ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waning Crescent 5.6%
|
|

21-06-2008, 07:14 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,847
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Might come as a surprise but water will burn, at a high enough temperature.
|
Hi,
No, it does not, not at any temperature at which it is still a molecule.
Burning is defined as a chemical reaction releasing heat on combination with oxygen. Water does not do this, which is why firemen use it ;-]]
Water is a stable compound which requires an input of energy to split it into anything which will "burn". The usual misunderstanding is between water, which will not under any circumstances "burn", and hydrogen, which will.
This scam reappear at regular intervals whenever the crude oil price spikes.
Cheers
Geoff
|

21-06-2008, 07:28 PM
|
 |
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffW1
Hi,
No, it does not, not at any temperature at which it is still a molecule.
Burning is defined as a chemical reaction releasing heat on combination with oxygen. Water does not do this, which is why firemen use it ;-]]
Water is a stable compound which requires an input of energy to split it into anything which will "burn". The usual misunderstanding is between water, which will not under any circumstances "burn", and hydrogen, which will.
This scam reappear at regular intervals whenever the crude oil price spikes.
Cheers
Geoff
|
You right in what you've said....at anything like normal temps, or even those in a normal internal combustion engine. You've either got to add a catalyst to split the water molecules, or ionize the water through very high heat/energy. You are essentially burning hydrogen and oxygen and converting them back into water. That's why I wrote what I wrote....it needs a catalyst or a lot of energy, hence the difficulties in engineering materials to take the temperature.
Funny thing, it's the same for petrol as well. You have to atomise petrol (or is that "mistify"...   ) to get it to burn, otherwise it just won't light up.
|

21-06-2008, 07:50 PM
|
 |
Narrowfield rules!
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Torquay
Posts: 5,065
|
|
Carl, If developing a water-burning car was in the slightest bit viable, everyone would be doing it. The biggest single deterant in really way out expensive development not happening is us, only us, all of us plebs.
Consider. We all have a super fund, we like to see a return on investment, be it directly or thru management. In OZ anyway, the biggest investors in public companys are super funds. A public car company decides to invest in wayout multi-year research and the returns and share price stagnates for a few years. You (or your fund manager) says, oops, thats "underperforming", ill sell and move my money, the car company board gets a kick (they are on bonuses based on share price and profits) and can the project.
Meanwhile, you also complain that not enough reshearch is done and wonder why. Or should then the goverment fund it?.
If a letter was sent to you by the company or super fund asking you to sacrifice some of your retirement total for the sake of research, and keep the shares, would you?, hell no.
If the goverment sent a letter asking you if you would like to pay more taxes for research would you?, hell no
|

21-06-2008, 08:00 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,847
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
. You are essentially burning hydrogen and oxygen and converting them back into water.
Funny thing, it's the same for petrol as well. You have to atomise petrol (or is that "mistify"...   ) to get it to burn, otherwise it just won't light up.
|
Hi,
OK that's a lot clearer.
However for petrol I did not need to atomise it the time I nearly set Bundeena on fire  I tried to get the BBQ going with a dash of petrol. The flame came straight up the petrol stream and into the can I was holding and set my fingers on fire  I dropped it quickly.
Talk about burning the sausages
Cheers
|

21-06-2008, 08:08 PM
|
 |
Narrowfield rules!
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Torquay
Posts: 5,065
|
|
LOL, I set a whole tree on fire with a dash of petrol on a BBQ  .
Regardless of the methode of conversion of water to energy used (and that is hugely significant), the difference in energy density of water and petrol is so vast its just a joke.
|

21-06-2008, 08:37 PM
|
 |
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut
Carl, If developing a water-burning car was in the slightest bit viable, everyone would be doing it. The biggest single deterant in really way out expensive development not happening is us, only us, all of us plebs.
Consider. We all have a super fund, we like to see a return on investment, be it directly or thru management. In OZ anyway, the biggest investors in public companys are super funds. A public car company decides to invest in wayout multi-year research and the returns and share price stagnates for a few years. You (or your fund manager) says, oops, thats "underperforming", ill sell and move my money, the car company board gets a kick (they are on bonuses based on share price and profits) and can the project.
Meanwhile, you also complain that not enough reshearch is done and wonder why. Or should then the goverment fund it?.
If a letter was sent to you by the company or super fund asking you to sacrifice some of your retirement total for the sake of research, and keep the shares, would you?, hell no.
If the goverment sent a letter asking you if you would like to pay more taxes for research would you?, hell no 
|
That's in Oz...unfortunately it's our money which drives research because the companies themselves don't invest enough in research. Most aren't big enough to spend all that much money, anyway. Needs a change in both business and social culture, but that'll be a long time coming, I think.
|

