Lousy "leaders"...

[Guest Steelharp]

Well, here they are... amazing.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/12131/

[skipsfirearms]

WOW! That really puts it into perspective, doesn't it. Maybe one day we will learn that we can run things on Hydrogen derived from natural gas or even water. Other countries have been doing this for years.

[Volzfan]

I don't care if they ar Rep. or Dem., if their lips are moving, they are lying!

:lies:Makes me want to

[Mark@Sea]

WOW! That really puts it into perspective, doesn't it. Maybe one day we will learn that we can run things on Hydrogen derived from natural gas or even water. Other countries have been doing this for years.

Whoa, there. Where do you get the energy required to create the hydrogen? Whether using gas or water, it has to be 'cracked'. Hydrogen is a so-so vehicle for energy handling, but as there are no large scale sources of hydrogen in nature, it isn't an energy source.

[NuTcAsE]

I doubt We'll ever see this but.....

[ame]

[/ame]

[Guest crytes]

only problrm is whith his water welder water isn't the fuel the fuel is the electricity. If you chose to ignore loses that come from no technology being 100% effeicient energy required to seperate water and hydrogen is the same as the energy you get from recombining it into water by burning it. If he is getting any surplus there is something else besides water electrolosis and hydogen burning happening here.

[Guest Major Pain]

I dunno, but if it looks to good to be true I'm skeptical. I only believe half what I see and nothing I read.--MP

[Marswolf]

He uses a lot more energy producing the Hydrogen than he gets back out of it. That's obvious to folks with any science background. That's why nuclear power is probably the only way this can work as a gasoline replacement and even then, just using batteries may be the way to go rather than hydrogen.

[strickj]

The Dems will never let nuclear power rule.

[Marswolf]

The Dems will never let nuclear power rule.

I guess we'll just freeze in the dark then. Actually, I think reality will eventually set in, if not with the current legislators, then with the voters.

[strickj]

Actually I should rephrase that! The Dems would never let any fuel source rule! I thinks they want us all to use peddle power

[skipsfirearms]

Hydrogen is a so-so vehicle for energy handling, but as there are no large scale sources of hydrogen in nature, it isn't an energy source.

No large scale sources in nature? Just do a google search for hydrogen sources, or look at a college science book. I am not trying to be an A--, I am just showing that my statement was correct, and possibly give some useful information for the formation of educated opinions.

As you may know, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe, and is very common on earth. Hydrogen is the simplest of atoms, composed of one proton and one electron. But pure, diatomic hydrogen (H2)—the fuel of choice for fuel cells . (Found Here: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid204.php)

Do we have large scale amounts of water? I think so. We are still in the infancy stages of hydrogen, but it is viable and is being used by several colleges and many industries in this country alone. And it is very plentiful and very simple to "Crack".

Honda's new Hydrogen car does not burn the hydrogen but instead is splits the atoms from water into electrons and protons and then uses them to charge a battery or bank of batteries. Japan has several cars that run strictly on water by using a similar method. There are people in New Zealand or Australia that have generators that run their homes via hydrogen. There is one man in New Zealand who claims to have 25KW generator that once started produces 5 times the power it takes to run. I have seen the videos but can't verify or prove it. He uses a similar method as the Bedini Motor.

A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that combines hydrogen fuel and oxygen from the air to produce electricity, and useable heat and water. Fuel cells produce Direct Current (DC) electricity without the conventional combustion reaction.

A fuel cell is made up of an electrolyte member sandwiched between fuel and oxidant electrodes. Typically, a fossil fuel or biogas from which hydrogen is extracted is used for most common applications. The oxidant is typically plain air. The fuel is oxidized at the “anode electrode”, releasing electrons that move to the “cathode electrode” via the external circuit. These electrons meet the hydrogen and push charged ions across the electrolyte. The charged ions (positively or negatively charged) move across the ion conducting electrolyte member, completing the electrical circuit. This electrochemical process requires very few moving parts, typically limited to air blowers and fuel/water pumps. Because of high fuel conversion efficiency, the flexibility to generate Combined Heat and Power (CHP), low-impact characteristics, and negligible environmental emissions, fuel cells are a desirable source of power generation for a broad range of markets and applications. Fuel cells are fast replacing reciprocating engines and gas turbines as the most environmentally-friendly sources of on-site power.

Whoa, there. Where do you get the energy required to create the hydrogen?

I am currently working on a electrolysis system for water that uses high frequency DC pulses to reach an appropriate resonance frequency to split the hydrogen and oxygen from water. Of course this is a little more complicated than stated, but this is not a forum for electronics. I have seen one similar system put out quite a large yield of hydrogen while pulling only 300ma (.3 Amps). So the output is quite a bit more than the input. This is of course still not considered over-unity by me, but it is on its way. If you are talking about running a car on hydrogen, you get the power to start the process from a battery, which ever car uses.?.?

