Well it almost does. Read here:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money-savers/article.html?in_article_id=403819&in_page_id=5

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/332/hydrocarl210905450x2909be.jpg

It's really amazing how much better we could make the world if people actually cared.

I'll believe it when I see it.

so umm... what about the drought?

wheels need more dish, and offset

so umm... what about the drought?

ignore water restrictions forcing the government to build de-saliation and water recycling plants.

http://babyborrowrental.com/opt/Flinstone_car_opt.jpg

water goes in radiators to keep grunty internal combustion engines cool, not into fuel tanks

They forgot 6. ???? and 7. Profit.

The plane will take off!

here's a dood that runs on water lolol

http://www.2003umconf.portraitsofjesus.com/poj.nsf/htmlmedia/Jesus_on_the_Water_LARGE_40K.jpg/$file/Jesus_on_the_Water_LARGE_40K.jpg

this electric car is pretty damn cool. 0 - 60 mph it clowns on almost any production car.

here's footage of it beating a Ferrari 360 Spyder down the quarter.

doh - footage no longer there....

you'll have to believe me.

We don't.

ah.

found it.

11mb

not very trusting are u fpot?

edit: editing takes more clicks than the reply button :p

last edited by bargain at 00:36:34 07/Jun/06

I find it hard to trust someone who can't find the edit button :P

Hydrogen combines with petrol to make "Super Fuel"

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
So that's how it works. WHY ISN'T THIS ALREADY IN PRODUCTION!?

Governments around the world with oil interests are waiting untill every drop of oil is gone to release it. Anyone that tries to "disappears" (cospiracy+++)


Or, making one that doesn't cost more than most people could afford to pay isn't feasible yet.

It's really amazing how much better we could make the world if people actually cared.

it's amazing that people think that something as simple as reducing co2 emissions will magically 'make the world a better place' :P still i bet anyone driving one of those would feel very smug because 'they are part of the solution, not the the problem, mmkay?'. ;)

My old 1983 holden camira used to run on 'super' fuel.

http://homepage.mac.com/johngoodman/images/Park/Car boats.JPG

Sounds like crap to me. Doesn’t it take more energy to separate hydrogen from H2O, then you receive from burning hydrogen with oxygen again?
Also, molecular structures don’t break down simple from spinning them fast. I work with centrifuges; some of the big ones can spin at 20’000 rpm and create Gforces in the 1000s. Even DNA doesn’t break down at that speed. (So far as the scientists tell me)

it's amazing that people think that something as simple as reducing co2 emissions will magically 'make the world a better place' :P still i bet anyone driving one of those would feel very smug because 'they are part of the solution, not the the problem, mmkay?'. ;)

It's amazing that you appeared to intrepret his sentence as meaning that people think that something as simple as reducing co2 emissions will magically make the world a better place. Less amazing is that your subsequent comment showed you actually agree anyway with him anyway, at least in part.

this post definitely calls for a n-hey!

i prefer the smell of petrol thanks

http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/images/brochures/holden_camira_2t.jpg

We used to have a camira
then my dad got a job


j/k

that's not particularly amazing at all. true, gimpy could have meant pretty much anything with his post... however due to the context of this thread being a vehicle that reduced co2 emmissions i chose to interpret that as his gist. an amazing leap of intuition!? i don't think so.
my subsequent comment was possibly less amazing, i'm not sure of your processes in determination of amazement. however i wasn't agreeing... i was making a comical reference to an episode of southpark, where people who drive these sort of vehicles smugly 'think' they are solving the worlds problems when they are really just creating another problem.
less pedantry, greater comprehension & you'll be fine jim. :D

last edited by demon at 13:00:49 07/Jun/06

speaking of comprehension, you failed!!&^@%$#&@

Gimpy says "It's really amazing how much better we could make the world if people actually cared." which is perfectly true, and completely valid in the context of this thread's topic.

You then appear (as I already said!) to think this means that gimpy is saying that 'reducing co2 emissions will magically make the world a better place' - but that's not what gimpy said at all. I found it quite amazing that you got that from gimpy's comment. It's like you're letting a nerdy dislike for all the half-assed media-driven propeganda about saving the earth, overcome your ability to reason and respond rationally to a comment which is completely true and has no reason at all to be tossed into the same basket.

Here's some food for thought - whether or not you (or the southpark authors) think you can find some alternate adverse side effect to someone's adopting of a technology they think is helping the earth, is short-sighted. What's more important is that people more and more are actually entertaining and getting used to the idea of doing something another way to be less damaging to the planet we live on, so that it becomes more of a consideration in everything we do - whether we may be misguided in our current efforts or not.

Those cars that convert from water ferries back to cars on land are awesome!