21-06-2008, 08:41 PM
|
 |
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffW1
Hi,
OK that's a lot clearer.
However for petrol I did not need to atomise it the time I nearly set Bundeena on fire  I tried to get the BBQ going with a dash of petrol. The flame came straight up the petrol stream and into the can I was holding and set my fingers on fire  I dropped it quickly.
Talk about burning the sausages
Cheers
|
Glad I could clear it up for you
It would've been the fumes around the petrol stream that were burning, and, you nearly set fire to my old stomping ground!!!!!  
You're lucky my Dad wasn't still a state fire warden...it'd been more than the sausages that were "burning" 
|

21-06-2008, 08:50 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 358
|
|
It's a shame we can't make cars run on gullibility, I think I could get to Perth and back just on the conspiracy theories in this thread alone.
|

21-06-2008, 09:46 PM
|
 |
Old Man Yells at Cloud
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rockingham WA
Posts: 3,435
|
|
Yeah I know some of you are gonna want to pick the following to s***, don't bother, it's just a hack - the numbers are pretty much ramdom(mostly from wikipedia  )
Whats the efficiency of a petrol engine 5%? (I honestly don't know!)
Ok so a BLDC (Brushless DC) motor for an electric vehicle can be had at around 95% efficiency, but we need a hydrogen fuel cell to generate the electricity, so whats the efficiency of a fuel cell? I saw somewhere it's around 40%
So our 95% is now down to 38% (0.95 x 0.4) not bad.
The power needed to split the water to hydrogen(and oxygen) had to come from somewhere though, lets say its from a dirty old coal fired power station with steam turbines and wotnot... I just read they're around 30% efficient, so we're now at about 11%, not looking so good now.
I also read that the best diesels are now around 20% efficient, seems kinda high but ok we'll use it.
Theres no silver bullet, the Hydrogen fuel cell system(TOTAL, including coal fired power) seems to be around(roughly!) twice as efficient as a petrol engine, and definitely less pollution(they scrub furnace exhausts.... apparently) but uses rare metals and there's the hydrogen storage issues, so gonna be pricey until a better system is invented. Lithium cells are looking good(A123 style, as used in the Tesla sportscar) and probably around 80% efficient, but their life cycle is kinda short(2000 cycles?) and they're still just a tad expensive.
Looks like Diesel is the immediate future, for a little while anyway, something better will come eventually. We're on the brink, gonna be an interesting couple of decades ahead.
Last edited by MrB; 21-06-2008 at 09:57 PM.
|

21-06-2008, 10:18 PM
|
 |
Narrowfield rules!
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Torquay
Posts: 5,065
|
|
MrB, from an article in Scientific American (cant remember which, damb it, that could kill me, but id trust them over most other media), the total energy cost including Hydrogen manufacture, transport, storage, and conversion to road pushing power, is half as efficient as petrol and internal combustion. I have also seen different figures as you have, so it can get to who you believe.
|

21-06-2008, 10:21 PM
|
 |
bewise betold neverbecold
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Terrigal NSW
Posts: 3,828
|
|
just to add a couple to the mix
any one remember the rotary motor developed in WA ?
patent was bought out by the yanks i think
anyone remember the valiant slant six motors ?
i believe they were canned because they were too efficient - never broke down - no spare parts sales
and a third one - i remember as a kid, a friends father had an old vanguard.
apparently you could run a "water drip" into the carby to improve milage and efficiency
geoff
|

