The Electric Car Thread- Merged

[c_canuk]

it doesn't matter what the efficiency of the stages are.

for every 1 unit of energy put into the system exactly 1 unit comes out, no matter what the efficiency. Efficiency in this case refers to the amount of input energy comes out in a useful form.

therefore at 100% efficiency the car could only generate enough fuel to generate fuel, it could do nothing else, as soon as you did something as little as turn on the headlights you are now in an energy deficit.

energy in = energy out you are proposing they are getting more energy out than putting in.

fuel contains chemical energy that when oxidized releases that energy, water is already oxidized therefore it contains no chemical energy.

 

[Flip]

Isn't that a weird coincidence.
Just last week a young guy came to me to inquire what it would cost to develop the electronic controls for exactly this.
Some noise about a resonant Hydrogen generation device.  His argument was about effeciencies too.
Here's the thing, the energy yeilded by the reaction is EXACTLY EQUAL to the the energy it takes to seperate Hydrogen and Oxygen - MINUS whatever the efficiencies are. 1 Joule times any number less than 1, is still less than one.  Ergo, no energy from heaven.

I told him what it would cost and then asked him " How WILL you seperate the Oxygen from the Hydrogen?
He said he would leave them together to inject into the engine !!!!  >

My advice - DO NOT DO THIS _ EVER! 

I also seem to recall how when "news" first broke about cold fusion.  A whole bunch of scientists in the developing world rushed to validate the discovery.
I think the whole thing lasted about a week.

 

[Sigger]

But that was then and this is now....

Believe me when I say I have read the articles on debunking cold fusion also and have no intention on debating wether or not this is possible or just plain economical.

However, I will not stick to centuries old rules and theories that geniuses of old have conjured from hours of endless research. I am sure there is many possibilities out there for these energies.

I am just suggesting that even though there are many pessimistic(or realistic, depending on which side of the rink you are on) people out there attempting to debunk working hypothesis, I am still hopeful.

Oh, and Chain Reaction rulz

 

[Bert]

More info
http://www.techamok.com/?pid=4689
http://www.techamok.com/?pid=4678

Is this the debate, "1 unit of energy put into the system exactly 1 unit comes out"?  Perhaps the concept
doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.  The issue of speculative relevance may be the car
isn't consuming gas and gets around.  So what if it isn't exactly efficient.  I'd like to see how it develops.

What will grind my gears or steam me up may be all the middle men who could nickle and dime the
hydrogen technologies to death - 32% tax on engine water - wait for it.   

 

[jollyjacktar]

Relax everybody, help may not be that far off.  This looks like a viable alternative, and c_canuk, in it's own way supports it'self as a sort of closed loop. 

http://www.discoverychannel.ca/reports/rw/9155/Can-microbes-give-us-fuel.aspx

 

[54/102 CEF]

when science calls something a law, that means unless a good portion of science is overturned and ruled faulty it's not possible to break it.

it is not possible to get more energy out of a closed system than you put in. the amount of energy stays the same.

Even with nuclear reactions this is true because the new energy is directly accountable for from missing mass (E=MC2)

Electrolysis is the chemical reaction of hydrogen oxidizing (burning) reversed. it is not possible to get more energy out than you put in.

to break water into it's elements so that you can get 1 unit of energy's worth of fuel will require at 100% efficiency 1 unit of energy, since these systems have reported efficiencies of 50-70% that means you need to put in 1.5 to 2 units of energy to get 1 unit's worth of fuel and the remaining .5-1 unit of energy will be mainly heat.

then when you run the hydrogen/oxygen through a fuel cell which is electrolysis backwards (the cell membrane allows the hydrogen and oxygen to chemically bond without burning, and converting most of the energy to electricity at roughly 50% - 70% efficency

so now you need 3-4 units of energy going into electrolysis to make 1 unit of energy out of your fuel cell.

if you plan on burning it in a traditional internal combustion engine look at max efficiency of 25% so now you need 6-8 units of energy going into electrolysis to make 1 unit of mechanical energy at the crank, you loose another 20% at the alternator feeding the electrolysis system so you're looking at 7-9 units of energy

compare that to an electric motor at 80%+ efficency and you could be using 1.5 or less units of energy for 1 unit of mechanical energy compared to 7-9 for internal combustion or 3-4 for a fuel cell.

The LAW of thermodynamics cannot be broken.

So what you`re suggesting is that in the event GM has mass produced batteries figured out - dealer show rooms will be filled in the reasonably near future but the cars will be built by robots in darkened factories. And Bud Hargrove isn't happy. Is that what I`m hearing? Great post.

 

[SupersonicMax]

However, I will not stick to centuries old rules and theories that geniuses of old have conjured from hours of endless research. I am sure there is many possibilities out there for these energies.

And you have more experience and knowledge than the whole scientific community that still accepts and widely uses those laws and theories even to this day?  Thermodynamic is one of the field of mechanical engineering and those 3 laws are taught to every mechanical engineering students.