I'm waiting for a transporter

er, the car doesn't work. any energy boost that you get from the hydrogen would just go back into the car making more hydrogen.

infact, its probably alot less effecient than a normal car, because it would take more energy to convert water into hydrogen/oxygen than it would the power boost you get from the hydrogen.

my god, read the article will you

even the picture is explanatory enough on it's own, but read the article if you can't understand the picture

yeah thats great, beating ferarri's in a gokart, when my ferarri or GTR comes with an electric engine thats as quick as they are now, or as quick as the gokart in that picture, i'll get one ok

Yeah i gotta agree with Jim on this one.
d*******s need to read how it actually works before saying "ZOMGZ BUT IT TAKES MKORE ENERGY TO PRODUCE COMBUSTABLE HYDROGEN THAN COMBUSTING IT LOLOLOLOL THEREFORE ITS INEFFICIENT LOLOLOLIMADICKANDCANTREADTHEARTICLE.OCM"

OMG YOUR NOT THAT DUMB ARE YOU

regardless of how on earth they do it, ITS GOING TO TAKE MORE f***ING ENERGY TO BREAK APART WATER INTO OXYGEN/HYDROGEN THAN IS MADE FROM BURNING OXYGEN/HYDROGEN INTO WATER.

its in physics 101,

Wikipedia link

Conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy (including potential energy) in a closed system remains constant. In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. In modern physics, all forms of energy exhibit mass and all mass is a form of energy.

The energy conservation law is possibly the most important, and certainly the most practically useful, of several conservation laws in physics. The main reason is that energy, as defined via mechanical work, is force times distance, and civilization needs to exchange by goods and build various structures and machines - both required to transport matter over distance against dissipating forces (friction, air or other medium resistance, etc).

Now tell me im wrong.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/zeezee/capslock2vd.gif

failed comprehension, no. u.

Gimpy says "It's really amazing how much better we could make the world if people actually cared." which is perfectly true, and completely valid in the context of this thread's topic.

perfectly true? can you have imperfect truth?
the statement is NOT true. you can care about the world all you want... it will still be the same world regardless of anyones insignificant emotions. i cared about the world once... it didn't make it any better.
as i stated before the context here is reduced co2 from cars. therefore i feel it is quite valid to assume that gimpy was refering to reducing co2 levels making the world a better place... perhaps i shouldn't have used the work 'magically' as it seems to have disoriented you.
even if gimpy did mean caring about something other than co2 emmisions... i still find it amazing that people think that reducing co2 levels will make the world a better place so my comment is valid.

What's more important is that people more and more are actually entertaining and getting used to the idea of doing something another way to be less damaging to the planet we live on, so that it becomes more of a consideration in everything we do - whether we may be misguided in our current efforts or not.

so the intent is more important than actuality? that is foolish.

Whitewolf you'd be right if the car ran only on hydrogen. But it runs on hydrogen + petrol so your argument doesn't work there. There would be enough energy released from burning the combination of hydrogen + petrol to power the motor and the generator. So the law of conservation of energy & mass would hold there.

ps. you're wrong.

give me a car and strap a tokomak to it kthx.

its only a matter of time.
whitewolf do you seriously think that in a hundred years no one will have worked out a way to split the atoms in an acceptible way?

last edited by Fn at 15:27:10 07/Jun/06

Now that we know it didn’t result in a Darwin award I'm planning on bolting a JATO rocket to my car.

its all about fusing them!

failed comprehension, no. u.

no u

the statement IS definitely perfectly true, totally.

you don't actually feel that it's quite valid to make the assumption you did - you're just saying that it is because you were called on being a doofus. there was nothing disorienting to me about the words you used - but it was amusing that you chose to irrationally respond to a comment that didn't deserve it.

your caring about the world did improve it - you were just too busy justifying your poor choices in life to yourself to notice.

without intent the only actuality you'll see is accidental. what's foolish, is thinking that even a possibly misguided step in the right general direction is worthy of ridicule because it's not 100% right according to you and southpark.

and lol @ whitewolf

u
the statement isn't true. people have or haven't cared about the world since they were able to record the fact that they cared or didn't. this didn't change the world at all. it was a big sphere spinning through space then & it still is & no ammount of humans caring (or not) will change this in the foreseeable future.
even the use of the word 'better' is quite subjective. better for whom? better than what?! what green teethed eco-hippies may consider 'better' may not be what I consider better!
i see the actuality of natural process everyday. there is no intent, it is cause & effect in motion. it's not foolish to think that misguided steps in a percieved correct direction are worthy of ridicule... that is exactly the sort of thing that is worthy of ridicule!

and lol @ whitewolf

as you just demonstrated.

Taggs has said it but your arrogance and brain-numbing failure to think about what you've written requires me to say it again Whitewolf... it's funny that you've even referred to an article talking about "a closed system" when the addition of petrol (and more oxygen and other gases from our atmosphere from the combustion) clearly makes it not one.

If you're still having trouble thinking about it, consider this: what if hydrogen enables the petrol to combust more efficiently than it would otherwise?

