Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Has the 5 trillion watt laser been discused yet?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Posts
    1,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    All fuel injected cars already require an EMS (engine management system) which controls all the functions of engine combustion, from spark timing to the amount of fuel added. All you need to tweak this system is a after market EMS that you can plug into a laptop.

    As far as it costing $100K+ to upgrade a cars internals to stainless steel and aluminum, thats almost laughable. The reason these engines cost so much is because they are high performance high strength parts used for making well over 500hp and over 2000hp in the drag cars.

    None of the points you brought up hinder the possibility of running a hydrolysis machine off a 12v car battery. Yes oil is always lubricating your pistons but the oil itself never enters the combustion chamber, it simply flows by the pistons and keeps the piston and cylinder wall lubricated. Therefore the only thing you need to worry about rusting is your pistons ($2k-$4k for stainless steel replacement), valves ($1k for stainless steel replacement), and exahust ($800 for stainless steel replacement), also cylinder walls if your engine head isn't made from aluminum but 95% of modern cars now have aluminum heads.

    If you have more questions just check the pdf file I posted. No disrespect but I think your concepts and ideas for why it wont work are far outdated.
    Sure. Just go and install it! Run for a few months and we will see. Strangely people who are pro this idea don't do it. I beg you to do it. Install it. Because I'm sick and tired of people saying....this guy ...that guy...guy I know....what about themselves?. I would like to take a ride in moded car and then write a blog about it. And see if it's really worth all that hype. IMHO it is all a big BS. If you need a pro opinion on the sudject I can ask Chemistry Phd and a Physics Phd to write their view on this. But I know what they will say. "I don't have time for that BS" But again If I can see with my own eyes it does 4l per 100km without any lose of performance. I will change sides.

    So for me I'll be doing what I was doing for a long time. Good spark plugs wires and a K&N filter.

    PS Just spoke to one Phd. He recommends to bring up old steam engines and make them Hydrogen powered. Idea is simple you use a regular petroleum to boil the water which will spin a generator which will charge the battery which will power electrolysis which will be added to a moded petroleum car engine which will drive a locomotive.
    I hired an Italian guy to do my wires. Now they look like spaghetti!

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,147,489,446

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Laser View Post
    Sure. Just go and install it! Run for a few months and we will see. Strangely people who are pro this idea don't do it.
    The people who are "pro's" in your mind (racers) are people interested in maximum performance, *NOT* alternate fuel sources. They would have no incentive to switch to gaseous fuel.

    People that *are* interested in alternative fuels already have already sucessfully converted their engines to run on gaseous fuels, and they run just fine. Here's a guy that did it back in 1953, for crying out loud!

    Volvo has been producing bi-fuel cars that will run on either gasoline or methane since 1995, and while they don't sell very well over here (no place to fuel up), they do well enough in Europe.

    And for the record, GM used to sell methane and propane conversion kits to farmers for GM quadrajet carburetors back in the 70's and 80's. I saw several farm trucks with this modification when I was growing up in rual Wisconsin.
    Because I'm sick and tired of people saying....this guy ...that guy...guy I know....what about themselves?
    If I had natural gas in my neighborhood I would convert my standby electrical generator to run off methane in a heartbeat. In fact, a few years ago I actually petitioned the local electric and gas company in an attempt to try to convice them to run gas to our street. I got 25 out of 33 residents to sign a petition where we agreed to install at least two gas appliances (stove, water heater, clothes drier, gas logs, or a gas pack for your central heating unit) within a year of gas being made available. Also, the 4 inch main is just 270 yards from our street, which to me suggested that it would be an easy task to tap in... Nevertheless, they decided it wasn't economical for them.

    As for running my car with it, no - I don't want to try that. For one, I don't have any way to fill up the tank. (Not even at home.) Also, the range of the vehicle will be significantly reduced, because gasous fuels are far less dense than gasoline.

    As I mentioned in my post above, there *are* issues with using gaseous fuels in an internal combusion engine, BUT KILLING THE ENGINE ISN'T ONE OF THEM!

    If you really understood as much as you claim to about internal combusion engines, you would realize that a gaseous fuel would burn much cleaner, and would introduce far fewer contaminants into the engine. This is why engines that are converted to run on gaseous fuels run *significantly* longer than engines that run on gasoline. And if you google the subject, you'll learn that in locations where gaseous fuels are readily available, several types of internal combustion engines (including those for vehicles, generators, and pumping stations) have been converted to run on these fuels, and those engines last *much* longer.

