500 Miles Per Gallon

[Calanen]

I would prefer to see steam power cars, or hydrogen cars, or electric cars, or pretty much any other sort of car except gasoline. Fact is though, that for the moment the gasoline option is much cheaper.

I don't know whether ethanol takes more oil to produce, than it would if it were not used and straigh gasoline used instead. Any1 got some research paper links they want to throw up?

But I can say this - whoever works out the cheap clean alternative to gasoline - is going to be very wealthy. The conspiracy theorists will say that the oil companies will buy the patents, but is their any evidence of this occurring?

 

[jondy]

I don't know whether ethanol takes more oil to produce, than it would if it were not used and straigh gasoline used instead. Any1 got some research paper links they want to throw up?

But I can say this - whoever works out the cheap clean alternative to gasoline - is going to be very wealthy. The conspiracy theorists will say that the oil companies will buy the patents, but is their any evidence of this occurring?

Ethanol is produced by plants. So it's a renewable energy source

It's likely that big companies will produce the answer to this problem, because they have the money to back it. It follows logically that the companies will be oil companies, because they are f'kin huge and want to have a stake in the next big energy source when oil eventually dries up. So not really a conspiracy theory.

 

[clarky003]

the only evidence is that they control the energy industry and you can guarantee they wont let that go, so yes they could buy them out, and then just lock the technology away till they needed to use it. Death threats and all included, it what money greedy hacks are like.

but there are certain technologies that dont require large operation's, or 'specialist's' and could quite happily be built by any individual. Ive always liked the idea of instead of having electricity supplied to you by a hudge power station controlled by elitest rip off merchant's, everyone instead buys a device that they can install in their home to provide their power needs for a life time , could there be such a thing? new science says so, it could make the electrical grid obsolete, It would tidy the place up thats for sure.

 

[kirovman]

Nah, buddy, 'positive' energy?

You can't produce energy from nothing. Using hydrogen to produce hydrogen would not result in an endless looping cycle, because of the inevitable inefficiencies in the process. For hydrogen to be successful as a fuel, you would have to provide the energy to produce hydrogen from renewable sources, no two ways about it. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a source.

I believe it is an exothermic reaction - you put in energy, you get more out.

Of course energy does not come from nowhere, but you are getting the energy released from chemical bonds (or nuclear binding forces, in the case of nuclear reactions) when the various chemicals undergo reactions. But to free this energy, you put in less than you get out of it. I believe this is what is meant by "positive energy."

Example of a "positive energy process": an atomic bomb, you explode a small amount of explosive, you get enough energy released to destroy a city.

 

[jondy]

I believe it is an exothermic reaction - you put in energy, you get more out.

Of course energy does not come from nowhere, but you are getting the energy released from chemical bonds (or nuclear binding forces, in the case of nuclear reactions) when the various chemicals undergo reactions. But to free this energy, you put in less than you get out of it. I believe this is what is meant by "positive energy."

Example of a "positive energy process": an atomic bomb, you explode a small amount of explosive, you get enough energy released to destroy a city.

You misunderstand me

Burning hydrogen is evidently an exothermic reaction, as all combustion is. However, the poster before me had refered to hydrogen as a positive energy source in the way that you could use it to produce more of it and carry on going. Which, like I've explained, is impossible.

 

[clarky003]

I believe it is an exothermic reaction - you put in energy, you get more out.

its not exothermic. If you want to understand things like that, you have to study quantum mechanic's, it's feasable, its about manipulating electron orbit ,in order to increase its potential energy gradient, if you can release that increased potential you get extra energy from the vaccum, it only 'seems' as if your getting free energy from nowhere, but infact that nowhere is actually a somewhere.

It's science based on the vaccum state, science at present believes that matter is inert, static ,all created at once in a 'big bang' long ago. Vaccum theory states that everything is in fact in a 'constant' state of flux, matter is constantly being replenished and therefore manifested by an unseen feed of energy, that give the electron its perpetual motion. also known as an ether, or refered to as a holographic universe of subtle energy states.

here is a better explaination on the working theory if you fancy a read :

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Clarky003/296-297.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Clarky003/298-299.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Clarky003/300-301.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Clarky003/302-303.jpg

 

[HunterSeeker]

You misunderstand me

Burning hydrogen is evidently an exothermic reaction, as all combustion is. However, the poster before me had refered to hydrogen as a positive energy source in the way that you could use it to produce more of it and carry on going. Which, like I've explained, is impossible.

No I think you misunderstood. You need energy to extract hydrogyn out of something else (Lets say water becouse its the best I can come with at the moment) not that you can create hydrogyn out of nothing. He meant that the extraction (or mining if you prefer) takes less energy then it produceses as long as its there to extract or mine.

 

[jondy]

Combustion of any kind is an exothermic reacton. Quantum mechanics doesn't even come into the equation

To hunterseeker - I see what you're getting at. Yup. But splitting up water to produce hydrogen, and then burning hydrogen to produce water, means making and breaking exactly the same bonds and so there is no net energy gain.

If you use another compound, your point stands

 

[clarky003]

well not directley , but everything that is quantum is the bare essence of what is going on, so yes it is related and rellevant to any reaction, maybe not this the specific conversation.

 

[Calanen]

Well ethanol is not produced by plants....raw materials derived from plants are used to make ethanol - but what i want to know, is the machinery that makes ethanol, more wasteful and damaging than using gasoline instead? Does any1 know?

 

[kmack]

Well ethanol is not produced by plants....raw materials derived from plants are used to make ethanol - but what i want to know, is the machinery that makes ethanol, more wasteful and damaging than using gasoline instead? Does any1 know?

No, and eventually it too can run on ethanol. This was addressed (from various viewpoints) earlier in the thread.

