on hydrogen the streets would always be wet from the exhaust. Wet streets cause accidents, and when hydrogen powered cars crash the go boooom!

Just chiming in about the utility of a hydrogen economy. Like you said hydrogen is good because it can be stored. The bad part of hydrogen is that to make it useful it must be pressurized, which takes a lot of energy. Also, people always talk about how explosive hydrogen is. . .well the gasoline you use in your car is more dangerous right now in terms of explosions and fire.

An alternative to using straight hydrogen is to use something that you can easily get hydrogen from. We've all been talking about using water but nobody ever mentions using methanol. The research is much further along for the conversion and application of methanol instead of water.

Like Lanny said, the future likely involves harnessing the sun's energy. The problem is that the best solar panels are only something like 15% efficient. Once this problem is figured out there is still the problem of making it useful for all facets of daily life.

The growing energy demand is likely the biggest concern of the planet today. Essentially to be able to match the energy demand in one hundred years we will need to have a new nuclear power plant go up every day up until that point. The future is looking pretty grim for modern human society unless a solution is found. I'll try to find some literature on this stuff that you can view on the internet.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by ken0042

But Lanny, why not use that powerful photocell to generate electricity?

Because I don't think they are as efficient as a hydrogen engine.

The main reason Hydrogen is "good" is it can be stored and used when it's convenient; like in a car. The big problem with hydrogen is how explosive it is.

What of you could keep hydrogen in an inert state until it was needed? What of the seperation process provided fuel almost on demand? What if you filled up your tank with water and the seperator only did its thing when the car was running, storing just enough hydrogen to fill a small tank (about the size of softball) which allowed the combustion engine to start and run?

And, if every car in the world ran on hydrogen the streets would always be wet from the exhaust. Wet streets cause accidents, and when hydrogen powered cars crash the go boooom!

So people learn how to drive and the storage tank is housed in more central (armored) location and designed not to rupture in the event of an impact.

This is all possible. I remember in high school (waaaaaaay back in the dark ages) when my chem teacher seperated hydrogen into a balloon during a lab. He extracted a fairly full party ballon in a couple of minutes. We took it outside and he put a match too it (both on the ends of a 6 foor poles). The explosion almost knocked the windows out of the school. That's the power we should be harnessing and its accessible in water. All its going to take is some money and engineering to make it happen. Oh, and the oil lobby to not stop it!

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Oh, and the oil lobby to not stop it!

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but a lot of the major fuel cell research is heavily funded by gas and oil companies.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

Also, people always talk about how explosive hydrogen is. . .well the gasoline you use in your car is more dangerous right now in terms of explosions and fire.

True, but let's just add on more fact to that equation. Hydrogen and gasoline have one thing in common; neither of them burn in liquid form. Your car takes the liquid gasoline and sprays it to allow for faster evaporation so it can be ignited.

The difference being is that in a normal environment ( -30 to +30 Celcius and one atmosphere pressure) gasoline is a liquid. Under the same circumstances hydrogen becomes a gas. So your tank of 50 litres of liquid hydrogen instantly evaporates and becomes a deadly cloud of gas; killing anybody within several metres and then igniting very easily.

I may have over simplified this a little, but I think you get my point.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Some more debunking:

Ken: Burning hydrocarbons also produces water and out streets aren't flooding now are they? Sure the hydrogen would probably produce more than regualr cars but you've got to think of a few things firstly that all of that water would be in vapour form so it's not like we'll have a hose gushing out the backs of our car and two you're not gonna get any more water than you have hydrogen (half as much actually), so , I know this is a bad assumption but I doubt it's far off, assuming that liquid water takes up as much volume as the ammount of liquid hydrogen needed to produce it, and you have say a 60 l tank then you'd be dumping at most 60 l per what? 600 km. Not a lot of water man.

