Alternative Fueled, Hybrid and Electric Vehicles - Hydrogen power

Just thought I'd start some stuff, since this seems to be a hot topic nowadays. Hydrogen technology is nothing new. It is viable, nearly free to produce, powerful, and we can't seem to get a grasp on it. We rely on imported gas and diesel and go on our merry way after paying $3.50 a gallon for it. I have seen several vehicles powered by hydrogen with the only byproduct or waste is water! No emissions in either its use nor its production, so where are we?

Help me out here, Larry:


......nearly free to produce.......

From anything I know on the subject (which I admit isn't much) it takes more than a little energy, i.e. electricity, to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. The most likely scenario for getting into hydrogen power is to use nuke-generated electricity to produce. Of course getting enough nuke plants built to do the job isn't likely given the vast number of anti-nukies. It'll happen eventually when the world gets dark enough and cold enough, sometime in the next century.

Yeah, "more than a little electricity" is a good way to put it.

But I thought most commercially produced hydrogen currently came from natural gas? So back to the unrenewable resources issue.

"More than a little" sounded more professional than "bunches and bunches". :D

Hydrogen powered vehicles may be the long term solution but right now they're just not feasible for a lot of reasons, some technical, some economic and some political.

Hydrogen is costlier to produce than gasoline. If produced by conventional means it may actually introduce more green house gases than the production of gas. The amount of energy available in a given volume of hydrogen is a lot less than that of gasoline. The current cost of fuel cells to produce the equivalent energy to gas is very high.

Most experts predict it will be decades, if ever, before the
widespread use of hydrogen powered cars.

My information was flawed. Thanks for the good responses. Deserves a little more research. Still think we could do more than rely on foreign oil, or our own for that matter. I agree with TG, that nuclear energy is something we are afraid of. It is my understanding no loss of life in the US due to nuclear failure, is that close? I know the potential is there, but so is a bomb planted in a pipeline or refinery transporting or refining oil.

One of my favorite bumper stickers: "More people died at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile Island".

People also like to point at Chernobyl. They fail to mention (or don't know) that the Chernobyl reactor was an obsolete design of which there are none in the US.

honda has both a natural gas and a hydrogen civic in test phases in California

These are cool cars -- especially the natural gas feul cell car

imagine the NG pump right at your house hooked to the NG furnace line --its real now

Just started to get seriously interested in Hydrogen power for my car & have been doing a bit of reading & research regarding those "Hydrogen Generator Kits" for cars.

I would really like to give this a try, but, haven't finished enough research yet.

If interested...Here are some links for interesting reading & applications of auto based Hydrogen use.

http://thermo1.com/
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=HYDROGEN+GENERATOR&search_type=
http://www.run-a-car-on-water.com/
http://www.nationalvapor.com/
http://hydranox5000.com/
http://clean-air.org/
http://www.hydrogennow.org/links.html

You guys seem pretty knowledgable on this stuff, maybe you could tell me if this is worth getting into?

http://water4gas.com/2books.htm?hop=firstcls

From the site:

"WHY COMPRESS HYDROGEN IN DANGEROUS HIGH-PRESSURE TANKS WHEN IT IS ALREADY "COMPRESSED" IN PLAIN WATER - AND CAN BE EASILY AND SAFELY RELEASED??!"

(sorry I couldn't capture the flashing text and "$ for u" graphics of that site for full effect)

Hm. Ballard Power Systems is based in my city. That's the tech leader in water-fueled buses. They admit that currently these fuel cells are not ready for city streets because... gah... they emit an intense ear-splitting shrieking noise.

Ballard is optimistic this problem inherent to the process can be surmounted. :rolleyes:

Help me out here, Larry:




From anything I know on the subject (which I admit isn't much) it takes more than a little energy, i.e. electricity, to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. The most likely scenario for getting into hydrogen power is to use nuke-generated electricity to produce. Of course getting enough nuke plants built to do the job isn't likely given the vast number of anti-nukies. It'll happen eventually when the world gets dark enough and cold enough, sometime in the next century.

Ditto what he said. When it gets cold enough the anti-nukies will turn.

With the amount of sunshine laden land we have. I would like to see more Heliostats or heat tubes used for making electric power until people realize that nuclear is the way to go.

As for Hydrogen. It does take too much energy to make it. I would like to see better battery design and plug it in at home using nuclear electricity. No foriegn oil, coal or gas station stops. Until then give me cheaper diesel vehicles and stop sticking it to us at the pumps.

As for Hydrogen. It does take too much energy to make it.
This is partly true. Because the potential energy available but geographically limited is enormous. The compressed hydrogen can be made in one part of the world, shipped off for consumption in others, much as gas is today.

The enormous regional energy resource I mean is hydro. Solar vs. hydro is like ...warm soil vs. rivers. What's a river really, but global solar energy (evaporation) channeled through a small area? Then consider the minimum cost of manufacturing solar panels, and that the problem of buffering solar supply & demand cycles at any large scale is done by pumping water uphill with intermittent power, while running turbines 24/7 to generate the steady consumer end electricity... well, that's just hydro wrapped in artificial gizmos! Panels are 100% unnecessary cost, because we already have solar panels, called oceans.

The compressed hydrogen freighters will be sailing out of natural hydro powerhouse regions like Chile, Western Canada, Alaskan Panhandle. This is how we're going to keep cars on the road, worldwide.

That's not to say solar/wind/nuclear have no use in regions remote from the Earth's major energy streams.

Additional Resources on the subject.

U.S. Department of Energy Home Page:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/

U.S. Department of Energy Biofuels Pages:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/

Alternative Fuels Page:
The Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center,
was formerly known as the Alternative Fuels Data Center. (AFDC)

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/

Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Page:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/

Alternative and Advanced Fuels Page:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/

Vehicle Technologies Program and Energy Policy Act Page:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/epact/

Plug In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Pages:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/index.html

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/features/fcvt_feature_plug-in_report.html

Interesting subject,

As most already know, hydrogen is not new as a carrier of energy, and water being a carrier is getting more attention as breakthroughs in onboard generation are increasing to a point that it does indeed allow more output than input.

Curious, with fuel prices approaching $4.00 a gallon in many areas, what would you pay for hydrogen alternative? Personally, if the gov. would have done what they should have after oil embargo in 70's, we wouldn't still be dependent on foreign oil, but given they failed us, as usual, we are more dependent than ever, and this is driving the price of fuel up daily.

Hydrogen is the answer, always has been, but with gov. still subsidizing BIG oil when they are knocking down billions in profit every month is why we have not seen any solution to our foreign oil dependency. Personally, I would pay $6.00 a gallon for a hydrogen fuel for it produces zero emissions, and if that is not enough reason to move hydrogen to main stream, then what is? We will see $6.00 gas whether we develop hydrogen or not, so why not get it over with, pay $6.00 now and put all this extra money to work advancing technologies.

