Hydrogen Engine

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by IamIan

plus of course anything being fueled by hydrogen has to get the hydrogen produced in the first place ... and transported ... and stored... and it is each of these three areas that hydrogen becomes a dead end ...

Besides, I personally dread the day serious volumes of hydrogen gets into the hands of Joe Public.
There's no room for error with highly pressurized hydrogen.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by UFO

It's good to see others who see this hydrogen thing as it is, and not through rose-colored glasses or tin-foil hats.

When you are willing to sit down and get technical ... numbers are numbers ... there are usually pros and cons to both sides of allot of issues ... including hydrogen as an energy carrier ... unfortunately there are allot of people who do not like to get technical ... and allot of people get defensive when questioned about the basis , and reasons for their opinions.

Hydrogen has 2 major benefits:
#1> Cleaner at point of use... very few are better.
#2> Energy density weight kwh / kg... very few are better.

Hydrogen has 2 major disadvantages:
#1> Efficiency ( Produce the H2 , distribute, store , use )
#2> Energy density volume kwh / L ... many are far better.

Progress has been made ... but it is slow and is a long way off at best ... I also think BEVs from RE are a more ultimate direction ... and are already more developed and advanced than the hydrogen system.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by euromodder

Besides, I personally dread the day serious volumes of hydrogen gets into the hands of Joe Public.
There's no room for error with highly pressurized hydrogen.

You might be surprised to find how common Highly Pressurized Hydrogen already is ... especially in some commercial , industrial, and scientific facilities.

I've seen some eye opening things ... including an entire tractor trailer full of 10,000 PSI hydrogen being disconnected, swapped out, and reconnected ... buy a guy with a lit cigarette hanging from his mouth the whole time.

About ~2 years ago a competing propane provider gave us bids, and they offered Hydrogen as well ... and did not require anything different than what was needed for propane... to sell or supply us with highly compressed or liquefied hydrogen... there was even a company who gave us a bid to convert the propane ICE forklifts to run as hydrogen ICE forklifts.

[Lethedethius]

ok wow, I was obviously away from the website too long, and it seems that one guy with the video got banned over this... ok guys ya'll ranted on and on and on, and made a lick of sense.

I appreciate the input, I don't appreciate the retarded answers I got, keep them to yourselves, and the ones who said it's not possible, explain why please. Don't just say no, give me reasons why, and don't say "because bill gates said so", actually show me proof it's not possible or hold your comments.

But the same goes for those who believe it's possible, show me proof! A guy in Ohio, in Grove City produced a water car, and it worked. So it IS possible, but is it feasible? Ohio State University students just made a hydrogen vehicle that ran at 200mph so that trumps a lot of cars. College students made this for a stupid grade, can SOMEONE please give me a logical educated answer to this. No sarcasm and no half written answers, please leave out all the arithmetic as I don't care and don't understand math, and likely everyone else doesn't understand it INCLUDING the one who writes it. Those links I originally posted have 2-3 cars that produce fuel from water, so whats the deal guys?

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Lethedethius

...A guy in Ohio, in Grove City produced a water car, and it worked. So it IS possible

In your own words, show me proof. There's a lot of bigfoot style stories about the dune buggy, but nothing conclusive.

Originally Posted by Lethedethius

Ohio State University students just made a hydrogen vehicle that ran at 200mph so that trumps a lot of cars.

200mph doesn't "trump" anything. 200mpG might, assuming it is a full accounting of the energy put into the system.

Unfortunately the simple, most likely explanation for "what's the deal" is that there is one born every minute.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Lethedethius

actually show me proof it's not possible or hold your comments.

How about actually showing decent proof of what you claim ?

A vehicle running on H2 is nothing spectacular, it's entirely possible, and no-one here is doubting the possibility.
The viability of hydrogen fuel vehicles is something else entirely - even before we start looking at the ways and the energy balance to generate hydrogen.


If you've got spectacular ways to generate hydrogen out of water using less energy than what you practically get out of the hydrogen, I strongly suggest you patent them today.
You'll be rich before you know it.


Burning hydrogen generates water and a lot of excess energy, usually in the form of heat.
In order to do the reverse, that same energy needs to be put back into the water to split it into O2 and H2.

If you use the excess energy to drive anything, you'll need to add the energy again somewhere along the line.

Miracles and perpetuum mobiles don't exist.

But the same goes for those who believe it's possible, show me proof! A guy in Ohio, in Grove City produced a water car, and it worked. So it IS possible, but is it feasible?

Surely you can generate hydrogen by electrolysis of water.
Surely you can use that hydrogen to power a car.

But take a look at the energy balance ...
Oh, excuse me, I forgot about your next point.

please leave out all the arithmetic as I don't care and don't understand math, and likely everyone else doesn't understand it

Obviously you want all the arithmetic out of the equation, because it'd show these claimed miracles to be effectively wasting energy.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Lethedethius

can SOMEONE please give me a logical educated answer to this. No sarcasm and no half written answers, please leave out all the arithmetic as I don't care and don't understand math,

I would be happy to give you a logical educated answer ... along each individual step along the line.

If you actually do want to know how it might work ... or why it doesn't work specific ways ... then you have to be willing to get a bit technical and do some math.

Sorry to be a damp cloud ... but technical details and math are used by humans for good reason... and sometimes if you refuse to get technical , and / or you refuse to do any math ... than sometimes ... by default you are refusing to understand or learn how or why things work or don't work.