2) Kybosh: I'm not sure why it is you think that liquid with a relatively high combustion temperature is less dangerous than a compressed gas with an ignition energy more than 15 times lower is more dangerous, but trust me, perssurized hydrogen is a LOT more dangerous than gasoline.
Also, as for using Methanol for a source of hydrogen, that doesnt make much sense either. Methanol is partiall oxegenated methane which instatly means you get less bang for your buck, plus you need to make that methanol somehow, and that usually involves using methane, so why not just to straight to the source and use methane as a source of hydrogen, which has been suggested in the past. But we run into the same two problems. a) They hydrogen you'll end up with has a lower energy content than the methane you started with b) you're removing the carbon from the methane and that carbon has to go somewhere (usually in the form of CO2) so you get the same ammount of pollution but less useful energy to show for it, so it doesn't do you any good, and you might as well just use the methane to begin with.

People, the energy problem will not be solved by finding some magic bullet like magic water power, it has to be solved by developing renewable natural resources. Hydrogen is only a vialbe option once it is produced without the use of hydrocarbons. Solar power produced hydrogen as a fuel for a car is a great idea, as is nuclear powered hydrogen, but untill we can find a renewable non poluting way to produce that hydrogen it won't be a viable option.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but a lot of the major fuel cell research is heavily funded by gas and oil companies.

Some what sarcastic. In the past they have been responsible for hindering this type of research. Now they have no alternative but to promote it.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

What if you filled up your tank with water and the seperator only did its thing when the car was running, storing just enough hydrogen to fill a small tank (about the size of softball) which allowed the combustion engine to start and run?



So people learn how to drive and the storage tank is housed in more central (armored) location and designed not to rupture in the event of an impact.

This is all possible. I remember in high school (waaaaaaay back in the dark ages) when my chem teacher seperated hydrogen into a balloon during a lab. He extracted a fairly full party ballon in a couple of minutes. We took it outside and he put a match too it (both on the ends of a 6 foor poles). The explosion almost knocked the windows out of the school. That's the power we should be harnessing and its accessible in water. All its going to take is some money and engineering to make it happen. Oh, and the oil lobby to not stop it!

And you are 100% correct. The problem is the dynamics of it all.

For one, your car would only be able to run during the day, and only on really sunny days. (definitely not cloudy ones)

And the other question is; how much electricity was used to create that hydrogen?

Plus we already have another thread going on about how people can't drive in a traffic circle. Add that to the number of people who still don't wear seatbelts- do you think we could get people to change their driving habbits simply because their car is now explosive?

And I do agree that the oil companies wouldn't like it. But we don't like talking about conspiracy theories, do we?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Because I don't think they are as efficient as a hydrogen engine.

Wow, I don't know where to start, but using an innefficeint source of power to produce fuel to be used in a more efficient engine is still less efficient than just using the electrical energy in the first place.
If you don't beleive me consider this.
assuming the energy cells are say 80% efficient and the engine you speak of is 90% efficient.

using just the energy cell and say 1000W of power from the sun you get

1000 * 0.8 = 800 W (pretty good)
now using your engine as well (and assuming the hydrogen production process is 100% efficeint wich we all know it is)

1000 * 0.8 * 0.9 = 720 W

720 < 800 Efficinecies are always less than 1 Lanny, and if I have to expalin to you what happens when you keep multiplying numbers less than 1 then this debate is pointless to begin with.

Originally Posted by Lanny_Mcdonald

What of you could keep hydrogen in an inert state until it was needed? What of the seperation process provided fuel almost on demand? What if you filled up your tank with water and the seperator only did its thing when the car was running, storing just enough hydrogen to fill a small tank (about the size of softball) which allowed the combustion engine to start and run?

Okay, fine and to produce this hydrogen you need an energy source in the car. So you're storing energy in the car in some fashion and we have another example of my point above.

Originally Posted by Lanny_Mcdonald

This is all possible. I remember in high school (waaaaaaay back in the dark ages) when my chem teacher seperated hydrogen into a balloon during a lab. He extracted a fairly full party ballon in a couple of minutes. We took it outside and he put a match too it (both on the ends of a 6 foor poles). The explosion almost knocked the windows out of the school. That's the power we should be harnessing and its accessible in water. All its going to take is some money and engineering to make it happen. Oh, and the oil lobby to not stop it!

And it is a FACT that the ammount of energy that went into making that hydrogen (from the electricity) was greater than the ammount of energy released when the hydrogen burned. For easy reference, see my first point.