I haven't even read the article and I can expand my mind that far... why didn't you engage _your_ brain? Seems like you're a little too quick to copy/paste things you've read rather than to take the time to understand them.

no u
the statement isn't not imperfectly truthful, by any means whatsoever at all. people have or haven't cared about the world since they were able to record the fact that they cared or didn't. this changed the world each time they did or didn't. if your gauge of change is whether the the world is still a sphere and is still spinning through space, it's no longer amazing that you appeared to interpret his sentence as meaning that people think that something as simple as reducing co2 emissions will magically make the world a better place - it's actually to be expected because you'd obviously be unable to recognise anything unless it modifies the shape of the earth enough that it's no longer spherical, or causes it to cease spinning through space.

clearly, in this context, the use of the word better means better for everyone and everything in this world. the fact that you may choose to claim that something may not be better for you, isn't worth considering because you aren't capable of making that determination.

2 crusty old men, slogging it out.

I think the point demon is making is that in the scale of things, not only are we quite inconsequential (and egotistical to think that we aren't!), but "making the world better" isn't really a valid statement without a point of reference.

You can say "making the world better for the human species" and maybe include "and lots of other known species on this planet", but "making the world better" isn't necessarily an accurate statement. The direction that we're pushing the world with our influence may change it for the worse for a lot of species, but it may make it better for a lot of other species (there are s***eloads of species we haven't even begun to catalog/comprehend yet, purely because they're not big enough for us to notice).

So, it's important to qualify such statements and think about what we're actually trying to achieve... and also to think about the fact that in the long run, it's impossible. We're trying to limit the effect that humans influence the world (as we know it!), to promote some form of our understanding of normalcy. The reason it's impossible is because our past (and therefore our future) contains many catastophic events _that we know about_ that have had far more effect on this "world" than we ever have or will have.

I think demon's saying that the "world" doesn't give a s*** in the long run... in the scale of things, we're less than a pimple on the ass of the world, and everything we could do to it is less again. The main effect that we'll have on the earth is respect to us... we could f*** it up for us before anything else gets a chance to.

i think u'll find it's u.
that the statement isn't not imperfectly true ((or not) or not) isn't incompletely not incorrect, most definitely. the caring (or lack of caring that i will now refer to as 'caren't') may, or may not, have resulted in change (or the lack of change), sure. but whether this change (or lack thereof) affected the world (or didn't) in a way which was (or wasn't) deemed to be 'better' (or worse) by everyone & everything in it is (or isn't) highly unlikely. so unlikely that you might as well say that from the perspective of the world & everything in it, no change occured.
perhaps you can provide me with an example from history of how someone cared about the world & as a result there was a marked change of the world & it was benificial to everyone & everything in the world?
i used the example of the sphere spinning in space to try & provide a global view of lack of change.
despite your assertions to the contrary (or not) i am capable of determining what is better for me.

[edit] blanana sees my point of view quite well in regard to insignificance of human actions & how they impact the earth as a whole, but is mistaken about the point i was trying to make. initially the point was to troll for global warming hippies to start an argument about the rise of co2 in the atmosphere & how that relates to global warming so i could pull out some urls of recent studies that contradict that point of view. however after jim's first reply the point just became to troll jim for silly arguments :D


last edited by demon at 16:46:03 07/Jun/06

I think we both know the point demon is at least trying to make - but that's beside the primary point of the discussion.

I don't understand why it's egotistical to not think we are inconsequential either. It's very easy to see even relatively minor effects we can have on our environment as individuals, let alone as a global population. I'd go as far to say that it's bordering on ignorance or even tyriobulance to think that we are inconsequential.

we could f*** it up for us before anything else gets a chance to

hi, welcome to the actual point of this discussion. I guess the context of "making the world better" was already clear enough after all. That's good, because it'd sure be painful to make forum posts if such statements actually _did_ require the qualification you suggested.

Well, I was taking a stab at what maybe demon was referring to, not saying that I'd say that myself. I thought it was perfectly valid to comment as gimpy did, but I could see how it was open to interpretation if you took the words without a point of reference.

As for being inconsequential... I think I said "in the scale of things"... which is true... we are inconsequential when you start thinking about large scales (global scale, galaxy scale, universe scale). Globally we haven't affected the earth as much as the last time a really large volcano erupted. It's our ego that drives us as a race... we think about ourselves, and things we can see/feel/comprehend in an immediate sense much more than anything we can't. The fact that we place importance on them makes us egotistical in a way.

Also, I did realise that I wasn't really seeing what you were saying after your last post demon.

Also, the inch-high chick in the aussie bikini is hot.

Ooops, I mean I wasn't seeing _all_ you were saying.