I have been using hydrogen generation systems on my vehicles for years, and it amazes me just how many benefits there are besides increased economy of 33% average I have seen. I have never had to replace plugs, I go 10K on 100% synthetic and oil looks like it did out of container when I bought it. I am certain it could go another 10K, but old habits are hard to break, I never went more than 5K before, so more savings are realized with hydrogen then most know. I pulled off valve cover and engine with over 200K was as clean as it was when new.

Simply put, hydrogen is the answer for many reasons, but since BIG oil has been greasing politians pockets for decades, and no such industry can do the same to boost hydrogen development, nothing changes. I have researched more developments in hydrogen generation in last two years than over past decade, and almost all of these developments were accomplished by under funded backyard mechanics like myself.

What really ticks me off is how oil companies have always come up with an additive to deter advances in hydrogen systems, and the auto manufactureres have done their best to do the same with ECU systems designed to hinder any enhancements in fuel catalysts and hydrogen systems. You have to get around all these issues to fool computer into delivering better performance, never mind increased economy. The last few years I have seen more and more advanced methods to hinder hydrogen development than in the last three decades trying to enhance its use.

Hang on folks, there will be a breakthrough shortly with regards to hydrogen fusion, it is closer than it has ever been to becoming cost effective, so to all you fellow backyard researchers and mechanics, keep on keeping on.

Good luck to all,

You know the big three are ready --:thinker: Have Hope

Honda , Mercedes and GM are on the hydrogen bandwagon-- belive it or not but hey YOU CAN LEASE A Honda Hydrogen car if you qualify in California to drive the car of --


Well as Dr Zee put it "3 to 5years till mass production starts "and everyone can have their own hydrogen electric car and boy are they sweet - no polution and powered by solar collection H2O cracking stations

just look http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/GREENNEWS/NewsPhotos/honda-CLARITY.jpg

The idea that hydrogen is costly to produce is mostly propaganda. Splitting water is as easy as tossing a 12v battery into a bucket of saltwater... hydrogen bubbles will come off the negative contact, and oxygen off the positive. It is almost a pure conservative thermodynamic reaction even (no byproducts or other energy losses in the process). If you check out Honda's white papers on the hydrogen filling stations they propose, they use 100% solar power.

The idea that it takes more energy to make hydrogen than to use it is true, but only looking at half the story. ICE engines are still only 10-15% efficient at best, while electric are 90%, and hydrogen are somewhere in between (depends on the exact type of engine... a hydrogen battery system would be more like an electric car's efficiency). So even if the process takes slightly more energy to make the hydrogen than it puts out in the end, it would still be many times more efficient than oil or other alternatives.

Hydrogen is also safer than gas for storage. With modern hydrogen storage tanks, you can set it off, it will shoot a flame 10' or so into the air as it burns off, and when its done you can refill and drive away as if it never happened. With oil/gas, you have a combustion that makes the car explode.

Imagine if you would 100 square miles of desert in nevada or arizona covered by inteligent solar pannels that gather solar energy. Energy used to create hydrogen from water that is desalinated from the sea, pumed to the cracking stations and then distributed across the southern part of north America by abandoned gasoline pipleines. (this would be the Hooover dam of our day , creating energy for the massess)

This could be the largest source of energy for automotive purposes in the next century.
No polution , no dangeous radiation just clean hot energy creating hydrogen for cars to burn re-cyclable fuel that would be made from energy that otherwise is wasted on making hot sand - and a few shady dessert creatures:mask:

worth it ? ask honda :confused:

I did some exhaustive calculations, and, assuming Americans drive two hours per day; with as many vehicles as in 2005; and the panels, transmission, conversions, fuel storage & delivery, and hydrogen engines, all run at 100% efficiency; they will need 17,816 square miles of "smart" panel in Arizona. With losses it is more like 50,000, roughly half of Arizona state.

I dunno... the gee-whiz factor is there, but isn't it fantastic? As in "yeah, right"?


The oceans are solar panels, already. The potential energy they generate is channeled down mountainsides. We don't pay for that infrastructure. Too bad this doesn't seem "futuristic" and "look what we did" enough to get people excited.

The idea that hydrogen is costly to produce is mostly propaganda.
Ugh, great. A conspiracy theorist. Look, there's no mass governmental/industry cover-up of H2 creation or usage in the auto (or any other) industry.

Splitting water is as easy as tossing a 12v battery into a bucket of saltwater... hydrogen bubbles will come off the negative contact, and oxygen off the positive.
Sure, just add energy & you get H2. The amount you get out & can use in terms of energy is less than what you have to put in to it. You think you really can run a car on the energy from a 12V battery dumped in a bucket of water? You need more H2 than a few bubbles. The problem is scalability.
It is almost a pure conservative thermodynamic reaction even (no byproducts or other energy losses in the process).No, that is completely wrong. No process in the universe is 100% efficient.

The idea that it takes more energy to make hydrogen than to use it is true, but only looking at half the story.
Now you're changing your story? You just said it was totally conservative.
ICE engines are still only 10-15% efficient at best, while electric are 90%, and hydrogen are somewhere in between (depends on the exact type of engine... a hydrogen battery system would be more like an electric car's efficiency). So even if the process takes slightly more energy to make the hydrogen than it puts out in the end, it would still be many times more efficient than oil or other alternatives.
A little clarification. IC engines are like 15-20% ish efficient, but that is due to the losses from the combustion process. There's a lot of heat generated & not used in the driving process. That's where the poor efficiency # comes in. Their energy output (i.e. ft-lb of torque used to move the crankshaft) is low compared to the energy generated. If all that heat could be transferred to physical rotational energy, you'd get a much higher efficiency. W/ a H2 and/or battery system, very little heat loss is generated & most energy is directly transferred to physical movement. That's where the high efficiency comes in.

The difference is power generated. ICs can get you much more power (especially at highway-type speeds) than the battery systems. It isn't always about efficiency when you're rating a system. A truck hauling a load needs power.

Hydrogen is also safer than gas for storage. With modern hydrogen storage tanks, you can set it off, it will shoot a flame 10' or so into the air as it burns off, and when its done you can refill and drive away as if it never happened. With oil/gas, you have a combustion that makes the car explode.
Assuming you have one of those storage tanks, it can be OK. Not all places have those, especially piping transport devices. A place I was doing work for had a H2 transport line that a guy created a spark nearby & blew himself up. No saftey tank valve there.

I did some exhaustive calculations, and, assuming Americans drive two hours per day; with as many vehicles as in 2005; and the panels, transmission, conversions, fuel storage & delivery, and hydrogen engines, all run at 100% efficiency; they will need 17,816 square miles of "smart" panel in Arizona. With losses it is more like 50,000, roughly half of Arizona state.

I dunno... the gee-whiz factor is there, but isn't it fantastic? As in "yeah, right"?


