Ah yes,but what if a process or an invention has been discovered that turns conventional wisdom on its head.Do you think that that information would EVER be released to joe public?
I think not.
We would continue to be fed lies and bull because there are too many vested interests !
|
You can't "uninvent" something. A car that runs on water would make anyone who invented one rich to a degree that would make Bill Gates seem like a pauper. If it don't exist, it's because no one can make it work.
|
I think you miss the point.
You have invented a device that allows fuel to be made from water.Who is going to let you market said device ?
The Government ?
They stand to lose billions in fuel duty.
The Oil producing companies?
These people have invested billions and they are not going to sit and watch their investment go down the pan.
The Oil producing countries ?
I think that whoever invents such a thing will just dissapear.Who is to say that it does not already exist,just waiting to be "discovered" the day the oil wells run dry!
Conspiracy theory maybe,BUT........
Big Brother is watching you !
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
There's a rumour that there used to be a commodity that was the world's leading traded raw material, and that "organic" medications to rival the products of the pharmaceutical industry were being developed from it, a way of producing paper from it was being developed that would rival traditional newsprint (into the production of which a major US news group had invested a fortune in forests and new plant), oh, yes, and there was a bio-fuel being developed from it.
And you can eat it too (it's a high value foodstuff as well).
I wonder what happened to it?
It was hemp.
(Cannabis Sativa!)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
On the other hand there's CFCs
Good job that they discovered how they were creating a hole in the Ozone Layer before all those third world countries starting producing tons more of the stuff at giveaway prices as the patents on them ran out.
And an even better job that someone dicovered an eco-friendly replacement just at the right time!
Double Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
|
Back to the basics.
You are suggesting using water as the sole motivating force for this engine.
To split the molecule of water uses x Joules of energy. Let's assume perfect efficiency in doing this, so you end up with fuel that, when burnt perfectly efficiently, will release those same x joules of energy. Let's assume perfect efficiency in releasing this energy. (N.B. Second law of thermodynamics says you can't get perfect efficiency, so I'm being kind)
Thus, we have exactly x joules being created by the engine, which uses exactly x joules to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen.
The question is, where is the excess required to move the vehicle?
|
The question is, where is the excess required to move the vehicle?
Just harness it to a perpetual motion machine.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
|
|
Absolutely right on the basics, Vin.
Even with 100% efficiency you will only get perpetual motion withg no excess power.
That is why you need to get the energy to split the water from an external source, such as the waste heat in the exhaust or solar panels.
At best, though, it is only going to supplement the power of the engine, not totally replace the fuel.
But maybe, just maybe, it could significantly reduce fuel consumption and emissions.
|
You don't need to split water molecules, just collect the water that falls as rain in upland areas, using things technically known as 'dams'. Then let the water run downhill through pipes, and drive impellors connected to 'generators'. Then pass the electricity into the 'national grid', through a 'battery charger' in your garage, into a 'battery' in your electric car, and off you go.
Also, it has long been known that small amounts of water vapour in the air intake of a conventional engine improve the combustion. This is not exactly running on water, but it helps a bit.
|
"Then pass the electricity into the 'national grid', through a 'battery charger' in your garage, into a 'battery' in your electric car, and off you go."
For 50 miles.
Until storage or motor efficiency improve dramatically, range is the drawback with electric vehicles.
|
Vin,I dont profess to know anything about thermodynamics,but it seems to me you are saying then energy in = energy out,yes ?
Well then, how does a small force i.e( 2 bits of uranium smashed together) produce what I presume to be millions of times more energy out ?
|
Ok, here's the physics as I understand it (and I'm not a physicist). In nuclear fission (splitting the atom) a nucleus is split apart, and the total mass of the bits is less than the nucleus as a whole. The difference is the energy needed to bind the lot together. If you can persuade a lump of U235 to do this in a chain reaction it disintegrates at nuclear level, almost instantaneously, thus releasing the "binding energy" in an explosion, or more gradually in a reactor. So it's not that a small amount of energy is put in to give a lot out, it's that it takes a small amount of energy to release energy that's already in there.
Is that ok John S.?
Chris
|
|
ok so how does a Hydrogen bomb work ?
|
>>ok so how does a Hydrogen bomb work ?
Blimey bernie, not Saddam Hussein's agent are you?
David W
|
No,but its a valid question.I have been told that you can't get power from the hydrogen in water without putting the same amount of energy in to split it.So where does this equate in the hydrogen bomb.I mean it makes a big bang and I don't think they start off with an equally big bang.
OR are these guys that poo poo this idea the very people who dont want us to know the real story ?
More conspiracy Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
|
|
Hydrogen bombs contain vast amounts of stored energy and do actually need a very large explosion to start off the nuclear reaction which releases the energy. The large explosion is usually started off by an atom bomb, albeit a small one compared to Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
|
Interesting point on the hemp bogush.
Hemp was the wonder crop. (At twice the strength of cotton imagine how fine you could make garments with todays manufacturing abilities). Thing is cotton plantations owned by wealthy, politically influencial individuals ensured hemp became known only for its ability to turn normal american teens into murderous psychopaths.