    And finally, lest you think I'm just some physics geek that hasn't turned a wrench in his life, know that I've rebuilt a 4.3 Chevy V6 in my garrage. Stripped it down to the bare block and went back with new parts. I've also worked on 454's (marine inboard engines). So while I'm no drag racer, I'm also not speaking strictly from theory here.
    If you need a pro opinion on the sudject I can ask Chemistry Phd and a Physics Phd to write their view on this.
    What the hell would a chemistry Phd know about modern engine mechanics? Seriously, if I was looking for an expert on the subject, I'd ask an engineer at GM or Ford. Sheesh!
    If I can see with my own eyes it does 4l per 100km without any lose of performance. I will change sides.
    OK - now you're talking sense. I never said that gaseous fuels could compete with gasoline in terms of efficiency *or* range. And that's a serious drawback to their adoption as a fuel for an internal combusion engine. So in this point I agree with you: I think using hydrogen as a fuel for an internal combusion engine is a losing proposition, because of the range and performance issues.

    But this was *not* your initial claim. You instead claimed that burning hydrogen (or methane, or propane) in a regular car engine would, and I quote: "...kill your engine in no time. Piston rings will rust. Cylinder walls will ruts. You well get water in oil. Crank shaft will rust. Bearings will rust. Internal combustion wasn't designed for that." This is demonstratably wrong.
    So for me I'll be doing what I was doing for a long time. Good spark plugs wires and a K&N filter.
    Nothing wrong with a K&N filter. I have them installed on all of my vehicles. Nothing wrong with good plug wires either. And it's a good idea to change your plugs frequently. Shall we talk about oil change intervals too? None of this has anything to do with the fact that internal combusion engines can run on gaseous fuels just as easily as they can run on ordinary gasoline. The required modifications are trivial and well within the abilities of nearly all backyard mechanics.

    Adam

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Posts
    1,120

    Default

    by "pro" I mean prosomething. In this situation I mean people supporting this idea. There another thing! Why this car device in not patented?. It's not that hard to file. Also not that hard to push for early publishing. Can't imaging why this brilliant device left behind.
    I hired an Italian guy to do my wires. Now they look like spaghetti!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,147,489,446

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Laser View Post
    by "pro" I mean prosomething. In this situation I mean people supporting this idea.
    The reason more people don't use it in their own cars is because of the other drawbacks (reduced range, hard to find a filling station, etc) that gaseous fuels present. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR RIDICULOUS CLAIMS ABOUT ENGINE DAMAGE.

    The people that are advocating the use of hydrogen as a fuel for cars know that it's not yet ready to compete on an even footing with gasoline, and that is the primary reason why it's not widely used. It's still a valid concept, and with improvements in both storage technology and fuel cell technology, it will eventually be very competitive with gasoline.

    In the mean time, however, we *could* get started building the hydrogen infrastructure now and use the hydrogen in existing car engines. Yes, we'd pay a penalty in terms of range and efficiency. But how else are you going to transition away from the gasoline economy?
    Why this car device in not patented?.
    Duh... Because they've been doing it for over 50 years. There's nothing to patent. Wake up already - burning gaseous fuel in an internal combusion engine is *NOT* a new idea. Sheesh!

    Volvo *may* have a patent related to their bi-fuel engine control computer. I don't really know off hand, but the idea is plausible. And other companies may have their own patents related to hydrogenstorage technology or other specific elements of a hydrogen-powered car. All this is irrelevant, however. The concept of burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is not going to be patented.
    Can't imaging why this brilliant device left behind.
    Dude, seriously - what is your problem that you can't seem to follow the topic here? No one ever said it was a "brilliant device." The hydrogen economy is a reasonable plan to replace gasoline in the future when oil becomes prohibitively expensive. It's been discussed since, oh, about the 1950's or so. If you disagree with the concept, I'd be very curious to hear your solution to the problem. But before you bash the idea, I suggest you do some research on the topic, because you don't appear to understand it at all.

    Running an internal combustion engine on gaseous fuel today makes sense only when the fuel is plentiful and readily available, and when long range is not required. Still, it is actually prefered in some permanent installations where an engine might need to run continuously for weeks or months at a time, becuase of the reduced engine wear. This only works, however, if you have a source of fuel that you can pipe up to the engine. (Landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and other areas with abundant supplies of methane, for example.)

    Most of the discussion about the hydrogen economy - generating power at a remote location and storing it in hydrogen to be used in cars and trucks - is focused around the development and eventual widespread use of fuel cells, which are *much* more efficient than internal combustion engines. And, indeed, the end game for the hydrogen economy has us replacing all our inefficient internal combustion engines in our cars with fuel cells. But you need a bridge technology to get there. (After all, there's no way we can replace *all* our vehicles at the same time...)