The oceans are solar panels, already. The potential energy they generate is channeled down mountainsides. We don't pay for that infrastructure. Too bad this doesn't seem "futuristic" and "look what we did" enough to get people excited.


Ah Kobuchi - You've pointed out one workable solution for renewable energy. Unfortunately, whatever would you do to protect the local version of the snail darter?

Darter vs. dam? Personally, I'd be happy with a nice farewell ceremony for that nondescript little fishy. Bye bye.

Seems we can't walk without crushing bugs. We made it illegal. We've green painted the world, now we're trapped in a corner.

Solar panels are humanity's moral regression to plant life. :cool:

We could always mandate that all future home shingles be energy producing (solar panels) and pump energy back into the grid

and hydrogen will be one of many sources for car energy in the future --ie many engine types would be come viable depending on your locations and the use of the auto , machine..:rolleyes:

ever seen an oil spill at sea uuuugh - hydrogen would just go away in that kind of accident ! - no pollution!! same on land
as it came from within the environment :coffee:

hey if you smoke and handle gas the result is the same with H2
saftey is a matter of image - no gasoline does not act like napalm --or does it ? sigh

were is my tesla ?

http://z.about.com/d/alternativefuels/1/7/c/A/-/-/Solar_H2_Station_.jpg

free feul from the sun

aaaaaaaahuhuhuhuhu hu aaaa huhuhu hu
hhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuughghghghgh;) beeeep beeeeep

* Splitting H2O into hydrogen was done in the late 1800's.This Experiment was school subject in the late 60's in germany where I was born. Yes we used H2O and yes by my own experience it is very...very explosive and a 8 oz styrafoam cup of un-compressed hydrogen will make all your windows rattle and your house shacke.
* Electric cars. The ol' Baker had a electric car to offer in the 30's with 3 6 Volt Batteries and a speed of about 45 miles an hour. In New York, markets had battery chargers to charge the batteries for customer and that was free of charge.But oil took over.
* Most Hydrogen in the U.S is made of Natural Gas because it's more cost efficient to produce. New zea land as far as I know is the only country that makes hydrogen on a commercial base from H2O using solar panels.
* Using electricity to make hydrogen takes more enery than what you will get back.Just remember every time you convert enery from one form to an other form you will most likly every time have losses as heat, which is also enery but we do not have to many uses, or the technology to convert heat into useable energy like motion.
* Gasoline is still very cheap if you compare it to comercialy made hydrogen and use $ per mile. Arnold Schwarzenneger had a SUV hydro car 2 years back and what I calculated was that hydro was about 3-4 times more expensive ($ per mile), but that was 2 years ago.I do not now what the price is our days. Would you be willing to spend lets say 3 times more $ per mile?
On the other hand, electricity would be only pennies per fill-up for electric cars.

THE THOUGHT OF TODAY.
If most hydrogen is made of Natural Gas are we still dependent on some body else since we import natural gas and what would it do to natural gas prices? Would'nt every thing go up on price that involves natural gas. The same will happen with corn and ethanol.

* Solar panel- Hydrogen/ IC Engine Cars- Electric Cars
Factory build electric cars take about 9,000 watts per charge for about 200 miles distance, these electric cars could be charged with solar panels. To get enough hydrogen from electricity solar panels produce, you would need about 3 times more solar panels to drive the same distance.
* Did anybody see the new battery they developed without using lead and that same battery that had only 2 Different cemicals divided by a screen and the douple amount of amp hours compare to the same size lead battery. , developed especialy for electric cars?......Of cours not. This Battery was shown in a electric car in the mid 80's on one of the science chanal's when I lived in Omaha Nebraska. This is called infra struture. Who would change it ?!
The lighter the car the more miles You get for the same power input.
Did you also see in 2008 on the discovery chanel, the technologie they have to make a car with 4 persons run 1,000 miles and using only 7 gallons of diesel.
Laddies and gentlemen. The technologie is here to reduce our consumption of oil, but it is not used in the name of racking money in.
* Hydro.We are not using the full potential of hydro as said in earlier posts. Nor do countries use the coast lines for potencial powers. In germany they build a dam along the coastal line in the ocean for protection of storms, but most of all to generate power. They desined it for the power of the tide to produce tons of electricity from the incoming water and the leaving water.And who said you can not harness the power of the moon.
Sorry that this reply is so long.
Johann Flory
johannflory@yahoo.com

:confused: OK. I have read the ad info several times from "Drive With Water Fuel", Water4gas, Wam-a-bam and others. I think it has the possibility of increasing gasoline MPG for an operating cost of almost nothing. At first, a money back guarantee appears fair, but I think we have the possibility of losing much more than the cost of the information that is for sale.

Have you considered a vehicle to install this system on? What is it's market value? If something goes wrong, it could be reduced to scrap value. I'm not talking explosions, fires, etc., but there might be a risk built into the engine electroincs of 96 or later (OBD2) or even OBD1 autos and I doubt that these information salesmen will guarantee engine replacement.

Specifically, the engine computer and it's sensors, including the Mass Air Flow Sensor (MAF) control the fuel/air ratio and ignition timing plus other functions. If you are like me, not a fuel systems expert, you don't know how to tell the computer you have attached an external hydrogen/oxygen generator and connected it's output to the fuel system at some point between the air filter box and the throttle body, or possibly, one or more of us have not even considered this might need to be done. Actually, the HHO in the intake air increases performance (speed) and the driver backs off the "pedal", the MAF reports less air-flow, the computer tells the injectors to supply less fuel when it might need to supply more, because it is not controlling and has no knowledge of the HHO.

I will now take a step backward and let our automotive experts tell us what could happen to our engine if the computer thinks it needs a leaner fuel/air ratio.

Also remember, these companies are information sellers, and probably have minimum knowledge of the design of an internal combustion engine and it's controls and internal cooling, of which vaporizing gasoline is a factor.

I think the HHO(their acronym, not mine) application will eventually be improved, but I also think it needs work and it doesn't need my $97.

sounds like Super genious territory to me ..

I'm gonnna bail on that idea , water for feul in exisitng engines


beep -beep ;)

My buddy has the hydrogen kit. He bought it off Ebay for only $ 150.00, gets 50% better gas milage than before.

Converts distilled water into hydrogen. 1 Gallon of water lasts 300 miles.

HVAC-GUY which kit did your buddy buy? I am very interested in trying this. I have a 1989 ford f150 and think I will try this on it. Any advice will be appreciated. thanks

Yeah I would also like some details on the kit, I have a 93 jeep GC that I would be willing to experiment on.

Yep...I'm making one myself. Got some PCV pipe, silicone, tubing, and sodium hydroxide(lye). This one is going to be chemical-based...add 1 quart of distilled water and 1/4 container of hydroxide; mix well and add 2-3 crushed aluminum cans. The aluminum acts as a catalyst between the hydrogen and oxygen and makes very pure hydrogen gas; pipe the gas into a 'bubbler' and from there, into the intake manifold. I'll need to add an MAF sensor and 2 oxygen sensors and that's it. Really excited...I'll let you know how things go.