Also, the edit post facility on this forum sucks balls.

demon I think youl'l find it's care'nt

perhaps you can provide me with an example from history of how someone cared about the world & as a result there was a marked change of the world & it was benificial to everyone & everything in the world?

sure thing - in fact I could rattle off several, but you'd (in your typical fashion) ignorantly claim they are more likely fantasy than history - this one however you'll have a hard time making any reasonable argument against: you may recall the historical event where by way of holy spirit, God caused a lady by the name of Mary Magdalene to become pregnant - the reason behind this being of course to allow his son, Jesus, to experience a mortal life on earth from conception through to death so his fleshly form could be sacrificed as a ransom for the sin of mankind - which makes perfect sense (as opposed to imperfect sense). Well as we know, Jesus lived to become a man and was killed after being nailed to a torture stake - despite having the ability to prevent his demise. Clearly, his goal was to make sure all beings could be forgiven for the act of masturbation instead of just dogs. This benefited all beings including dogs because there was no longer a need to mount them in order to gain sexual satisfaction without resorting to masturbation.

[edit] I just refreshed and saw your edit saying that your point changed to trolling me - I can't believe I typed all that stuff for nothing. thanks a lot a******

You can say "making the world better for the human species" and maybe include "and lots of other known species on this planet", but "making the world better" isn't necessarily an accurate statement. The direction that we're pushing the world with our influence may change it for the worse for a lot of species, but it may make it better for a lot of other species (there are s***eloads of species we haven't even begun to catalog/comprehend yet, purely because they're not big enough for us to notice).

That's not true, in the past non-human related extinction events due to climate change have wiped out the vast majority of species. Even subtle global changes that make the environmental conditions better for a species can push them to extinction if they quickly become spatially seperated from their ideal environment.

The reason it's impossible is because our past (and therefore our future) contains many catastophic events _that we know about_ that have had far more effect on this "world" than we ever have or will have.

You can't say that because you don't know what the long term impact of humanity will be. Of course, that's not to say the opposite is any more true.

Edit: Actually I should clarify "the vast majority of species" - that has to refer to higher organisms big enough for us to track in the fossil record.... microbes etc.... I don't know.

last edited by Chakas at 17:35:56 07/Jun/06

hehe it wasn't for nothing you poopoo head!... it absorbed my afternoon & gave me a few phat larfs :D especially your description of these farcical historic events, which i will indeed claim are fantasy, though not from ignorance. i've heard the story before & i fail to see how dying (especially when you didnt have to!) benefits anyone else, let alone the world, everyone & everything in it. previously the story didn't have such emphasis on canine masturbation but i will consider the subsequent implications on life, the universe & everything.

what are all you cockspanks on about?

Also I understand "better" needs a point of reference, but extinct is obvously not better for a species.

chakas: unless, as a purely theoretical example, a nihlist thought that the world would be a better place if his species was forced into extiction.

okies time to go home :D

Well there's that.

chakas: it might be, if the species is better off dead

demon: stomp thant! I can't tell if you're actually taking me seriously or just pretending to - and it's me making me uncomfortable about my sexuality.

ah, semantic wars. but just so you know jim... mary magdalene wasn't jesus' mother... she was just some broad chillin round.

:)

And blahnana... geez mate. You're telling whitewolf that he has no idea. I think you'll find it's you that is mistaken. I'm not commenting on this car business at all, I haven't read the article, so I have no idea how it's supposed to do what it does, it's really beside the point. But I am familiar with the most basic laws of thermodynamics - you obviously are not. Correcting someone on the most simple of thermodynamic laws; conservation of energy; when they were completely correct, just makes you look foolish. I know you must think you know what you're talking about with what you've said, but you are just plain wrong. Based on your post to whitewolf, you clearly have no grasp on what a 'closed system' is, and you quite simply do not know how energy is converted/balanced in a reaction. You need to get YOUR head around the fact that just because you THINK you're correct about something, doesn't mean you are, and when you think you're intuitive comprehension is beyond someone else's, you may just be entirely incorrect. Like in this case.

after reading bargain's post, I'm going to yoink the turbo off my diesel - the laws of thermodynamics dictate that it's useless

If you're still having trouble thinking about it, consider this: what if hydrogen enables the petrol to combust more efficiently than it would otherwise?

this would be the only possible way for you to gain any power, however, the gain in efficiency would have to be greater than the inefficiency in converting water into hydrogen. which, is EXTREAMLY unlikely.

also. the hydrogen/oxygen water part of the car is a closed system.

instead of just saying im wrong, tell me how i am.

after reading bargain's post, I'm going to yoink the turbo off my diesel - the laws of thermodynamics dictate that it's useless

its not a closed system.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 18:19:53 07/Jun/06

Hey bargain, your fly's undone.

white wolf: you're really really wrong

But Jim, this is QGL, where the people here know more than the scientists who developed this technology!

man i hope this car comes with fuel savers too

the laws of thermodynamics dictate that it's useless

no they don't.

cheers for the heads up blahnana.

this would be the only possible way for you to gain any power, however, the gain in efficiency would have to be greater than the inefficiency in converting water into hydrogen. which, is EXTREAMLY unlikely.

You'd think so, wouldn't you. Of course you could then think about a catalyst and how it promotes faster/better/different chemical reactions though isn't "used up" ... and then maybe you could concieve that something that maybe is "used up" (or maybe it isn't, haven't read the article and I could see several ways in which it might benefit the combustion of petrol without knowing the specifics of how said combustion happens) could be useful to a another chemical reaction.

also. the hydrogen/oxygen water part of the car is a closed system.

