|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/11/2007 : 21:46:14 [Permalink]
|
Based on the vitriol, I am wondering if anyone read the question that initiated the talk. OHHH! Look it says LOW cost, not NO cost. But assumptions are made and discussions can not occur. I actuality thought a talk of this sort would be enjoyed by all; alas no. It was speculated that this was conspiracy to hide energy. Jumping to a judgment of intention would be the opposite of skeptical.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 22:25:20 [Permalink]
|
You don't get off that easily now, Jerome. We aren't all a delusional as you're making us out to be. Once you got as far as mentioning that you were talking about energy from burning the products of water electrolysis, it was intantly clear to all of us that you weren't talking about an energy source (high or low cost) at all, but rather yet a new way to use electrical power.
But since you apparently have your brain badly miswired, you just don't understand any of that, even now. So you go with the "you guys are picking on me" argument. That, or you're just a troll.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 23:36:11 [Permalink]
|
Jerome said:
| I am wondering if anyone read the question that initiated the talk. OHHH! Look it says LOW cost, not NO cost. |
Uh huh. Nowhere did you ever say "low cost", and the twit in the video you linked is badly mistaken.
It takes ~4.5 times more energy to release hydrogen from water than you get from the combustion of hydrogen, in ideal conditions.(the ratio gets worse when you consider the physical systems where combustion would occur, the conversion of that chemical energy into kinetic energy, friction, and heat-loss) That energy also has to come from someplace else first.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 03:20:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Jerome said:
| I am wondering if anyone read the question that initiated the talk. OHHH! Look it says LOW cost, not NO cost. |
Uh huh. Nowhere did you ever say "low cost", and the twit in the video you linked is badly mistaken.
It takes ~4.5 times more energy to release hydrogen from water than you get from the combustion of hydrogen, in ideal conditions.(the ratio gets worse when you consider the physical systems where combustion would occur, the conversion of that chemical energy into kinetic energy, friction, and heat-loss) That energy also has to come from someplace else first.
|
Well, it's in the subject heading, Dude. But that misses the point. JdG is trying to play innocent victim here. Note how he misread my statement to suggest that I was accusing JdG of a conspiracy (though given his well-documented lack of reading comprehension skills, this is hardly surprising). |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 04:53:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Based on the vitriol, I am wondering if anyone read the question that initiated the talk. OHHH! Look it says LOW cost, not NO cost. |
Sure, but did you attempt even a 2 minute back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if the "low cost" was even in the ball park before deciding whether or not a (worthwhile) discussion could occur?
Do you honestly think anyone who saw the video of this genius preforming electrolysis with a battery charger connected to a domestic mains supply thought it was free?
Without even looking anything up, and knowing he was running at around 10A in the middle of the video, I'd say he spent around 2 cents on electricity for electrolysis to make that 5 minute flick1. The question you needed to ask was, would 2 cents worth of some other fuel be more productive2, not discounting using the electricity directly on an electric motor ?
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
But assumptions are made and discussions can not occur. I actuality thought a talk of this sort would be enjoyed by all; alas no. |
Discussion can occur, but what's the point if the basic premise if completely flawed? if it's not, go ahead and point out why and I assure you you'll have lots of people to converse with.
1. 5 minutes of 12V @ 10A = 10 Watt Hours. Throw in a 50% efficiency for the charger and bit of water heating. Domestic electricity is priced at approx 10 cents per kW hour here. In reality it'd be a fair bit worse, but this is mostly for illustrative purposes
2. 2 cents worth of petrol is about 17 mL for me, and would get me and my car around 250 - 300m or thereabouts. I wonder how far the most efficient hydrogen powered engine would get me? |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 06:15:22 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, you would have to live under a rock not to know that there is a huge amount of effort going into the use of hydrogen as a fuel.
It is being considered as a fuel for internal combustion engines and fuel cells. The problem has always been about storage of the hydrogen and the production of hydrogen (mostly storage).
I would guess that everyone here has seen electrolysis done in a high school lab. This is not anything new. Electrolysis is how oxygen is produced on submarines. To produce enough oxygen the entire system is run under very high pressure. Having high pressure hydrogen in conjunction with high pressure oxygen in a large piece of electrical gear is where we got the pet name for the Oxygen Generators - the Bombs.
So your youtube revelation is just silly. You cannot produce enough hydrogen to run a car using real time electrolysis.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 08:26:54 [Permalink]
|
Theoretical maximum efficiency is between 80–94% to produce hydrogen from electrolysis.
How much energy is used in the pulling from the ground, transport, and refining of oil?
What is the efficiency ratio for this?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 09:42:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Theoretical maximum efficiency is between 80–94% to produce hydrogen from electrolysis. |
So if the engine, alternator and regulator in a car are all 100% efficient, the system can create through electrolysis - at most - 94% of the hydrogen that it needs to run. And to get to that level of efficiency, no power can be used to turn the wheels of a car and make it go, the engine can only turn the impossibly efficient alternator. And still it will run down and stop because it's not 100% efficient all the way through - meaning the engine can't even idle.How much energy is used in the pulling from the ground, transport, and refining of oil?
What is the efficiency ratio for this? |
Since cars do not drill and refine oil as they putter along, the idea that there can be an "efficiency ratio" for gasoline engines is ludicrous on its face. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 10:11:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Theoretical maximum efficiency is between 80–94% to produce hydrogen from electrolysis. |
Since when have "theoretical maximum efficiency" of anything gotten you anywhere?
It is the practical use of electrolysis that produce hydrogen gas, so if the practical efficiency is around 40% then that's what you get at most if you set up a system. Unless you're having sci-fi dreams.
| How much energy is used in the pulling from the ground, transport, and refining of oil? |
Aparently not as much as to make hydrogen a better alternative, or we would have hydrogen-powered cars.
What is the efficiency ratio for this? |
Why don't you calculate it for us? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 10:18:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Based on the vitriol, I am wondering if anyone read the question that initiated the talk. |
The basic data needed for a potential cost-evaluation is in the links I provided you.
| OHHH! Look it says LOW cost, not NO cost. |
Just because you have a reading- and comprehension-disability does not mean that we do. We understood your question, and a quick look at the efficiency of the electrolysis process immediately gave away that using electrolysis would be an extravagantly ineffective method of providing energy for your car or other energy-consuming appliances.
| But assumptions are made and discussions can not occur. |
Yes, faulty assumptions were made on your part that made discussion unproductive.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 10:21:04 [Permalink]
|
Theoretical maximum efficiency is between 80–94% to produce hydrogen from electrolysis.
How much energy is used in the pulling from the ground, transport, and refining of oil? |
Gee, I don't know.
Here is one for you - how much energy is used to produce the electricity that is used in the electrolysis?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 10:53:31 [Permalink]
|
Cune said:
| Well, it's in the subject heading, Dude |
Yeah, but that is in reference to the youtube link (that is the impression I got from it anyway). |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Low cost energy from water?