22-06-2008, 12:54 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 896
|
|
If the primary energy source for whatever conversion process is used for water was a solar array on the roof of your house, the only real issue is the capital cost and spacial area required to generate the power,
It simply doesn't matter if its efficient or not, because the actual source of energy (sunlight) is free (at least at this moment).
And "green".
Unfortunately you still need an awful lot of energy from the sun to power your basic family sedan for say 75kms per day, but it should be technically doable providing you don't live in a block of multistory flats !
Here are some real rough figures - someone else can refine them more accurately - please !
Diesel fuel has approx 40megajoules per litre
So if you consume say 50 litres per week (I wish) then that is 2000 megajoules per week or 100,000 mega joules per annum
A 1m2 area in Oz on average collects solar energy at about 4,000 megajoules per annum
A solar panel is less than 30% efficient (from memory)
So lets say there is a 10% efficiency overall converting sunlight to electricity and water to some form of usable fuel energy.
Then we need approx 3m2 of solar panels and a "water reactor"
Is this assumption valid ?
Please accept this is a very rough, first draft and I may well be wrong, but I have quickly checked and I think its all good.
That makes it potentially viable - providing you are prepared to pay the capital cost in the first instance.
So it isn't a question of how efficient or inefficient the process is under this scenario, just how much you can afford up front.
Of course you wouldnt stop there !
Hope someone can contibute to this as I would be curious to see if it is really the case.
BTW if we all put a cheap coated mylar solar reflector on our roof and reflected a proportion of incident solar energy back out into space - would that help global warming ?
The suburb might look horrible and we might blind the Quantas pilots ! but maybe we could lower global temperatures and become global warming neutral !!
Food for thought
Cheers
Rally
|

22-06-2008, 11:41 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: newcastle
Posts: 15
|
|
so what happens when they introduce water restrictions? if you cant water your plants with a watering can, then how can you fill your tank? dink lots and pee in it?
nice idea but it has a ton of its own problems.
|

22-06-2008, 08:13 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 1,307
|
|
Touche.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen65
It's a shame we can't make cars run on gullibility, I think I could get to Perth and back just on the conspiracy theories in this thread alone.
|
|

22-06-2008, 09:19 PM
|
 |
Space Explorer
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Caloundra, Sunshine Coast, Australia
Posts: 1,571
|
|
Very interesting doc on Discovery / Discovery Science channel on Austar tonight just as I was getting ready for work. A guy in the states has a LOT of solar panels on his roof, they provide ad-hoc supply of energy for electrical devices in his house PLUS run his own conversion unit which produces hydrogen from tap water.
He runs the water through a multi stage purifying / reverse osmosis filter process, then runs this through a fairly flash electrolysis unit, separates the hydrogen out which is stored in 10 large tanks on his property, total capacity approx 19,000 litres.
He says this runs his entire property - heating, electricity generation when sun not available, and fuels his self modified hydrogen powered car - for an entire year. Total setup cost around $500,000 US. He now also makes hydrogen cars for others as a part time business.
So it possible and viable to implement this as a total system powered purely from solar energy (depending on your bank balance - there's plenty of people now who own home/land packages worth way more than $500k) . Obviously the cost is still damn high, but to see an entire years supply of fuel for everything sitting parked in 10 gas cylinders was pretty amazing!
|

22-06-2008, 09:42 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fremantle
Posts: 238
|
|
I haven't read through the three pages of BS on this post, but a few comments:
In 1974 (? I think it was..) Prof. Yule Brown drove his Holden Kingswood from Perth to ... Sydney (I think) ON A GALLON OF WATER!!!
He electrolysed (split) the water into hydrogen and oxygen and ran the car on that! He collected and condensed the exhaust (steam) for reprocessing!
Of course, to help him along, he was towing a trainer with a 200 kVA diesel generator to run the electrolyser and several drums of diesel to run the generator.
Hydrogen is an energy carrier (at least in the form of a chemical fuel) and not an energy source, and anyone with any common sense and a knowledge of basic physics (Yes! Even classical physics!) or chemistry will realise that.
The Perth H2 buses that someone mentioned were the most expensive and the most polluting vehicles in Australia. The H2 came from the steam reformation of natural gas and as such emitted (at the refinery) about 160% more emissions (CO2 etc) than the Perth buses that run on straight natural gas. Incidently, the CNG buses emit about 40% more GHG than the diesel buses, so that makes the H2 buses about 225% worse for GHG emissions than the diesel buses.
I was recently asked to go to Japan to have a look and write a report on another perpetual motion machine. I would have quite liked a 1st class fight to Tokyo and to stay in the Tokyo Hilton for a week, but unfortunatly we convinced the investor that it was complete BS and so they decided not to part with their $2.5M deposit and so I didn't have a nice holiday.
Either the 'news' story that was pointed out in the original post is typical BS journalism which completly misrepresents the actual idea, or the original idea is bogus and the journo is too much of a SS to realise.
|