Our currently reliance on conventional chemical (primarily lithium now) based batteries is long overdue for a change. They are wasteful and a dead end road, as lithium is the best element on the period table for holding extra electrons.

Now I see you all talking about running cars on water. I know that in water, the hydrogen bond can be broken by electrolysis, but can someone please explain how you can break the bond without any source of input energy? I've always envisioned hydrogen plants based on wind and solar energy that would split the water molecule, but doing it in the engine seems like a bad idea for me, except perhaps as a safety feature since water is non-combustible.

The water produced by hydrogen engines is made when the hydrogen re-bonds with oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, therefore an engine which both splits and recombines these molecules would at first glance to me seem to be one that would produce a negative yield (due to friction and heat losses), correct me if I'm wrong my knowledge might be a bit outdated.

murf26, sounds interesting. hope it works. when you get it put together can you post a picture or diagram of what it looks like? thanks susie

Front page article in our local paper today! - how local business person got a hydrogen kit for $400 and installed it, and he claims that his car is now getting 40 mpg when it was getting 31, for a 29% increase.

The article also said that one of the Korea countries has mandated that I think fleet trucks be retrofit with this. The reason I was sure to bring that up is is that one of the big questions that people always raise with any of these miracle MPG ideas is that if they really work, then why doesn't the gov't mandate these? Reasonable question, right?

One never knows the truth if an independent lab has not done before and after tests, because as you you know, it is human nature that people want to brag on their idea and don't want to look like they fell for some folly/scam. So they drive the car differently after they add the supposed MPG increaser to see how many mpg's more they can get.

I have to confess, even though I'm a non-believer, that it is tempting to experiment with; that $97 fill-up this afternoon hurt. Wouldn't need much of an improvement. Sure would be nice to see the Mythbusters install the system on three or four representative makes/models and find out for sure.

I found the article! Here:

http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-news.asp?id=BH3DLBCME22

(I tried accessing my own provided site above and it took the screen 17 seconds to even change at all, with my high speed, off of DIY - so sit tight and wait. It is worth it!)

My fear in all this would be there is a possible 'folly factor' awaiting those who do this - to where you save gas alright, only to have it ruin your engine!, ??, or ?. THAT would take the cake!

I found this on the internet and that is the same info as Water4Gas is selling. But it is free as far as I know and there are 2 different E-Books to download one 183 pages and the other 138 pages.
Here are the links:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3321312/Gas-Saving-Techniques
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3321254/Modify-Your-Car-to-Save-Gas-USING-WATER

Raleigh sad that techonoly dates back to the 80's, he is wrong it goes back to the 1800's. This simplyfied working system for cars dates back to the 60's.
The jar system to make hho will work for shure on carburated engines, but on injected engines it will take some tinkering. The hydrogen and the oxygen is piped into the intake. The problem with inject. engine is the extra amount of oxygen, that let the computor know that the engine is running to lean. So the computor will make the engine run more rich. To combat the problem you will have to install a 2-O-sensor enhancer and/or a Map sensor enhancer if you use the hho.
I beliefe ( not knowing) that 1 jar will not make any difference, about 4-6 jars would do more to it. It is also to note that hho is 6 times more potent than the same amount of gas. Oh...by the way word "hho" is actually illigal to use, since it is a trademark. If the engine runs to lean it could overheat, the hydrogen and the bubeler will run the engine cooler. Study the information on the above links.

Some one on this thread said there is no studies on this subject through a lab, think again .....go to this link....
http://www.hytechapps.com/aquygen/hhos

The size hydrogen generator and amperage use ,is way to big because they used a hydrogen generator designed for welding and cutting that this company makes, but it was there lab to checked it out. I believe this is not a misleading report since this company is not into selling systems for cars. Read the report.
A man in the philipines desingned preety much the same system, but uses only the hho to run a car without the gasoline.The philipine govenor aproved it, saying that the philipines do not import a lot of oil and it would not interfere with U.S oil-imports. OOP'S.... why does the U.S gov. not want the systems on there cars or cars that can make 100 or better per mile. Money..... they would lose on fuel-taxes.
For exsamle; if i have a car that makes 20 miles per gallon and I find a way to get 100 miles per gallon, the goverment would lose 80% on fuel tax. Do you really think the goverment would let this happen, even though we would not be as depentant on imported fuel or the same car would be as green as it could be? Heck no.
Thats why you here a lot about hydrogen cars and not about electric cars. Fist the gov. pusded E-85 to get taxes at pump station, now they push hydrogen to get the tax at the pump station. Next will be electric cars if there numbers increase, but with a difference that every electric car owner may have to pay an extra yearly fee(just another word for tax) or tax for the loss of fuel tax.
.....If the above links works out and you save money on fuel, just send me the money you would had to spend for the plans as a thank you for giving you folks the link.....Ha..Ha..
I can feel it, I gonna be rich.....:D :D

Yep...I'm making one myself. Got some PCV pipe, silicone, tubing, and sodium hydroxide(lye). This one is going to be chemical-based...add 1 quart of distilled water and 1/4 container of hydroxide; mix well and add 2-3 crushed aluminum cans. The aluminum acts as a catalyst between the hydrogen and oxygen and makes very pure hydrogen gas; pipe the gas into a 'bubbler' and from there, into the intake manifold. I'll need to add an MAF sensor and 2 oxygen sensors and that's it. Really excited...I'll let you know how things go.
Murf 26 I don't think it is a good idea to run the chemical based system on any car. As you know Lye will corode and eat away metals like Aluminium, copper, iron, brass very fast. All these metals are in your or around your engine. Yes you would have a bubbler, but it can only hold a minor amount of lye vapor and the lye-water-vapor is ending up in your intake-cylinderhead-inside your engine as blow-by and exhaust system. Remember Lye is very corrosive and if you get in contact with it, it will eat you alive.
How would you control the hydrogen production if you stop the engine?
I have seen this system on the internet as a home based system for home heating but I never seen this applied to the car.
Here in the U.S they toook powdered Lye of grocery shelfs because of meth-makers, and as far as I know the liquid type is weakend down and has additional chemicals in it. One year ago I have seen it at lowes hardware store at the plumming department.Good luck.
Lye was used by most folks to make Bio-Diesel for home brewers.
It seems to me it would be expensive to make hydrogen with this system, considering the cost of Lye only.

Do you have a link I could go to, so I can get more info?

OOP'S.... why does the U.S gov. not want the systems on there cars or cars that can make 100 or better per mile. Money..... they would lose on fuel-taxes.
For exsamle; if i have a car that makes 20 miles per gallon and I find a way to get 100 miles per gallon, the goverment would lose 80% on fuel tax. Do you really think the goverment would let this happen, even though we would not be as depentant on imported fuel or the same car would be as green as it could be? Heck no.