Nowadays cotton consumes more than half the worlds pesticides and agrochemical production. Another politically powerful lobby takes the mantle...
|
Bernie, this hasn?t been patented, not because the inventor was abducted on his way to the patent office, but because it just doesn?t work. The disadvantages and problems far outweigh any anticipated advantages.
Some years ago, two very respected researchers (Pons & Fleischmann, I think), who had more PhDs that your average hospital, published details of their ?cold fusion? electrolysis process, which released far more energy than it consumed. The price of the essential materials (palladium, I think it was) rocketed, temporarily, on the world?s metal exchanges. That didn?t work either. They?d made an error. No one else could reproduce their results.
When you?ve built a working model, let us know.
It was illegal NOT to grow hemp in Elizabethan times. They used it for ropes for the ships.
Hey, how about bio-diesel made from hemp seed? It might produce toxic smoke, but no-one would care.
|
PS
An internet search for "Pons & Fleischmann" using Google, produced a 20+ pages list of related internet sites, many of which argued that cold fusion did work. It's too late to save the world tonight.
|
Fascinating. And I've let it run. But if we could head back towards "A car that runs on water ?" now, I'd be really grateful.
|
OK ,time to let go.
Until the oil runs out at least !
|
Mark's request notwithstanding, there appears to be confusion here between different forms of energy.
In the hydrogen powered car, the energy used is the energy that holds molecules of hydrogen and oxygen together. Breaking a bond through electrolysis takes just as much energy as you get back from reforming the bond when you burn the hydrogen and oxygen.
In a nuclear bomb or a nuclear reactor, or whatever, we have to look at a new concept, which is that mass and energy are different forms of the same thing, i.e. mass can be changed into energy and vice versa. The equation used to calculate the exchange rate is the old faithful, e= mc squared. Thus, a kilo of matter is equivalent to approx 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules = b***** of a lot. To give the scale, 4.5 tons of matter turned to energy would fuel global energy consumption for a year.
What a nuclear reaction does is to change (a miniscule proportion of) the mass of the uranium, plutionium, etc, in it into energy. This is performed slowly (hopefully) in a nuclear reactor, or quickly in a bomb. What is done is atoms of uranium split to form new elements that weigh slightly less than the uranium atom did. The escess mass is released as energy.
In a hydrogen bomb, a compound of hydrogen is used. Under enough pressure and temperature, molecules of this fuse together to form new compounds that (you've guessed it) weigh a little less than the molecules that were fused, releasing the excess mass as energy.
So, the concept of splitting molecules of water is very different from splitting atoms in a fission reactor or fusing atoms in a hydrogen bomb.
What we need now is a fission fuelled car.
V
|
What's used to generate the heat and pressureise it to change the mass of something to release energy?
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
What's used to generate the heat and pressureise it to change the mass of something to release energy?
The atoms in uranium and plutonium are not stable, but decay by releasing particles called electrons. This changes the nature of the original element and uranium IIRC eventually becomes lead, as used in car batteries (motoring link).
If there are other atoms of uranuim close by, the electrons hit the core of these other atoms and split them, releasing energy and more electrons, which hit other atoms and split them, and so on.
This is your classic chain reaction.
It can only happen if;
1. There is enough fissile material (critical mass) otherwise the electrons miss other atoms and go off into the general neighbourhood
2. It happens in a small space so that a lot of electrons hit other atoms very quickly
So the trick is to use conventional explosives to shoot two of more sub-critical mass pieces of fissile material together to make a critical mass which generates enough spare electrons to cause a chain reaction.
If you do not blast them together then the initial reaction blows them apart again and the chain reaction dies.
This is why a power station cannot explode, the fissile material is not concentrated enough to explode, it just generates heat.
HTH
|
Or, if you're setting off a hydrogen bomb, you use a small fission bomb to create sufficient temp and pressure to kick off the fusion reaction.
V
|
|
ummm, I did ask quite nicely............
|
|
Yes, but this is all pretty relevant to why a car can't be run on water, isn't it?
|
>>but this is all pretty relevant to why a car can't be run on water, isn't it?
welllllll..........
>>Or, if you're setting off a hydrogen bomb, you use a small fission bomb to create sufficient temp and pressure to kick off the fusion reaction.
Unless you drive some very weird cars, then I think I'm gonna have to go with "no, its not".
|
Since I have been away for a few days, I cannot quite believe that I am the first to point out that the one car that truly runs on water is ... an Amphicar!
Jack
|
UJ,
I was so tempted but I avoid posting to threads in danger from the knife.......
David W
|
Having just gone through the whole of the thread again I agree with Vin and UJ. But to go back to Bernies orginal question. Yes you can run a car on water, in UJ's case probably not what was meant. It just aint worth it with todays technology.
Bill
|
Look at these sites to see cars that run on water...
www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/6464/aquacar.html
www.amphicar.net/
;-)
Regards
John R
|
& www.amphicar.com/ :¬)
Regards
John R
|
|
|
|
|