Free energy just doesn't exists.  The most efficient cycle is the Carnot cycle and it is very theoratical.  No mechanical system to date have been able to achieve the efficiency the Carnot Cycle predicts.  Basically, Carnot says that a system at a certian state will take heat (energy), use it, then give the exact same amount of heat back.  Doing that, we say that the cycle is reversible.  With losses this is impossible.  And there are losses in every mechanical system.  You will never have 100% efficiency.  Even the Carnot Cycle is not 100% efficient.  The Carnot efficiency is just the maximum theoratical efficiency a system would give, if there were NO losses.

I'm sure the engineers that designed that car actually used the 3 Laws of Thermo.  There is no way around it when you are designing something that converts energy.

Max

 

[Flip]

There's a simple analog to this argument.  And absolute proof that the "centuries old" theories are correct.

Any aqueous battery owes it's existence to the mobility of hydrogen.
In every case the battery will run down as an oxidation reaction continues.
In most cases this can be reversed as the battery is charged.
In every case the energy in is almost exactly equal to the energy out.
The difference is always negative - All of that before you get on to gears and other mechanical contrivances.  All you need is the humble battery.  Everything else is just a Rube Goldburg machine. ;D

 

[Sigger]

And you have more experience and knowledge than the whole scientific community that still accepts and widely uses those laws and theories even to this day? 

Yes.... I do.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Sure...  Then you tell me what kind of experience you have that will make you credible.

Max

 

[Sigger]

A wild imagination...

By the By if not allready gathered, I have little to no idea on most of anything scientific or credible, that which would give me any hold on debating the possibility of such theories. However. I do believe my ability to hope, and my strong conspiracy theorist notions based from political anecdotes, do give me grounds to attempt a process for public annihilation of antediluvian thinking.

In short - I like to think out side of the box.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Your creative ideas will only work withing the boudaries of reality.  Sure, in my imagination, I'll create a free energy engine.  However, withing the boundaries of reality, it just doesn't happen.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

It is a rare thing when I completely agree with someone. 

c_canuk you are 100% correct.  I'm not saying that I just agree with you; you're right.

Water is not fuel, it is the result of burnt hydrogen,  to get the the H2O into 'useable form', we'd have to use energy.  For exactly the reasons you've stated this would require using more energy.  The only way to make it work is to add energy to the system, say by plugging it in over night - and if you're doing that why not use a storage medium for your energy that is more efficient and less likely to make a very big boom?

As for the speed of electric cars,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4513529.stm  Electric cars are quite capable of reaching the posted speed limits and then some.  But there are limitations right now -    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06208/709068-185.stm One car can get 135 Mph... but has a range of 200 miles.  (217Km/h and 322Km)

There are 'truck models' that are that slow. For those who hate government BS http://autos.canada.com/green/story.html?id=4ee98d97-93df-48c7-8f5b-10f3dab81db4 A Canadian manufacture of electric trucks can't sell in Canada, but can export.  The government then allows an American company to import the exact product he is making in Canada...

 

[Old Sweat]

Sigger

I applaud your enthusiasm, but please enlighten us about which conspiracy theories you have bought into that have persuaded you that that a water-powered car is a feasible proposition. And by the way, when I was a kid in the late forties and early fifties, the story about the super 100 mpg carburator that the oil companies had bought up and hidden away was already old and tired.

 

[Sigger]

A

I applaud your enthusiasm, but please enlighten us about which conspiracy theories you have bought into that have persuaded you that that a water-powered car is a feasible proposition.

I do not buy into anything, unless I witness it - if that. And this includes a water-powered car being a feasible proposition.

 

[Old Sweat]

So you agree that a water-powered car is not possible?

 

[Sigger]

No.

I am saying, possibilities or lack thereof aside, loopholes in scientific rules can happen. So, I will wait for this water-powered car to be discredited by aforementioned "full on scientific think tanks" before I come to any conclusions on this particular vehicles power generator.

*edited for further explanation of my answer

 

[Old Sweat]

Suit yourself. The chances of the loopholes in the scientific laws happening are about as likely as you getting a payout from a Nigerian bank.

 

[Sigger]

Any ways, It will be interesting to see what happens to this company in the next few months. I do hope there is some sort of economical renewable energy out there that can run our transportation needs.
Like a beam of light.

 

[Old Sweat]

It would be nice to achieve a scientific breakthrough, but it won't be done by bending or breaking the laws of science.

Unfortunately there is a lot of scope for fast buck artists to milk the system, as there always has been. A couple or three decades back there was an investment boom in a company claiming to have developed plastic major components for the internal combustion engine. It got a lot of publicity and a lot of people, not including me, invested in the company. The bubble burst after the money had all disappeared without a single part being produced. I think the main promoter went to jail for a short period, but I'm not sure.

Even legitimate enterprises are risky investments and what may have been touted in the media as a breakthrough in the end is nothing of the short.