This point is arguable. Conspiracy theory type stuff. On the surface it makes sense, just like when people say the oil companies are behind buying up 100 mpg carburetors. (Which theory I do not buy)

That said, why wouldn't the gov't then simply increase their tax per gallon?, to offset the loss?

Regarding the rest of your post. Interesting. Have you considered contacting the Leader Telegram paper and see if you can get ahold of or have Raleigh get in contact with you. Could be interesting. Send him over here to this forum. Maybe he'd jump in. Either it is working for him, or it is not. There are always two sides to every story.

how about solar power car ? I heard that Prices for high-grade silicon (that can generate electricity from sunlight) shot up in 2004 in response to growing demand, reaching as high as $500 per kilogram (2.2 pounds) this year. Enter thin-film solar cells—devices that use a fine layer of semiconducting material, such as silicon, copper indium gallium selenide or cadmium telluride, to harvest electricity from sunlight at a fraction of the cost.

"The fundamental advantage of thin film comes in the form of the amount of material you need," says electrical engineer Jeff Britt, chief technology officer of thin-film manufacturer Global Solar Energy in Tucson, Ariz. "These are direct bandgap semiconductors. You can get by with one or two microns and still absorb 98 percent of the sunlight." (In other words, it takes at least 100 times less thin-film material to absorb the same amount of sunlight as traditional silicon photovoltaic cells.)

An article with another thought on this subject:

"Are hydrogen-fueled cars pie-in-the-sky?" (http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/yago103.html)

Ok guys, here's my 2 cents on this.

It promises fuel gains as much as 100%, and I got interested:alarm:. And in my research, the commonest 'complaint' that I saw was that 'the electricity from the battery current cannot generate enough hydrogen':confused: . Well....those guys were right, damn right...and noway this system could give 40% mileage boost? Wrong, it does work..here's what I found:coffee: .

Only a wee bit of hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water, from the battery current. This hydrogen is noway sufficient to produce energy by itself:wall: . What happens is this, hydrogen having a simple molecular structure burns inside the engine increasing the temperature and the pressure inside the engine. When the thermodynamics are improved by hydrogen, more gasoline burns. Apparently, only 25% of the gasoline is actually burnt and 75% is emitted as unburnt hydrocarbons When the thermodynamics improve, instead of 25%, say for example 50% gas burns. And there you have it, a 100% increase of gas mileage, or you mileage just doubled because you were making use of 25% more gasoline that would have otherwise been put out as unburnt hydrocarbons.
Hope this clears your minds.

So wouldn't you think then that the first car manufacturer to put that in their cars, would have a path beaten to their door?

And if 75% gas goes unburned, then why don't it just run out the tailpipe raw, as opposed to it turning into this other form of gas they call hydrocarbons? (To a chemist/scientist, I bet they'll laugh at my ignorance. But I'm curious.)

That's probably about right (ie. 25% fully combusted). In most vehicles the engine efficiency (E) is about the 20-30% level.

This is a factor of the conversion of energy (produced) to effective work (say W) with the degree of engine combustion of the fuel (C). So that E = WxC (note the maximum of these is 1 or 100%). The factor W is determined by the engine design, and is reduced by energy waste in forms of heat loss, friction & noise.

The degree of combustion is the most limiting factor in engine efficiency, and is the one that is more easily improved. The basic chemistry for partial & full combustion are as follows;

Full Combustion:)
HC + O2 -> CO2 + H2O + ? + Energy

Partial Combustion:mask:
HC + O2 -> CO2 + H2O + ? + (CO+CH4) + [hc+C] + HC + energy
Where Energy(100%) > energy (25-50%), & partal combustion products () = gaseous emmissions & [] = engine deposit prone. There is also some completely unburnt hydrocarbon HC which most of which is burnt as waste in the catalytic converter, the rest would normally be exhausted mostly in gaseous form. The dripping from exhausts would be mostly H2O, with only the heavier HC (generally more volatile).

Therefore although perhaps only 25% of the fuel is fully combusted, there would be significant extra energy from partial combustion also, probably improving the C value to about the 40-60%.

The weakness of the engine combustion process is three fold (1) retardant impurities in the fuel, (2) Insufficient O2 for full combustion, & (3) the fuel spray is too coarse to combust well.
(1) can be improved with the installation of a PCV Enhancer (a type of filter), (2) can be improved by the use of a MAP Sensor Enhancer (calibrated to allow extra O2 before the CPU enriches the fuel) & (3) is improved as mentioned by the use of a fine molecular gas like H2.

In addition the engine can operate in a hybrid mode by the simple installation of an electrolyser, and although the amount of H2 & O2 added is small, it is somewhat significant (in the Brown's gas form), in that it produces 3xenergy per unit mass that HC does.

I think there was a water car museum over in USA that showed this forgotten technology to the public in its full form (rather than hybrid), that's what we need for the future, & should have had til now. Economically today we need simple (diy) & affordable upgrades to allow oxyhydrogen hybrid operation combined with better combustion :thinker: (see link above).

Cheers:) .

parpending,

Your scholarly reply led me to go view your profile. I thought maybe some engineer from one of the oil or car companies had to jump in here. :D

If this is true that only 40-60% is being burned - then even if we continue to use gas, we could perhaps greatly expand on what we can squeeze out of evey gallon, by actually a sizeable percentage. Or don't you believe this is even possible?

If any of these claims were true, does anyone not think all the rich greenies in the world (Hollywood, Aspen, Germany, etc, etc) wouldn't be all over promoting it, buying it, financing it?

As was said before, if Gm, Toyota, Ford, Honda, etc, etc could do this, wouldn't they be able to rule the world of car sales?

I mean, come on!!!

I don't come from a car manufacturing background. Just a basic understanding of science & maths. However better ideas seem to be continuously forgotten throughout history, and never end up making it to production for whatever reason. I don't think its about the best science, or technological limitation, or ever has been for a long time, but rather about the technological ethics. What are these things designed to do and why. If you need a memory jolt just think about the 100 mpg econostar produced by Toyota, which all of a sudden went quiet & disapeared. What I have written may not be so far fetched after all.

Moderator's note:

Parpending and 41btrlife have been banned for including links to commercial websites that have products related to this discussion. Although the links were removed, their posts are intact in case anyone wants to read their takes on the alleged science behind the theory.

And no, I do not work for an oil company.

Hybrids as they exist today are a rip off and hydrogen cars are just a scam.

"Ugh, great. A conspiracy theorist. Look, there's no mass governmental/industry cover-up of H2 creation or usage in the auto (or any other) industry."

Actually I am a little suspicious of this. I think the biggest thing limiting hydrogen car production is most likely. HOW do we make hydrogen to sell to customers but PREVENT them from making there own hydrogen using there own cheap electricity.

I did the math. $10,000 kia at 35mpg and a $24,000 prius at 50mpg (it does not always get 50mpg but lets be generous)

Typical american drives 15,000 miles a year. lets do some math.