Sure, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen is a closed system assuming you count the electricity used to split it as part of the system initially as well... but what happens after that (the addition of petrol and more oxygen) changes that system. In a closed system nothing is added or removed, everything is there to begin with (matter and energy). If you don't isolate the components of the system and keep it "closed", you need to consider external influences.

What you two knuckleheads are referring to is the fact that you don't end up with more energy if you run an electric current through water to split it into hydrogen and oxygen,, and then burn the hydrogen in oxygen to release energy again, and then harness that energy to convert it into electricity to then split the water molecule again. That's a closed system. When you start throwing in more oxygen and more petrol along the way it's no longer a closed system.

instead of just saying im wrong, tell me how i am.

Instead of waiting for people to prove you wrong, read the article! Think a little laterally!

That's not true, in the past non-human related extinction events due to climate change have wiped out the vast majority of species. Even subtle global changes that make the environmental conditions better for a species can push them to extinction if they quickly become spatially seperated from their ideal environment.

I did say "may" Chakas, and I could argue that previous mass extinction events led to our current domination... perhaps any future one we caused upon ourselves would allow future (or current) species to thrive when we no longer can.

man i hope this car comes with fuel savers too

Nah that would be so efficient that it would make fuel which is physically impossible..... huh?

I did say "may" Chakas, and I could argue that previous mass extinction events led to our current domination... perhaps any future one we caused upon ourselves would allow future (or current) species to thrive when we no longer can.

Only a very small number of species seem to survive and then thrive after a mass extinction so to say it might make it "better for a lot of other species (there are s***eloads of species we haven't even begun to catalog/comprehend yet, purely because they're not big enough for us to notice)" is unlikely. Given you seem to be talking about current species. New species take millions of years to evolve, by which time the Earth _may_ have restored it's normal balance making our influence negligable.

The reason it's impossible is because our past (and therefore our future) contains many catastophic events _that we know about_ that have had far more effect on this "world" than we ever have or will have.


You can't say that because you don't know what the long term impact of humanity will be. Of course, that's not to say the opposite is any more true.

Oops, I should have left in this bit. You're right of course, we don't know the long term impact of humanity... though I'd definitely argue that that's more due to future effects (possible scientific breakthroughs say, something that managed to explode the world or send it to another dimension or a billion other ways my tiny brain is too stupid to comprehend) rather than anything we've done to this point. I suppose what I was driving at was that previous mass extinction events were caused by things many orders of magnitude above "humanity", and that really what we're doing is breaking it for ourselves and not necessarily for the world as a whole... because it's so much bigger than us and our current meddling.

But you're right, there's no way of guaging the long term effect of humanity. Given the past record of the adaptability of life in the face of adversity though, there's every likelihood that we won't be able to extinguish it all completely. Even if we did, could it not start again in the same way it did in the beginning? Perhaps it couldn't. But life probably goes on regardless... and our world is just temporary anyway...

Unlikely but not necessarily impossible. It's possible that the changes in environment will somehow just make it uninhabitable for mammals... though definitely improbable I agree.

Normalcy is something else I was driving at... I mean if you look at the Earth's history it's apparently a hell of a lot more "normal" that the Earth be filled with massive reptiles than with humans... and yet here we are for now.

I wasn't really making serious points about current species, but more the fact that massive extinction events don't wipe out all life, and also that what's bad for one species (or even lots of them) doesn't necessarily mean an end to all life.

http://www.watersportsproducts.com/store2/images/aqualg.gif

New species take millions of years to evolve, by which time the Earth _may_ have restored it's normal balance making our influence negligable.

Yup, _may_. But surely our knowledge of the past teaches us that wiping out all life is quite a difficult proposition? If you're saying that it _might not be_ ... I agree with you... there's no guarantees. But from what I know of our past (and it's not very good knowledge, in part because I'm certainly not learned on the subject, and in part because we have very little idea what's really gone on before), life on Earth is a resilient thing. There has been life found in places that we didn't think possible. In environments we didn't think possible. I'm sure you could tell me more about that than I'll ever know... Isn't that reason enough to think that it'll probably go on even if it doesn't for us?

ffs relax guys, technology will save us.

if you think warmer temps are going to wipe out all life on earth you need to get a clue.

personally, i'm over winter and will continue to do my bit by driving a petrol car until they are banned.

Oops, I should have left in this bit. You're right of course, we don't know the long term impact of humanity... though I'd definitely argue that that's more due to future effects (possible scientific breakthroughs say, something that managed to explode the world or send it to another dimension or a billion other ways my tiny brain is too stupid to comprehend) rather than anything we've done to this point. I suppose what I was driving at was that previous mass extinction events were caused by things many orders of magnitude above "humanity", and that really what we're doing is breaking it for ourselves and not necessarily for the world as a whole... because it's so much bigger than us and our current meddling.