22-06-2008, 09:51 PM
|
 |
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Water vapour itself is a GHG.....the best one you can get, actually. So that's not surprising.
|

22-06-2008, 10:07 PM
|
 |
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
I was recently asked to go to Japan to have a look and write a report on another perpetual motion machine. I would have quite liked a 1st class fight to Tokyo and to stay in the Tokyo Hilton for a week, but unfortunatly we convinced the investor that it was complete BS and so they decided not to part with their $2.5M deposit and so I didn't have a nice holiday.
|
Susan!!!!....silly, silly, silly!!!! 
The first rule of advice....ALWAYS check out whatever you're advising someone about, even if it is a load of BS. That way, you get any fringe benefits that may come from proffering that advice
Just think of that holiday on Japan you missed out on....and it was literally for free, on your part!!!
2nd Rule.....Never open your mouth and change another's PoV when it involves rule #1, especially when it's before you've seen what you're talking about
|

22-06-2008, 10:37 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fremantle
Posts: 238
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Susan!!!!....silly, silly, silly!!!! 
The first rule of advice....ALWAYS check out whatever you're advising someone about, even if it is a load of BS. That way, you get any fringe benefits that may come from proffering that advice
Just think of that holiday on Japan you missed out on....and it was literally for free, on your part!!!
2nd Rule.....Never open your mouth and change another's PoV when it involves rule #1, especially when it's before you've seen what you're talking about 
|
As a scientist, I believe that I have an ethical duty to tell the 'client' the truth - after all, the whole point of science (or at least a large part of it) is to determine the truth. If I can do that by simply reading through the 10 pages of BS that is presented to me and without the need of the client spending $2.5M, then that's what I'll do.
Of course after doing that, if they still INSIST that I go to Japan for a holiday to tell them what I already know, well, that's a different matter.
On the other hand, most bankers, used car salesman, polititians or lawyers would probably happily go without the slightest concern without bothering to do any background research beforehand - see my post the other day on this topic...
|

22-06-2008, 11:32 PM
|
 |
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
As a scientist, I believe that I have an ethical duty to tell the 'client' the truth - after all, the whole point of science (or at least a large part of it) is to determine the truth. If I can do that by simply reading through the 10 pages of BS that is presented to me and without the need of the client spending $2.5M, then that's what I'll do.
|
You've subverted your ethics immediately in your statement. You say it's your ethical duty to provide your 'clients" the truth and yet you proffer to them only an opinion (as an example here) of what you believe is BS, based on what you currently understand to be the case.
That's all you've offered...an opinion.
A true scientist is bound by their ethical duty to provide the facts...truth has nothing to do with it. Truth is as subjective as the person telling it. Regardless of one's opinions, it's your duty as a scientist to find out whether something is BS or not, from actual observation and experimentation (if need be). Reading a paper about something and then deducing from that (or having the preconceived notion that) it's BS, is not science. It's dogma...opinion. You probably did save that client $2.5 million, and that was a relatively good judgment call on your part, but what if you had been wrong. What if this had have been the case, in this instance (not necessarily about PM, but with any claim about whatever). By not making it your duty to going to see what it was all about may have cost your client a lot of money. Money that someone else may have made a profit from. Something that you may have even benefited from. You have to cover all your bases, otherwise you can be caught out all too easily.
Granted, given what we know, the device you gave your advice about most likely was just a piece of BS. Perpetual motion is a little hard to swallow, however it's not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that they may have come up with something else that's interesting which might have netted your client a good investment. Maybe not in that particular machine, but in something that machine may have shown. A particular method of doing something or whatever. Who knows. Only after exhausting all possibilities can you come out and say that this or that won't work. Opinions really don't suffice. They can only be taken at face value, as a guide. Not as a definitive answer.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:33 AM.
|
|