Lets subtract the cost of the lowest price car from both. So the kia will cost you $0 over $10 while the Prius will cost you $14,000 over $10k

It gets worse. If your concerned over the price of gas your not paying for that car cash. So add finance charges.

Now that $14,000 is closer to $30,000 but lets make it $20,000 to be fair Lets assume you put a nice down payment and got the interest reduced.

SO we have a $20,000 premium to buy the Prius. Lets forget about SAVING MONEY. How long will I have to drive that prius JUST TO BREAK EVEN on that Extra $20,000 cost premium.

Lets use $4 a gallon the Kia will use 428 gallons costing me $1714.00 in fuel or $143 a month.

For the Prius if we assume you drive PERFECTLY and get 50mpg all the time (yeah right) 300 Gallons of Gas $1200 a year. Per month $100

SO each month the Prius will save me $43 in fuel costs.

This is not looking so good. How many YEARS or DECADES will it take to "break even" on buying the prius.

Hmm wow 38 YEARS. 38 FRELLING FRAKING YEARS just to break even !! are you nuts?

So if there is any reason to buy a Hybrid Saving Money on gasoline absolutely positively IS NOT IT. and its not all that environmentally great either.

I am not comparing apples to apples here or even apples to oranges here. I am comparing your typical struggling citizen who wants to save money on gas.

Hybrids = NOT saving money. Big time.

When we can buy an economy 50mpg hybrid brand new for under $10k THEN lets talk.

On top of that why is it that a Modern super high tech $24,000 car made today can not get even the SAME mpg as an early 80's economy car of which many exceeded 50mpg with NO hybrid drive train.

If that alone does not tell you its a "feel good scam" well....

NOW

Lets Talk Hydrogen. Hydrogen is a SCAM on the american people. Lets start with the price. for the "equivalent" of a gallon of hydrogen the price is expected to be $7 to $8 a gallon.

The Expected efficiency will be the equivalent of 35mpg

SO let me get this straight. I am going to buy a rediculously expensive car and fill it with rediculously expensive fuel and get NO better fuel economy than a $10,000 kia gets today?

Thats a joke right?

NOW lets take it further? what POWERS a hydrogen car? IE what drives the wheels.

If you said hydrogen you have no clue how these things work.

a Hydrogen car believe it or not is an ELECTRIC CAR. the hydrogen is not powering the car (electricity is) in this case the hydrogen is just replacing the battery as the storage medium for the electricity. A very expensive medium.

$3424 PER YEAR in hydrogen. in 1.5 years of buying hydrogen you have already spent enough money to BUY the NIMH battery pack that GM made and claimed would cost $4500 to purchase and that battery would last for 250,000 miles.

You do the math.

You see they realize they have no choice but to go Electric so they are trying to figure out a way to COMPENSATE for the "after sale" losses in profit that come with electric cars simplicity and lack of maintenance and parts needs with an insanely expensive car and insanely expensive FUEL.

Off course I am betting it will be illegal for anyone to god forbid make there own hydrogen fuel (and then you have the problem is storing the damned stuff. Hydrogen is frisky its hard to store a quantity of it it "escapes" from almost any container)

Then you have the problem of basic science. With hydrogen we are taking electricity and using it to make hydrogen. We are then going to pump compress store transport and then pump it into your care (at an extreme premium off course) to put in your fuel cell to .... get this .... to produce electricity to power your car.

This is somehow better than just USING the electricity in your house to charge a battery. Well not better for you but certainly better for auto makers and anyone who will be making this "fuel"

Cute ehh. and you wonder why they are pushing SO HARD for hydrogen fuel cells over battery electrics.

Batteries = good for citizens bad for corporate america
Hydrogen = bad for citizens good for corporate america

Go figure.

Efficiency of a battery electric infrastructure? 84%
Efficiency of a Hydrogen Car infrastructure? 24%
(from Grid to wheels)

Its all about greed. Nothing else.

Lead Acid batteries suck. Lithium is too expensive
Other techs are too far away.

Nimh's are done and ready to go with sufficient capacity to allow the introduction of electric cars.

Alas a controlling patent is in place that prevents anyone from making these batteries without licensing it from the patent holder.

The patent holder refuses to license ie effectively burying the technology.

The patent holder is Chevron via GM.

Want to watch a good movie? It will make your blood hot with anger?

go rent "who killed the electric car" blockbuster carries it.

The patent I believe expires in 2015. and people wonder why Mercedes announced they will be petrol free by you guessed it 2015.

ITs because they will not have a choice. One way or another we are getting those batteries.

Screw the big auto makers I want every one of them to go out of business. I am not worried about the "workers" at these filthy companies. There will be a TON of well paying jobs for JUST there kind of expertise cropping up as small car makers start using these batteries to make insanely cheap long lasting cars.

The ONLY reason toyota started making the Prius was in response to GM's EV1 the only reason they CONTINUED to make the prius was because they were already too far along invested before they realized that that GM was killing the EV1 otherwise Toyota would ALSO have scrapped the Prius.

Want to see the effect it would have on "our" economy? I say "our" because there is not just ONE economy in this country. You have the Economy of the top 2-5% and you have the economy of the lower 90% of us.

more than 95% of the worlds wealth is OWNED by less than 2% of its population.

Battery Electrics would be the first tech since the creation of this country to transfer a massive amount (but still overall small) portion of that wealth BACK into the hands of the population IE the lower 90% of us.

UPS paid a million dollars to a software engineering firm to develope software to route there trucks avoiding left turns. They take longer are more dangerous and get this use more gasoline.

in the FIRST YEAR they saved over 3 million dollars in gasoline!!

Consider for a moment. if they saved $3,000,000 reducing the number of left turns they make JUST HOW MUCH MONEY do they spend a year in gasoline?

HOW MUCH do we actually send to oil companies? Exxon made $39.5 billion last year. What did they take in TO GET that number?

$327,000,000,000 BILLION dollars !! and thats JUST EXXON !

Going battery electric would infuse a TRILLION dollars back into OUR (the lower 90%'s) economy just by us no longer having to spend it.

The effect this would have would be truly profound. Its MULTIPLE trillions once you add all the other side effect expenses from a gasoline economy.

It would literally be a new golden age in america for the lower 90% of us. Business expansion would explode unemployment would wither and possible even VANISH all together the expansion would be so big.

IT MIGHT just be whats needed to "wake people" up.

Imagine being able to go anywhere you want without having to worry about how much it will cost you to power you car. With electric its effectively free.

The average person could put a $1600 grid tie in within there garage and once they start selling to consumer a $1000 nano solar panel on there roof. For $2600 you would never have to pay a cent for your daily driving every again in fuel.

you see that panel would produce and sell back to the utility MORE WATTS each month than you would use charging your electric car. IE zero cost for fuel once you have it set up.

This scares the crap out of a LOT of people both government and corporate. its a massive EMPOWERMENT of the population.