What has happened in the past seems to have been more sudden and explosive in nature leading to quick changes. What our slow changes may do nobody knows and that's the problem. While not as violent in nature, human induced changes may or may not have a longer term impact?

But you're right, there's no way of guaging the long term effect of humanity. Given the past record of the adaptability of life in the face of adversity though, there's every likelihood that we won't be able to extinguish it all completely. Even if we did, could it not start again in the same way it did in the beginning? Perhaps it couldn't. But life probably goes on regardless... and our world is just temporary anyway...

If we were somehow able to extinguish all life (all but impossible) the conditions may not be right to start life again. Experiments have shown proteins etc can form by themselves in what we believe to be the make up of the "primordial soup" as it were which is very different to current conditions. However last I heard the validity of those experiments had been called into question so who knows. Regardless, for humans to be able to wipe out life completely is beyond current reason.

There has been life found in places that we didn't think possible. In environments we didn't think possible. I'm sure you could tell me more about that than I'll ever know... Isn't that reason enough to think that it'll probably go on even if it doesn't for us?

Yes, life will continue in some form. But I don't like the idea that humans may be the cause of a mass extinction even if millions of years from now new species will benefit.

blahnana = teh stewpid

also,

Cat girl
http://b2.nakedinjapan.net/nanako_sato.jpg

Cat frog
http://b2.nakedinjapan.net/frog.jpg

Samurai schoolgirls
http://b2.nakedinjapan.net/samurai.jpg

Yes, life will continue in some form. But I don't like the idea that humans may be the cause of a mass extinction even if millions of years from now new species will benefit.

Whereas I think it's our own goddamn fault, and though we'll have damaged countless species that under different circumstances would not have been, I feel like it's not worse than some completely random events that have gone before.

Don't get me wrong though, I think ruining it for ourselves because of a lack of forethought is extremely stupid (and not just stupid, but morally reprehensible... with great power comes great responsibility) , and we should be trying harder not to, and to tread softly on this earth... but ... no matter what happens we're going to run out of space or usable resources eventually... if only because they're tied up in the sheer number of bodies... then what? I mean... if we're successful, we'll keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger just like nature designed us to and then what? We've adapted and then controlled our environment extremely well... but when we're too good at it and dominate everywhere and everything... then what? Move on? Run out of space? Have people go crazy because we can't handle it psychologically?

Ok, now I'm just ranting for no reason. I guess that point is... it's not just poisoning the environment that we're good at ... it's also using it up so that there's not enough for other species.

Survival of the fittest and all that

I feel like it's not worse than some completely random events that have gone before.

Worse - no
More preventable - yes
If someone shoots you in the chest and you survive, no sane person would then go and shoot themselves in the leg because it wasn't as bad as what has happened in the past and could happen again. It's pointless and unnecessary. That's kinda crap but I CBF thinking of a better analogy. Obviously you say similar things after that so were converging on the same point there.

The pity of it all is we keep going bigger and bigger as you say. If we were smart enough to see past our own little life and be responsible in the way our population grows and uses resources then we would be better off in the long term but humans simply aren't that advanced. (I'm talking about individuals making a conscious decision, not government mandated regulation.)

after reading bargain's post, I'm going to yoink the turbo off my diesel - the laws of thermodynamics dictate that it's useless

you'd burn petrol to split water molecules to compress petrol with pure hydrogen?

your wierd Jim :P

well I thought that my engine's exhaust gases were being forced from the engine regardless of whether or not my turbine harnessed their energy... but according to white wolf and bargain my turbo diesel won't work because I'm expecting free energy.

You tell them Jim

Back on topic...

I'll have two cat girls pls

(or maybe it isn't, haven't read the article and I could see several ways in which it might benefit the combustion of petrol without knowing the specifics of how said combustion happens)

then

Instead of waiting for people to prove you wrong, read the article! Think a little laterally!

little news flash, i have read the artical. adn it doesn't actually tell you how it works. most perpetual motion machines don't.

fact of the matter is, it will always take more energy to produce hydrogen/oxygen then you get from burning it. with or without added petrol.

turbo works by fitting more fuel into the cylinder, it doesn't actually make it any more efficent.

(im not saying that this system wouldn't make cars more powerfull, although i doubt that aswell. it might give a tiny boost. if anything)

fuel works because it has potential energy.

water itself doesn't have any extra potential energy.

so to give it potential energy, you apply work. that energy splits the molecule up into hydrogen and oxygen. the energy required to give it that potential energy is for example 1Watt, now, if we burn hydrogen and oxygen, we get water, that process we get 0.99 Watt's (through losses) and that converts the energy into pressure/tempreture.

now, doesn't matter how complicated you try and make it (ie, the dude that made it) you can't get past that simple fact.

the only way it would work is if chemistry decided to do the dirty on me and change what happens when you mix 2 oxygen + 4 hydrogen molecules together. in which case it might become a catalist and increase the efficiency of the fuel oxygen mix. but im fairly sure (i.e. certan) that it just turns back into water/watervapor.

blanana, you have been suckered. so have you jim.

the guys machine is more complicated than your run of the mill water powered vehicle, but it works of the same principle.

you will all see.. just like i was right about the tredmill / plane and corby.

but none of you will ever admit it!. ever :(

its cause im white, isn't it?