If you use solar, you need sun. If you use hydro power you need water. If you use wind power you need wind. In the absence of all of these we still have water from rivers, creeks, springs etc. Below is some information from a company who sells commercial power plants that use natural gas and other things to produce electricity via hydrogen. There are vasts amounts of hydrogen available in natural gas, and the byproduct of these power plants is water.

I for one believe there are a large number of ways for us to get power besides local power companies or nuclear power plants. But everyone is allowed to believe the way they believe, and I love it..... Here is a link that might interest you:

http://www.iags.org/n052404t1.htm

Edited July 8, 2008 by skipsfirearms

[Marswolf]

Lots of Hydrogen out there, but combined (mostly with Oxygen) in a form we can't use directly. Typical de-combiner is in the form of electrolysis. Production of Hydrogen takes more energy than it makes. It's just easier to store Hydrogen than electricity. Batteries require huge amounts of energy to produce and are expensive. Bought a new Li Ion battery for your cell-phone lately?

I might mention that Hydrogen is a tiny atom. It will flat leak through the pores of most metal containers. Just like Helium (Number 2 on the Periodic Chart) does in a balloon when left for a while. Know why they make metalized Mylar balloons? Because Helium can't leak through the metalized Mylar nearly as quickly as through rubber. Same thing happens in steel pressure vessels or control valves with Hydrogen.

This is sort-of like Aluminum. Lots of Bauxite. But at the time of the Civil War, Aluminum was more expensive than Gold. Cheap electricity permitted Aluminum to be produced efficiently and inexpensively. That's what is needed for Hydrogen generation.

Back to nuclear as I see it.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Marswolf

[Guest crytes]

every water to hydrogen to electric fuel cell system I've seen were 1 for closed systems getting about the same power out at in while this makes for a exceptionally efficient rechargable battery it's power source is still external. With electrolisis and fuel cells if you understand the priciples it is easy to understand why there can be no gain whithout external power sources. During electrolisis you are introduceing electrons to the water these electrons then attach to the attoms in the water reliving the atomic forces atracting the hydrogen and the oxigen attoms. No longer under their atractive forces theses attoms seperate leaveing you whith a gas mixture known as browns gas which happens to be the perfect hydrogen to oxigen mix for burning. THere are many method used for further isolating and purifieing the hydrogen, but for the next stage we'll assume that they've been completed whith no energy losses. Now that you have hydrogen flowing into the negitive side of your fuelcell and a load is connected the loosly bound electron in the hydrogen is atracted by the positive potental of the positive side of the fuel cell. These two sides are seperated byt a polymer memberane that only allows positive ions to pase through so the electrons in the hydrogen are forced through the conductor and power the load. The hydrogen whithout its electron is now a positive ion so it flows though the membrane and due to its missing electron combines redily whith oxigen to creat a positively charged water molocule. The prosess is then completed when the electron makes its way to the positive terminal and connects to the water removing its positive charge. Now this is the priciple, but in the real world water is not the only thing your electrofying and oxigen is not the only gas in our atmospere. The resulting output of your fuelcell can be very different from just heat and water but that is the majority of the result. As for energy you are simply juggleing electrons whith no gain because you can not creat electrons fron nothing. As for burning, with the amount of energy a hydrogen burn releases id id hard to belive that there is not a surplus, but the law of conservation of energy states theat you cannot get more out than you put in. And due to the inharen enifiency of man every time we change one form to another we have losses. So if we start with water seperate it and burn it and the result is the same amount of water we can get only as a maximum the amount of energy it took to seperate the water. Now whith the number of garage tinkerers claiming positive results and some practicle math I've done hydrogen cobustion apears viable against this law. THe only anser I can come up whith to this is that they are wrong and the byproduct is not only water and if mesuered they would be loosing a significant amount of water in the process.

[Marswolf]

Crytes I hope there was something of interest in that post..

Scanning it, it seems like a matter or physics. You can't get out of a reaction more than goes into it. Energy doesn't increase during conversion.

[skipsfirearms]

Crytes,

I liked it

[Marswolf]

I'm too old to focus? Or at least to care.

[Guest crytes]

Crytes I hope there was something of interest in that post..

Scanning it, it seems like a matter or physics. You can't get out of a reaction more than goes into it. Energy doesn't increase during conversion.

I more or less said the same thing just explained why. There are however enough expiriments claiming results that contradict this that I don't think the hydroburn to water is the only reaction happening and may be acting as a catalist for some other reaction that is not being recognized.