 

[kirovman]

If you want to understand things like that, you have to study quantum mechanic's

Why would I want to study Quantum Physics? It sucks!

Spoiler

(FYI I know about Schrodinger's Eqn, square well solution, perturbation theory, time dependent solutions, Hydrogen atom model, Helium atom model, Orbitals, Zeeman splitting, Pauli Exclusion Principle, Quantum Statistics (density of states, Maxwell-Boltzmann stats, Fermi-Dirac statistics, Bose-Einstein statistics, laser cooling, phonon models), about Crystal structures, reciprocal lattices, free electron models, tight binding approximation, nearly free electron model, Band Theory)

I'm currently learning about more in depth phonons, Semiconductors and superconductors.
Bleurgh :x I don't know why I just listed all my credentials, I feel sick now.

As for my limited knowledge, spare electrons in non-filled orbitals manifest themselves as covalent bonds. Give enough energy to a valence electron in this bond, it will reach the limit of being free.

When the electrons are bound, they are inside a potential (which is typically referenced as below zero on an energy scale).

Energy is released.

As for free energy, it refers to the lowest energy state, but I will read more into that.

Oh why god, why a physics discussion in the politics forums?

PS I hate physics

 

[GhostFox]

One glass of water has the potential energy to fuel the entire city of NY. When that is realized, we will have truly free and infinitely renwable energy.

 

[kmack]

One glass of water has the potential energy to fuel the entire city of NY. When that is realized, we will have truly free and infinitely renwable energy.

lol, baby steps, humans didnt go from the wheel to ferrari's in a day :|

 

[GhostFox]

I like to think big

 

[kmack]

I like to think big

haha, well if you get into the alternative fuels industry, maybe its not that far off :thumbs:

 

[kirovman]

One glass of water has the potential energy to fuel the entire city of NY. When that is realized, we will have truly free and infinitely renwable energy.

Well, that's what the Iter fusion project is all about...

www.iter.org

 

[GhostFox]

ITER is good stuff Kirvo. It doesn't get the support it deserves.

 

[kirovman]

ITER is good stuff Kirvo. It doesn't get the support it deserves.

Yeah...it has six nation support from EU, USA, Japan, China, South Korea, Russia.

But the last news (December 2004) was that Europe wanted to split and build the reactor itself, and let Japan do what they like.

The EU has the support of China and Russia to build the reactor at Cadarache.

Japan has the backing of the US and South Korea to construct Iter at Rokkasho in the north of its territory.

So they're probably still arguing now.

 

[kmack]

Well, that's what the Iter fusion project is all about...

www.iter.org

Wow, that has some amazing potential! 2015 too, damn, I just hope the participating countries can stay on track

 

[kirovman]

Wow, that has some amazing potential! 2015 too, damn, I just hope the participating countries can stay on track

Their estimate for the first commercial reactor looks like about 2045 - 2050 according to their timeline.

Looks like a huge project.

 

[GhostFox]

I'm telling you, one of the main problems with ITER and other orginizations like it is that it doesn't make the enviromentalists happy. Nothing bad will happen from using fossil fuels for a long long time. Shotages are a long way off. While I would like to see the world depend less on ME oil, the current system of govt. money going to fund things like Ethanol is counter productive. That's what ticks me off so much about it. It is just to appease the eco-nuts, taking away resources from areas that really could use it. If the G-8 countries sat down and devoted every dollar of alternate fuel study to developing cold fusion, we could have a breakthrough in a decade.

Instead the money pours into orginizations run by tree-hugging lawyers who are completely ignorant of the real scientific truth.

I hate to see the good of the planet overlooked for the sake of political pandering, and every nation does it.

 

[Viperidae]

hydrogen fuel comes from the oxidation of hydrogen to produce hydrogen dioxide; water

Don't you mean dihydrogen monoxide? Or is there some form of water I don't know of?

 

[HunterSeeker]

To hunterseeker - I see what you're getting at. Yup. But splitting up water to produce hydrogen, and then burning hydrogen to produce water, means making and breaking exactly the same bonds and so there is no net energy gain.

If you use another compound, your point stands

I picked water becouse I could not think of any substance that contained hydrogyn and was not a chemical union

 

[jondy]

Don't you mean dihydrogen monoxide? Or is there some form of water I don't know of?

Heh, my bad, that made me sound like a retard

And I'm studying chem at A level too.. :O

I'm telling you, one of the main problems with ITER and other orginizations like it is that it doesn't make the enviromentalists happy. Nothing bad will happen from using fossil fuels for a long long time. Shotages are a long way off. While I would like to see the world depend less on ME oil, the current system of govt. money going to fund things like Ethanol is counter productive. That's what ticks me off so much about it. It is just to appease the eco-nuts, taking away resources from areas that really could use it. If the G-8 countries sat down and devoted every dollar of alternate fuel study to developing cold fusion, we could have a breakthrough in a decade.

The fossil fuels point is debatable, but I totally see your point.

 

[jverne]

Don't you know that mercedes already produces hydrogen powered cars in germany, there are also hydrogen gas stations there (but not many)!

To produce hydrogen you would need electricity which would come from fussion plants (alomst unlimited enery).

 

[jondy]

Yeah, good luck with those German fusion plants.

 

[kmack]

Yeah, good luck with those German fusion plants.

better than the Russian ones :thumbs:

 

[The Monkey]

The US oil prices are wer low compared to European's. Our prices are about three time higher that the US'.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Sorry, I didn't write that very well. I was talking about production which requires a huge amount of energy. My main point is that production and transport of hydrogen is extremely expensive and isn't very feasible, at least not at this point.

the same could have been said for gasoline when most people were still using horse and carriage

the point is that more resources should be focused on hydrogen manufacture/refining and fuel cell technology and not on fossil fuel additives