THATS why your not driving an electric car and why they WANT you to drive a hydrogen car.

Talk about salt in the wound. I think OIL and AUTO are talking. the new volt. I find it interesting that it only has a range of 40miles on pure battery power.

Why is that? that number NAGGED at me for a long time and then it hit me like a sack of lead acid batteries.

THATS the rough max range of almost all homebuilt electric cars! they all tend to max out at 35-45 miles range.

What a coincidence that a ground up electric car from GM would have the SAME approximate range and also a range ONE THIRD its "first" electric car attempt.

I find that very interesting and I do not believe in coincidences. Why have that 12gallon tank and expensive generator on board. How about tossing all that expensive stuff out and put in a second battery? now suddenly you have 80 miles range NOW suddenly you have a usable electric car.

But no. My conspiracy alarms go off and I think they sat down and said OK we have to give them something so lets give them a partial electric car but lets make the range no better than what they are getting now. Lets propagate the "image" that they just can not hack it full electric until we can get those profitable hydrogen cars going.

Probably not. Its probably simple greed and ineptness on there part but again I do not believe in coincidences and that 40 mile range is WAY to coincidental.

hey nerys lay off of the coffee
i can guarantee you if the auto makers could double the economy of their cars they would because that would double their sales. they are in business to sale cars. until solar is greatly improved you are not going to produce more power than you need to charge your battery daily. to many cloudy days in most parts of the country. why would a patent holder refuse to license a patent? they are in business to make money also. if those battery's are so great they would be working hard to get them on the market so as to corner the market, the value would be enormous. hydrogen will not be able to be economically produced at home for years due to the cost of splitting and storing it. in order to store the equivalent btu's of hydrogen vs gasoline you would need to store it at high pressure and that costs money for compressors and storage cylinders.

life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies

Well then go answer you own questions.

Why did GM literally CRUSH every EV1 (and disable destroy key parts of the few in museums)

We offered to BUY the last 12 for MORE than they claimed it cost to build them with NO strings attached. They refused and CRUSHED every one of them.

Why did they censure the inventor when he did a magazine article stating how wonderful they were (the batteries)

Why did they sell the patent to texaco (later bought by chevron 1 week later)

WHY does Chevron (via ebasys and ECD) refuse to license the battery tech. They state they are only interested in licensing the tech to a major auto maker. Very convenient since the one set of corporations with the LEAST interest in making an EV is major auto makers. Cute.

I will tell you why. If CHEAP usable affordable batteries (capable of 100+ mile range and good for 250,000 miles and cost only $4500 TO the consumer over 10 years ago) Came onto the market inside of a decade $100-$200 a barrel oil would be nearly worthless overnight. Thats why. I would say thats a pretty damned vested interest in making sure they "go away"

Why did the automakers SUE California to ELIMINATE the ZEV mandate so they could kill the EV1

There were over 100 citizens there to speak against this quashing most were not allowed to speak of given a fraction of the promised time while the automakers were given as much time as they wanted.

54% of GM's profit comes from AFTER they sold you the car (as of 10 years ago)

That profit comes from AFTER sale parts and labor. Warranties Finance charges.

Electric cars are simple and largely maintenance free
Electric cars by design are virtually every lasting (compared to what we drive now that is)

Electric cars are so simple and largely solid state that just like any other solid state component they will be VERY CHEAP once mass produced. Consider kia can make a gasoline powered car for under $10,000. Consider that the most expensive parts of that car are the complicated engine and transmission and all associated hardware ALL of which is NOT NEEDED in an electric car and the replacement parts mass produced are a lot cheaper than what they are replacing.

That means that 54% of GM's profit goes POOF.

People would overnight STOP buying gas cars and start buying electric JUST as soon as they realized what it really meant.

Consider that an electric car at under $12,000 is absolutely FREE for many americans. IE the monthly payment on a $12,000 car loan is significantly smaller than the amount many of us CURRENTLY spend per month in gasoline. IE it costs me absolutely not ONE CENT out of my pocket that I am not already spending right now.

YES the solar will work. Nano Solar is making solar panels for 90cents a watt. do the math. Thats over 1100watts of solar power.

Each day that is potentially 8000 watts of power (adding in a buffer for cloudy days)

a NIMH powered electric car uses about 7400 watts to drive 100 miles.

I drive 110miles ROUND TRIP every time I goto work 4 times a week. thats 118,400 watts per month to goto work (very few people drive as much as I do)

That $1,000 panel will generate 240,000 watts a month (again this is accounting for some cloudy weather. On a perfect day it would generate over 10,000 watts per day.

You do not use this to charge the car thats not practical. you use this to SELL those watts to the utility (currently buyback is available in 42 states) to OFFSET the watts you use to charge the car.

in the end you will average MORE watts produced than you will use IE the car is free to drive.

for the average american you could probably get away with a $600-$700 panel. I added buffer space to account for longer drivers like me and to account for drivers up north with less sunlight or in areas with less than perfect weather.

I spent a long time crunching these numbers they are solid.

There is NO downside to an electric car for the average american as a WORK car.

Once these things are being cranked out your going to see more serious R&D going into batteries and you will see that problem solved rather quickly. I am betting if the gov FORCED them to produce electric cars the problem would be solved in less than 5 years. Many Blue Sky techs are already on the way to solving it. All they need is some SERIOUS money to back them and get things going.

Look what GM did. We went from NO practical EV to a fully mass produced full practical affordable EV and most importantly BATTERY pack in less than 2 years time once serious GM dollars got into the mix.

Battery tech is not about getting "lucky" and finding some magic pill (though that would be nice) its a simply DOLLARS issue. Put enough money and talent into it and the problem WILL be solved. GM has already proven that.

You say why would they bury something if they can profit from it?

Well thats easy. What they are profiting from now is MORE profitable than the batteries (by a massively huge margin) and to make it worse this battery tech will not SUPPLIMENT oil sales. It will REPLACE oil sales.

THATS a problem for them. A big one.

NOW do you understand?

Imagine if you were selling hot dogs. You came across an invention to make a hot dog replacement that is nearly FREE compared to what your making. It also came with built in flavoring (ketchup etc..) that YOU were charging money for.

Imagine if this tech was so amazing that eventually everyone would be selling it for almost no profit margin compared to what your getting now and people would literally STOP BUYING hot dogs once they got ahold of these new things.

You however have a pretty monopolistic control over hotdogs so you can control the price and profit.

Now thing. if you had the oppurtunity to take this tech and give it to your hot dog maker (who has a decidely invested interest in killing it)

Would you do it? or would you start selling it and watch your profits go POOF.

Remember you could initially charge an extreme premium for these but EVENTUALLY the free market will kick in and SOMEONE will realize you know I can sacrifice profit and sell a LOT more of these and take everyone else out.

IE your going to LOSE any control you had to price this stuff and control it.

I think you know the answer to this. you would kill it and kill it with prejudice.