No its not free energy. The point of a turbo to compress air and petrol together so that less petrol vapour escapes in your exhaust. You dont get more energy by forcing the exhaust back in you just burn petrol that wouldnt have otherwise.

Besides that all this global warming crap is silly. We are gonna run out of oil and hence petrol before it becomes a problem. We can do something smarter with oil the just burn it.

most perpetual motion machines don't.

didn't some russian bloke claim to have invented an antigravity device some years ago... but wouldn't show it to anyone lest they rip him off.


Sounds like someone finding plates in america that detail to him and him alone and not always the same way that jesus went to america. o_0

technically turbos are a (almost) free supercharger, they use the heat thats normally just dumped out your exhaust to force air into the engine. super chargers are driven directly off the engine and cost power to run, but you get more back obviously. turbos don't directly cost you any power, but you have to make the engine work with them, so you do lose out a bit. however, a well set up turbo charged engine is actually more fuel efficient than na. (a lot of diesels for instance)

Jesus f***ign christ WW your brain sucks.

WhiteWolf said:

f***ING READ YOU GODDAMN f***... f***
GODDAMIT >.<

P.s. I've been sick and throwing up for around 37 hours, I justify my angst with that

last edited by Loki at 22:20:57 07/Jun/06

holy s*** im agreeing with loki. hi5!

Yeah exactly dude. You burn petrol you wouldnt have otherwise. More air = more petrol combusted and less left completely unburnt. Don't most cars blow something like 30% of their petrol out the exhaust as unburnt vapour? Rather obviously if you burn more petrol you get more power. I can't see how this violates conservation of energy.

It's a car, THAT RUNS ON WATER MAN!

I hate to break the news to u, but cars don't run.

er, a turbo charger works by compressing more air into the cylinder, therfore putting more fuel into the cylinder. making a bigger explosion = more power. but, it uses the previous explosions energy to force that air into the cylinder. so regardless your always running at a loss of efficiency. but more power on the next stroke cycle (something about turbo lag?).

I hate to break the news to u, but cars don't run.

This online dictionary disagrees with you:

8. To be in operation: The engine is running.

Clearly my late night attempts at the funnies failed :/.

i got it

Clearly I didn't at the time.

Yeah exactly dude. You burn petrol you wouldnt have otherwise. More air = more petrol combusted and less left completely unburnt. Don't most cars blow something like 30% of their petrol out the exhaust as unburnt vapour? Rather obviously if you burn more petrol you get more power. I can't see how this violates conservation of energy

Not sure what you are trying to say, but turbos are pretty much a turbine driven by exhaust gases. Theres no additional combustion there. The additional power comes purely from there being more air flow into the engine.

And an engine (of any type) under a load is normally tuned to use a rich fuel mix. Carbies i believe are tuned to ~11:1 ratios, and EFI to ~12:1. The extra fuel can't be burnt because there isn't the oxygen for it, but it lowers combustion temps and it inhibits detonation. Sometimes thats burnt using CATs and air pumps, but they have nothing to do with turbos.

er, a turbo charger works by compressing more air into the cylinder, therfore putting more fuel into the cylinder. making a bigger explosion = more power. but, it uses the previous explosions energy to force that air into the cylinder. so regardless your always running at a loss of efficiency. but more power on the next stroke cycle (something about turbo lag?).

Fuel and turbos are complicated, and its hard to tell, well not really, when you actually need more fuel in a turbocharger setup (compared to a n/a) because there are so many variables with it. eg, i could turbo my car right now and run about 7-8 psi before I would have to upgrade my injectors for more fuel.

Because the exhaust gasses have already left the engine your not loosing power as such.

there's been about 4 posts saying pretty much the same thing about turbos now.... so there's no disagreement. In a nutshell: turbos don't give you free energy, they just enable your engine to run more efficiently, i.e. achieve more physical work per unit of potential energy stored in petrol. So instead of 20 odd percent of the energy produced by the burning petrol being useful, it may be 25 or 30%.

Disagreeing is more fun.
The esscence of White wolf's posts are absolutely spot on. Those who disagree aren't just being s***house, they're flat out wrong. s*** and wrong.

It's very, VERY simple. The amount of useful energy resulting from any reaction (able to be converted to physical work), WILL BE and IS LESS than the amount of original potential energy that was within the reagents before the reaction.

If you disagree, in effect, you're not disagreeing with me or whitewolf, in so much as you're disagreeing with the multitudes of scientists and world leaders in this field. It's not even complex. It's the most low level thermo there is.