    Fortunately, it *is* possible to run those same engines on hydrogen (or methane, or propane) with only slight modifications. This allows the economy to transition from gasoline to hydrogen without requiring that every car be immediately replaced with a new one that has a fuel cell. It also gives the country time to build the massive infrastructure that will be needed. The main trade-off is reduced range, because of the limited storage capacity and the low energy density of hydrogen.

    Adam
    Last edited by buffo; 04-26-2008 at 13:31.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    4,382

    Default

    Jesus Christ!! I had no idea I'd have to skip so much fu#*%g reading. I guess if I had 2 days I could go thru all these posts and read every word but it's late and... well .. gas is ^3.50usd and it sucks and somebody needs to figure out something besides "hybrids+lead-acid batteries"... As far as "creating a man made star', well... I can see a failure or an explosion. More likely a failure. Now, if we were 500 more years advanced from the horse-and-buggy days, maybe...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,147,489,446

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by steve-o View Post
    Jesus Christ!! I had no idea I'd have to skip so much fu#*%g reading.
    Come on, Steve! What's the point of logging in if you don't read the posts? You can't hardly participate in the discussion if you don't know what people are saying, now can you?
    I guess if I had 2 days I could go thru all these posts and read every word
    It shouldn't take *that* long...

    Adam

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    4,382

    Default

    It was late last night, and now I'm working on the projector and multi-tasking so I dont have time... Oh well, it looks like an interesting discussion, so maybe I'll read this entire thread one day soon when spare time arrives.... heh.. that'll be ...uhh .. one day..
    Besides, I'm a slow reader, I like to ingest every word
    _________________________________________________

    Some people call me 'slow', I like the word "meticulous" instead
    Last edited by steve-o; 04-27-2008 at 11:44.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Posts
    1,120

    Default

    Electrolysis is the most energy consuming process. Where you gonna get this energy ...right from the battery. Will you put more energy back to the engine then you took NO!. And if you claiming you do you're: 1 a F!@#$ liar 2. You just made the first Perpetuum Mobile. Bravo you deserve a F~!@#$ medal! So whats the point of this device?!? Electrolysis has never made more energy then it consumes. Energy doesn't come from nowhere. Learn Conservation law!. All other things I mentioned are side problems of people messing around with internal combustion engines. I've seen a lot of crazy ideas that cuz'd...well the price of new engine.

    There are only few gases on Earth in their pure form. All others had to be made using a lot of energy. Where you gonna get this energy. Wall plug? Where this energy comes from?. It doesn't come from nowhere.

    I hope humanity will discover a source of cheap energy some day. I didn't say infinite energy. I said cheap source. Because infinite energy is oxymoron.
    I hired an Italian guy to do my wires. Now they look like spaghetti!

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    4,382

    Default

    I think a breeder-reactor in every vehicle is an excellent idea.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,147,489,446

    Exclamation You shouldn't argue with someone unless you first understand the topic at hand, Doc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Laser View Post
    Electrolysis is the most energy consuming process. Where you gonna get this energy
    No shit, Sherlock. For the love of CHRIST, before you start arguing with someone, make sure you understand the topic.

    If you had bothered to read the posts above, you would see that it has already been mentioned *SEVERAL* times that hydrogen is not a "fuel", but rather an energy storage medium. The "hydrogen economy" is not about some hair-brained scheme to extract free energy through the electrolysis of water! We know that the energy has to come from an alternate source, and that there will be losses in the process. The point is that, even with those losses, the process is *still* cheaper than gasoline! And if you'd bothered to do any research on the subject, you'd know that already. Before you accuse anyone of being a "a F!@#$ liar", you need to *read* the posts above in their entirety.

    All your blathering about conservation of energy is wasted. We all understand that. No one else here is talking about a way to violate the laws of thermodynamics. We're not talking about a "device". We're *not* talking about free energy. We're talking about an entire economy that is based around hydrogen instead of oil.

    You still have to generate electricity to manufacture the hydrogen, and of course there are losses in the process. The "win" is that it's cheaper to generate power at a relatively few power stations and then store that energy in the form of hydrogen, rather than installing millions of small, inefficient heat engines (internal combustion engines) in our cars and using gasoline to power them.