In simple terms:
Unless you can get the net operating efficiency including every step and every bit of loss to be better than ~82.3% efficiency combined ... without that you will spend more energy producing the Hydrogen from water than you get from using / burning hydrogen to make water ... even then , the water is not providing the energy ... you are extracting heat energy from the ambient air temperature... this high of a net operating efficiency is no small task ... it would require several world record improvements in many different parts of the system.

I am happy to provide you with detailed explanations for each step along the way for how and why each step works the way it does .. or how and why it doesn't work some other specific way ... but that does get technical and will involve math.

Just like if you wanted me to explain how and why nuclear reactors work ... there is a basic simple concept like I gave above ... but if you want to get the full story ... and you want to know how and why it is that way ... or why it won't work some other specific way ... then you have to be willing to get technical and do some math.

If however you are not willing to get technical or do any math ... and you are also not willing to believe people when they tell you about issues and mistakes with it ... then go ahead ... spend all the money and time you like on it ... good luck ... if it works ... sell the power , or hydrogen you produce and make $Billions ... but if it doesn't work ... it is all on you for your time and money , because you didn't want to get technical or do the math needed to understand what was going on or how it works or doesn't work.

I would also say ... if you are that against being technical and doing math ... you probably will also not be the type to be hacking into your computer controlled ignition timing or hacking your cars air to fuel ratios .... in short ... you have to be willing to get technical and do some math to do this kind of modification to a ICE.... if you are a completely non-technical , no math person ... you will have to wait for the local Walmart to offer it with an oil change.

[Lethedethius]

ok no one provided any useful input, I heard a bunch of jaws moving but no real advice, just people who want to defend their empty opinions. IamIan I respect what you say and I am not too much of a technical person when it comes to math, aside from being able to build my own computer, program in C++, build/rebuild/upgrade engines and work on port and polishing procedures, weld, solder, and a few other things I am by NO means an engineer.

I do not speak out of my butt, this I promise. I'm going to talk to the family of this person who lived in Grove City soon. More importantly there is much research done on this topic, GM is investing millions, not necessarily on the concept but more on how to proof it, make it completely safe. I will re-visit this subject soon with all of you'll but I think for the time being, to benefit the community this topic should be closed. Admin could you lock this thread please? There is no useful input here. I will re-visit this topic in a few months after I've attempted or have gotten in contact with someone who has a working hydrogen engine. Good day all and I do appreciate your input!

[dcb]

re: water car


The best advice IS to do the math, make sure the thing can be independantly verified before believing it. Do lots of homework and don't rely on anecdotal evidence. I shudder to think what sort of "proof" you will be presenting if you cannot be exacting in the process.

But to most people it is a bunch of hooey, guy would not let anyone measure the input and output power (citing patent crap) thus preventing anyone else from validating (or invalidating) his claims, it smells like a sophomoric scam to me.

If you wan't to spend YOUR time to chase after it, go for it, but don't be mad at the experienced sceptics for calling it like they see it. And expect to have some serious details sorted out before anyone will believe you, not the crap thats online.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Lethedethius

I am by NO means an engineer.

You don't have to be an engineer.

But if you want to learn anything from anyone ... you have to be willing to try and understand what is being described to you ... which will sometimes include technical details and math.

If you don't understand something , ask ... if you are uncertain about something , ask ... if you think it works differently than someone claimed or described to you , explain your reasons why you think it works differently ... They should do the same if they disagree with you ... people will not always agree ... even when they share all the same information , knowledge, and experience... but as long as you refuse to participate ... your lack of understanding is your choice.

By outright refusing to even try to follow what people are trying to explain to you ... technical or not ... involving math or not ... it is like asking to learn the piano but refusing to touch one.

- - - - - -

If you do not understand why I gave the ~82.3% efficiency number , ask.

If you do not understand some of the steps involved with getting to that ~82.3% efficiency ... ask.

If you disagree with some of the data, or analysis , explain why you disagree.

Originally Posted by Lethedethius

ok no one provided any useful input,

There is no useful input here.

As the saying goes ... we can lead a horse to water, we can't make them drink.

I wish you the best of luck ... if you ever change your mind and are willing to participate in questions and doing your part to try and understand what others share with you ... feel free to come back ... ask ... participate ... there are allot of knowledgeable and friendly people on this site ... they are good resource for you... the only fee charged is your effort.

[Lethedethius]

I think what I was hoping for was... Yea I did it and it worked, Yea I tried it and it was absolute failure, car blew up! Something around that area... The problem with talking about something when you don't have the experience in dealing with it is well, you don't have experience.

A math genius can talk all the equations in the world about the pidgins but will never be able to get it absolutely right. Even Einstein didn't get everything right, it took experiences to learn from which are getting us closer to the truth *Not that einstein is ANYTHING short of a absolute genius*.

Usually the way math/science/chemistry starts out is an experiment, that experiment succeeds or fails and then you try to explain it. But without having that experiment you are doing nothing but making an educated guess which would unproven and unsubstantiated unless you had valid proof to prove your theory.

Not to belittle anyone here as you all seem very smart, I'm just a guy who knows a lot and how to improvise, something about brain and sponge... I'm not sure what they're talking about. But when someone wants to lower their drag on the car, they don't plop the stuff on and haul butt off into the sunset, they do scientific test taking into consideration wind speed/direction, and rather they are behind another vehicle or going up a hill, rain factors, etc. Dig me?