THATS why GM killed it and thats why Chevron is burying it.

Its just simple math. They make MORE MONEY selling gasoline and gasoline cars than they will selling electric cars no matter how many they sell and its not a SMALL difference.

Think about it. Its not a conspiracy. Its not a Black Ops scheme. Its just Greedy Business. Nothing more fanciful than that.

The 2003 budget cut the Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) program by 100%. CSP is currently the most efficient method of producing electricity from the sun, with efficiency yields for a Solar Dish Stirling Engine at 29.4%. According to the Department of Energy, “enough electric power for the entire country could be generated by covering about 9 percent of Nevada---a plot of land 100 miles on a side---with parabolic trough systems”. This possibility was eliminated by the Bush Administration, along with thousands of jobs it could create.


http://www.hydrogennow.org/HNews/PressArea/2003StateofUnion.htm


So "free" hahah hydrogen is possible Peeping On U2

Hydrogen Now! reminds me of Jerry Stiller on the Sienfeld shows "Serenity Now! Serenity Now!" lol

neyrs, you forget the the biggest user of oil is the plastics industry right now. more oil goes into plastic than in our gas tanks. oil is not going away until plastic goes away. the auto maker that corners the market on alternative fuel will rule the market and that is fact. the reason why those vehicles were not sold probably has to do with tarifs on importation, when chrysler built a turbine engined concept car in the 60's the tarifs were so steep that all of them but one were crushed before the year was out to keep from having to pay. the market will decide what vehicles are here to stay and not wishfull thinking.

life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies.

Then you have the problem of basic science. With hydrogen we are taking electricity and using it to make hydrogen. We are then going to pump compress store transport and then pump it into your care (at an extreme premium off course) to put in your fuel cell to .... get this .... to produce electricity to power your car.



You might be wrong on your science. As silly as you make it sound, it is not that silly when figuring where the frictional losses are the greatest, and perhaps where even pollution is the greatest.

By having one power plant use some fuel source to generate `1m units lets say, is likely way more efficient than to have 1m vehicles use some fuel source to generate 1 unit of power. They both = 1m units of power, except one does it all by one or just a few devices at a plant, where the other way requires it being done individually in 1m devices.

Do you think engineers who figure out all this stuff are stupid, and/or are simply trying to pull one over on gullible people?

Just suppose coal, which the US is rich in, is used to produce the electricity, which in turn produces the hydrogen. They must have it figured that the cost to make it is worthy of all the transporting (heck, they transport GAS, so that part of the argument becomes a wash) and compressing, so that then they can power some car, so we do not have to jeopardize our national security by using foreign oil. *I* can see the science here.

unfortunatly hydrogen is alot harder to transport safely than natural gas. smaller molecules if i remember correctly. much more explosive than ng.

Murphy was an optimist

hhhm I read that chrysler wanted to make the turbine car in 1980 except the governement bailout boys would not let them

so instead they put that advanced multifuel technology into the ( compact size car for chrysler ) Abrhams tank ( all 55 tons of it)

which is turbine powered and was a subsiduary of chrysler at that time .....

unfortunatly hydrogen is alot harder to transport safely than natural gas. smaller molecules if i remember correctly. much more explosive than ng.

Murphy was an optimist

They had the nerve with the blimp. Think Hindenberg. :eek:

the guys on mythbusters did a show on the blimp fire and concluded that part of what made it go up so fast was the paint that was used to make the gas bag seal. very interesting show.

Murphy was an optimist.

It makes little difference if you are basing the cost savings on todays energy costs for hydrogen or electric cars or solar powered cars that really are effective on sunny days and not at night. the cost you use today will not be realistic if the system becomes viable.

The bottom line is that there MUST be a road tax on the energy in some way to pay for the cost of the roads and the continuing maintenence. When it gets to be common, the road tax must be collected. The loop-hole regarding the old use of LP has been closed for the most part and could be closed totally if it really became a big deal.

Collecting a tax is really quite simple when it comes to buying electricty or gas since a permit for the car tied to the licensing and buying the "fuel". That is a paper trail that can easily be controlled since the suppliers are audited/permitted or controlled.

We have a gas tax that is too low for proper maintenance. Unfortunately, it is based on gallons and not hedged by inflation like a sales tax. This is compounded by the decrease in driving and the high mileage cars that cut the available funds to keep the roads repaired and the cars going. the money has to come from somewhere unless everyone wants to go out and repair their own section of road. There is no free lunch!

Dick

concrete,

You make a good point. But the real bottom line to EVERYthing is the gov't is going to get their money for whatever, no matter what, somehow or another. If it is not from income tax, or road tax, - it will be from more fees or other forms of taxation.

But what is better? - spending say 20¢ per mile and then some set tax amount ($X) for roads?, or spending 10¢ per mile with exotic fuel/fuelless and the same $X in road tax?

My point is that it makes sense to get the funds for roads based on the use of the roads. That way, the congress cannot play the games they have been playing for many years and mask their individual personal identity. There is not much faith in congress since their rating is much lower than the President's.

Collect the money based on the use and match it to inflation because the inflation increases the cost of repairs and new construction. Then do not let it get sidetracked by congress for pork barrel projects with different purposes.

Ideally, the states should be the real administrators, but interstate roads providing established standards for freeway construction and maintenance do require some federal responsibility. It should not be difficult to come up with a tax system that would evenly collect taxes based on the use of the roads. irregardless of the fuel source.

Fortunately, the states can inspect and license the cars and can more efficiently have a handle on the collection and needs instead of senators. They also are involved in the administration and taxing of diesel, gasoline and utilities. Some political candidtates miss 1/3 of the votes in order the expose any position by voting unless necessary.

. Some political candidtates miss 1/3 of the votes in order the expose any position by voting unless necessary.

#offtopic# You mean like those who only vote "present"? Where have I been hearing that lately, regarding whom? :)

I see a couple of problems with hydrogen guys. all of which are fixable. at least as far as vehicles are concerned.(1) trying to convert an inefficient liquid burner into a gaseous burner.(2)People expecting big corporations to make it happen. They dont give a damn about the environment and until they can make a fortune off of it, they wont do it.(3) people not getting behind it. Have you ever gotten behind something 100% that you didnt know if it would work or not?
I believe i have a design that would be adaptable for anything up to a medium sized motorcycle. Im talking about a system that produces and burns its own hydrogen. I am having problems finding places to talk about it for fear of it being stolen. Any ideas? Joe L.

So your saying your part of #2

(2)People expecting big corporations to make it happen. They dont give a damn about the environment and until they can make a fortune off of it, they wont do it.

How about releasing it to the public domain so NO ONE can patent it and EVERYONE can use it.

Hydrogen is a dead end anyway. Its only slightly more efficient than Gasoline.

The one thing I am intrigued by hydrogen for is its CHEAP to make :-)

Ultimately though the objective is pure battery electric.