    To illustrate my point, try to follow me through the following example: On the way in to work this morning, I noticed that a gallon of gasoline is selling for right at $3.50. OK, that gallon of gas contains roughly 60 kilowatt-hours of energy. But because the internal combustion engine is so damned inefficient, we can only get about 25% of that energy out. The rest is wasted as heat. So now you're down to 15 kilowatt-hours of energy for the same $3.50. What will 15 kilowatt-hours get you? Depends on what you drive. An SUV will travel maybe 15 miles, while a nice economy car could go twice as far, and a hybrid might make it 3 times as far.

    Now, let's compare those numbers for gasoline with what hydrogen could do. Remember that we're talking about usable energy here; the goal is to have the same 15 kilowatt-hours of energy available to move our vehicle, be it an SUV, a sedan, or an econo-box.

    In order to make hydrogen, you reverse the oxidation process through electrolysis. And, of course, you need at least as much power to make hydrogen as you'll get when you burn it. In fact, you'll need more, because the electrolysis process is only about 70% efficient. So if you want to generate 15 kilowatt-hours of energy through the oxidation of hydrogen, you need 15 kilowatt-hours of electricity times 1.3 (efficiency penalty of electrolysis) = 19.5 kilowatt-hours of electricity to do this.

    Now you decide to use that hydrogen to power a fuel cell. But remember that fuel cells are only about 70% efficient as well. So now you have 19.5 kilowatt-hours times 1.3 (efficiency penalty of the fuel cell) = 25.4 kilowatt-hours of electricity needed to make enough hydrogen to generate the same 15 kilo-watt hours of usable energy from the fuel cell using hydrogen.

    Almost done... Now you need to factor in the efficiency of the electric motor in the car. Most motors are around 85% efficient under normal loads. So take your 25.4 kilowatt-hours times 1.15 (efficiency penalty of the motor) = 29.2 kilowatt-hours of electricity needed to make enough hydrogen so that you have 15 kilowatt-hours of energy available at the wheels to drive your car.

    So how much does 29.2 kilowatt-hours of electricity cost? Just $2.63! (Assuming 9 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is actually on the high side for South Carolina.)

    So you see, the hydrogen economy is already *cheaper* than oil if you use a fuel cell. The savings comes from generating the bulk of your power at large electrical power stations, which are considerably more efficient than having lots of small power stations (internal combustion engines) in our cars. Note also, that fuel cell technology is improving. We'll likely see 85% efficiency very soon. (Some commercial applications are already running at 80%, but they aren't practical for cars.) Likewise, electric motor efficiency is improving as well (there are electric motors that boast 93% efficiency on the market right now).

    Contrast all this with gasoline technology, and you'll see why the hydrogen economy makes sense. Internal combustion engines haven't improved in efficiency very much in the last 10 years, and it's unlikely that they will ever get any better than about 30% (Carnot efficiency is the theoretical maximum for a heat engine, and it's in the mid-30% range for the temperatures involved in a car engine.) Meanwhile, fuel cell technology is just taking off, and has a *lot* of room for improvement.

    The problem is that it takes time to ramp up the production of hydrogen. Time to build new filling stations that can deliver hydrogen. Time to build extra power generating stations to provide the electricity to make hydrogen. Time for people to afford to purchase new vehicles that use a fuel cell instead of an internal combustion engine. So you can't just decide today that we're going to switch to hydrogen and obsolete all those cars on the road.

    But you *can* find ways to use hydrogen in the existing economy. This is the "bridge" to the hydrogen economy that was mentioned in earlier posts above. Because it can be burned in regular engines, it won't obsolete existing equipment. True, when burned in an internal combustion engine, hydrogen is inefficient compared to gasoline. That's not the point. It's a means to an end. A way to allow the construction of the hydrogen infrastructure while we wean ourselves off gasoline. And once the majority of the vehicles are powered by fuel cells and electric motors instead of internal combustion engines, huge cost savings will be realized. (Not to mention improvements in air and water quality.)

    The real goal of the hydrogen economy is to pair a renewable energy source (like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, or biomass) to the generation of hydrogen. But the beauty of the idea is that, even if you were to burn fossil fuels to generate the hydrogen, you *still* end up with better efficiency (and cheaper end-user costs) than if you stick with gasoline. Plus you can more effectively scrub pollution from the smokestack of a power plant than you can from the tailpipes of a million cars.

    All this has been spelled out at least twice before in the posts above. Before you blast away with more uninformed drivel, you really need to read what has been written and be sure you understand it. Because no one here is advocating some pie-in-the-sky panacea. The numbers are real, the technology is sound, and the concept has been discussed at length for decades.

    Adam
    Last edited by buffo; 04-28-2008 at 03:58. Reason: typos

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •