High Gas prices=OPPORTUNITY

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:30 am

I myself would prefer fuel cells over hydrogen burning systems. Oil companies are promoting hydrogen based systems because they plan on refining the oil for the hydrogen and so we do not avoid the problems of today.

You can run a current thru water in your garage and make the hydrogen and oxygen neccessary for your fuel cell. Your only byproduct? pure H20! you put a jug on your exhaust. save most of it and except for evaporation loss you have a nearly closed fuel system.

by **RCglider** » Mon May 17, 2004 1:23 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
I myself would prefer fuel cells over hydrogen burning systems. Oil companies are promoting hydrogen based systems because they plan on refining the oil for the hydrogen and so we do not avoid the problems of today.

You can run a current thru water in your garage and make the hydrogen and oxygen neccessary for your fuel cell. Your only byproduct? pure H20! you put a jug on your exhaust. save most of it and except for evaporation loss you have a nearly closed fuel system.

I'm in several free-energy discussion groups, some "believers" and others "skeptics" of hydrogen fuel cells. It's hard to keep track of all the plans available to build one, yet not one shred of verifiable evidence any of them work as claimed. Yes, it is possible to create hydrogen with water/electricity in your garage, but not in the quantities needed to operate on-demand a car engine. I've seen the videos, read the stories, but nothing concrete.

You can also create hydrogen using a 2 liter pop bottle full of water, place 2 1/2" graphite rods through the middle inside opposing each other, apply 36 volts to it.....resulting in hydrogen gas creation. It's a neat novelty, but no real practical uses even though there's a company attempting to market a large scale version.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/get113to138mpgNOT/
Here's my group I started to help people who got ripped off by one conartist, Allen Caggiano with whom I had a few nasty exchanges with, not to mention some prominent energy mags that swallowed his story hook line and sinker . My real name isn't David Rodale, and do use several other anonymous names in other groups. AC's website http://www.get113to138mpg.com is long gone, and so is the money he stole.

Look up Carl Tilley.....I was involved in his demise as well.

by **RCglider** » Mon May 17, 2004 1:42 pm

http://www.genesisworldenergy.org/about.htm

Quick, order yours today and save the world from GWB and his co-conspirator oil barons who are suppressing all this technology!

by **deathBOB** » Mon May 17, 2004 1:48 pm

I like what Chrysler is doing with the Hemi engine: When not using the full power of the engine, half the cylinders are cut out... Result: It gets great highway mileage. I think thats smart, and I would like to see other manufacturers adopt that technology. Here in Atlanta, where all driving is pretty much high way driving, that could save you a lot of money.

I think its a bit early to criticize car makers: They are trying to improve fuel efficiency. Remember, these are big companies, it takes a while for things to happen.

We have the new hybrid Escape coming out and the GM truck and SUV range is getting a boost in mileage with every new model year. The German companies are rolling out new and clean diesels. I think thier on the right track...

RC, cant you power cars with just about anything combustible? I know Diesel intended his engine to be run off of cooking oils...

by **RCglider** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:01 pm

Originally posted by deathBOB
I like what Chrysler is doing with the Hemi engine: When not using the full power of the engine, half the cylinders are cut out... Result: It gets great highway mileage. I think thats smart, and I would like to see other manufacturers adopt that technology. Here in Atlanta, where all driving is pretty much high way driving, that could save you a lot of money.

I think its a bit early to criticize car makers: They are trying to improve fuel efficiency. Remember, these are big companies, it takes a while for things to happen.

We have the new hybrid Escape coming out and the GM truck and SUV range is getting a boost in mileage with every new model year. The German companies are rolling out new and clean diesels. I think thier on the right track...

RC, cant you power cars with just about anything combustible? I know Diesel intended his engine to be run off of cooking oils...

Y, we had about 20 of the 5.7L Hemi's for testing. They are a radical departure from the original!

I've seen the new Escape on the road and the engine has been in our plant for testing, but haven't paid much attention to it.

Diesels will be making great strides in the next 1-2 years.

Side note: A sad day
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/05/15/EugeneMalloveDies/index.html

by **igloo17** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:06 pm

It costs more to make a vehicle get better MPG. If you are willing to pay more for a vehicle they do exist:
http://www.toyota.com/prius/

As for the 'fuel saving devices' :
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/gasavealrt.htm

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:35 pm

Actually I was reffering to fuel cells and not hydrogen engines.

I am not sure if you misunderstood me or not but fuel cells have been around for years. They powered the Apollo missions to the moon and there are several independent companies that manufacture and market fuel cells.

by **RCglider** » Mon May 17, 2004 3:30 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Actually I was reffering to fuel cells and not hydrogen engines.

I am not sure if you misunderstood me or not but fuel cells have been around for years. They powered the Apollo missions to the moon and there are several independent companies that manufacture and market fuel cells.

I understood you. I think there's a general misconception about what a fuel cell is. I've noticed people in this forum are posting as if fuel cells will eliminate the need for fossil fuels, which it does not in any way. It's simply an electrochemical energy conversion device, similar to a battery in that it provides continuous DC power, which converts the chemical energy from a fuel directly into electricity and heat. It still utilizes hydrogen and requires a fuel, such as gasoline, methanol etc. as the source. The efficiency is better than a conventional gasoline engine, about 32%(?) vs. 20%. It's not even close to a closed loop system.

A conventional engine's efficiency is mainly limited by two factors; friction (heat=loss of power and efficiency) and low air:fuel ratios (due to standard plug type ignitions). I'm thinking both problems can be overcome by:
http://www.ox2engine.com/revealed.htm
Check out what that engine does!

http://www.smartplugs.com

Some people think fuel cells use water to convert to hydrogen to electricity, and that's where the controversy is. That is a pipedream. I posted the Genesis website with tongue-in-cheek. It's a scam.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 3:59 pm

Er, no.

Fuel cells use oxygen and hydrogen to form water and electricity.

Now there are a lot of people who will say that it is to difficult to handle the hydrogen and so they want a seperator system built into the fuel cell so you can use methane or god forbid gasoline but thats just not true.

The people promoting this are the fuel companies and they would hate it if you didn't have to stop at a service station and buy their product now wouldn't they.

Hell we don't even have to get rid of service stations. Use nuclear power, you want to be environmentally "sensitive"? fine, use solar or wind I don't care. This creates the electricity to seperate your base water into H and H and O. Pull into the service station, fill up on your H, fill up on your O and Voila! you have everything you need to run your fuel cell.

I was joking about the closed loop system but you could do it if you wanted. Merely run your exhaust into a container and you can resplit it and use it again.

We used the very same technology in the 60's to get to the moon I doubt we can't do a little reverse engineering on almost 50 year old systems.

by **deathBOB** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:04 pm

Ya, dont they plan on getting the hydrogen for fuel cells from gasoline??? Seems like a waste... I like the electric hybrid idea. Toyota had a show car that was powered by a constantly running V-6. It ran at its most fuel efficicent speed and ran a generator. The car was moved by electric motors. The nice thing about electics is the performance boost. Whereas engines produce a lot less power at low RPM, motors produce max torque in the entire RPM range...

by **LordShard** » Mon May 17, 2004 5:48 pm

Here is the way I see it.

I'll use an analogy.

Intel is currently working on ways around the microscopic size limitations, that tells me they are currently capable of making a circut board and/or processor that is at those limitations. The reason they don't is so they can make money. Keep to moores law and you will make loads more money then if you just released the most advanced technology and got a one time boom.

That said there have been cars out for a very long time that could acheive 100mpg, they wern't production models, but prototypes or whatever they are called. I don't beleave GWB is trying to hold back technology, I'm just saying if a company had a choice between released the most advanced or releasing it in stages they would go for the most profitable option. In stages.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 9:41 pm

Two links about REAL Fuel Cells

http://www.fuelcells.org/basics/types.html#regen

"Regenerative Fuel Cells. Regenerative fuel cells would be attractive as a closed-loop form of power generation. Water is separated into hydrogen and oxygen by a solar-powered electrolyser. The hydrogen and oxygen are fed into the fuel cell which generates electricity, heat and water. The water is then recirculated back to the solar-powered electrolyser and the process begins again. These types of fuel cells are currently being researched by NASA and others worldwide."

Currently being researched? They used this type of technology on the Apollo missions to the moon! Last one when? 1973! thats older than some of you posting here!

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-17973

This is the best link.

http://www.smartown.com/sp2000/energy_planet/en/future/fuel-cells.html

You can get into an argument about the energy needed to seperate H2O but I counter that argument with how much energy goes into drilling and transporting oil?

by **RCglider** » Tue May 18, 2004 12:32 am

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Er, no.

Fuel cells use oxygen and hydrogen to form water and electricity.

Now there are a lot of people who will say that it is to difficult to handle the hydrogen and so they want a seperator system built into the fuel cell so you can use methane or god forbid gasoline but thats just not true.

The people promoting this are the fuel companies and they would hate it if you didn't have to stop at a service station and buy their product now wouldn't they.

Hell we don't even have to get rid of service stations. Use nuclear power, you want to be environmentally "sensitive"? fine, use solar or wind I don't care. This creates the electricity to seperate your base water into H and H and O. Pull into the service station, fill up on your H, fill up on your O and Voila! you have everything you need to run your fuel cell.

I was joking about the closed loop system but you could do it if you wanted. Merely run your exhaust into a container and you can resplit it and use it again.

We used the very same technology in the 60's to get to the moon I doubt we can't do a little reverse engineering on almost 50 year old systems.

My definition was correct.
I said it utilizes hydrogen and oxygen, but it won't be the way many are envisioning it. This is 2004, not 2024.

Reality will rear it's ugly head. This is planet earth, not outer space.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Tue May 18, 2004 3:18 am

I am willing to bet you are 100% right RCglider. It won't be the way I envision it.

My definition is correct also.

This is 2004 not 1964.

Oh yeah,.... we made it work in 1964 not 2004.

We just throw that entire science we learned on the scrapheap?

Gee we could do it once.... oh there is not a lot of profit in it for the ones who want profit........... I guess the whole idea should be scraped.....

by **RCglider** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:52 am

When people come down to reality, I hope they don't hit too hard, but some of already bumped their heads.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apollo missions used liquid hydrogen and oxygen and were not a closed loop system. Why some refer to electrolysis (Apollo didn't use them) fuel cells as closed loop is puzzling anyway since an external energy source is required (solar, wind etc.), and takes an enormous amount of electricity to split water into hydrogen. It's still technically an open system, but words sound neat. ZP energy guru's get raked over the coals when referring to 'closed loop'.

Now, back to basics. I'm not against this burgeoning technology, but despite the feel-good aspirations of fuel cell proponents, the fact is mass produced fuel cell vehicles for Joe 6 pack are a long way off, unless you're willing to fork out $100,000+, just maybe you'd have one in a few years with an employee discount. It's amazing how grant money can spawn the imagination. Remember the EV?? What a joke.

Below are some sobering articles that are the reality of the subject:

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0404/27/e01-134538.htm 2004+20=2024

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/SciTech/DyeHard/hydrogen_converters_dyehard_040506-1.html

I'll continue to do my part by recycling my old cars and finding better ways to improve the internal combustion engine, for which I provided links to that are more practical for the next decade or two. IC engines aren't going away anytime soon. You're best bet is to spend the extra $5k+ and buy a Hybrid in the meantime; heck, in about 10-15 years it just might pay for itself.

BTW, sitting right outside of my room at work is an Allison Hybrid Automatic transmission used for buses. It's got electric motors built right in, the engine is a diesel. Because of it's intended use, the cost increase is offset by the savings in fuel.

High Gas prices=OPPORTUNITY

Who is online