Blahnana is stewpid indeed.

there a 4 strokes of a piston, one of thoes strokes the spark plug fires, giving power. on the next stroke (or the up stroke) the piston pushes the exaust fumes out of the cylinder. now if you have resistance (e.g., turbo charger which uses exaust pressure to rotate a shaft that rotates the compressor) against that, it means that its using up more energy (or slowing the rotation) from the engine.

so even though exaust is on its way out of the engine, the piston still has to force it out of the engine in the first place.

turbos don't give you free energy, they just enable your engine to run more efficiently, i.e. achieve more physical work per unit of potential energy stored in petrol

i disagree with this though. a turbo charger increases the amount of air that can fit inside the cylinder by pressurising it. this makes your computer in your car say "wow, lots of air in there, i should shove more fuel in it" and away it goes. a turbo doesn't make anything more efficient in burning. it just _pushes_ more stuff into the cylinder. which inturn gives a bigger "bang"/push.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 00:15:12 08/Jun/06

The way I understand a turbo charger works is you force more air into the cylinder. This allows for a more complete combustion of the hydrocarbons in the petrol. However some breif internet research has yeilded that I am only half right (or wrong depending on your view). It does this and lets you get more petrol in because there is more air. (according to mazda's website and howstuffworks.com).

Anyway the moral of the story is that a turbo charger doesn't violate the law of energy conservation because like I said if you burn more petrol you get more power.

This water car on the other hand proposes to break the chemical bonds in water using the exhaust of the car to power an atomic centrifuge. This I find to be pure bulls*** and hence WhiteWolf's speech about the first law.

just for Blahnana,
here is a simpler picture of your water powered engine.

http://www.todayinsci.com/Books/MechApp/chap23/941-WaterWheel.jpg


last edited by PornoPete at 00:11:22 08/Jun/06

er, a turbo charger works by compressing more air into the cylinder, therfore putting more fuel into the cylinder. making a bigger explosion = more power. but, it uses the previous explosions energy to force that air into the cylinder.

which as I and others alluded to earlier, happens regardless of whether you harness that previous cycle's exhaust energy or not. this is simply using some of the energy expended which would otherwise go unused as it gets pushed out the exhaust pipe.

much in the same way this original article describes, except in this case, hydrogen is the extra fuel that's added. the hydrogen is derived from a _finite_ amount of water (you have to refill the water tank, you seem to think that the hydrogen is turned back to water and then reused) by an electric mechanism which is driven by those otherwise unused exhaust gases. your conservation of energy quote has absolutely no use as an argument against these systems - there is energy being wasted left right and centre with the internal combustion engine and this is simply wasting less of that already-released energy. taggs already explained this to you way back on page one. there's nothing perpetual motion-like about this at all - all it does is possibly solve some of the issues associated with producing, supplying and storing hydrogen as a fuel for the mass motor vehicle market by creating it on the fly.

so regardless your always running at a loss of efficiency. but more power on the next stroke cycle (something about turbo lag?).

turbo lag is just the term used to describe any delay between when you open the throttle and when the exhaust gasses are flowing fast enough for the turbo to have a noticeable effect. and no, you're not always running at a loss of efficiency - where do you get that from? if anything, the turbo helps you make more efficient use of the energy released by the explosion of the fuel/air.

I didnt really read the thread once it degenerated into an argument over comprehension...

I thought I'd just add it was very weird to see that electric car going flat out doing lil burnouts at the end of that video with virtually no engine noise :P

its waisting more energy per ml of petrol burnt, which, when your power comes from burning petrol.. is a loss my good boy.

back to your rant,

yes, you have to refill the water, but there isn't any point. because when you burn hydrogen and oxygen together... IT FORMS WATER! (or water vapour to be precise).

so, water + energy = oxygen + hydrogen. then after placing in a cylinder. oxygen + hydrogen = water + energyX2(some how?)
now, we use the excess energy to to run the car, with the extra fuel. and then we use the first energy to split the water.

see anything wrong with this?

Edit: if its too easy to understand, i'll give you another example

you have a car, with an engine running on fuel able to give 4HP.

mixing burning Hydrogen/Oxygen gives a boost of 1HP.

so, thats 5HP right? lets say, 2HP is used to keep the car going forward, 1HP is lossed from frictions etc. 1HP is used keeping the battery topped up, rotating any turbo boosters. etc. and 1HP is used to convert Water into Hydrogen/Oxygen.

please. ask questions. or poke a hole or whatever. ill prove you wrong in the end though.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 00:59:56 08/Jun/06

lol whitewolf
god hates your brain

plus that centrifuge thing 'creating hydrogen on the fly' is a crock of horses***. The amount of energy required to spin something that fast - fast enough to break the molecular bond between hydrogen and oxygen - would be unbelievably huge. To suggest that the exhaust could supply sufficient energy to do this is just lunacy. There's just no way.

If they did actually manage to somehow split water molecules in a centrifuge powered by something as petty as a car exhaust, and on such a small scale, we wouldn't just be seeing a random website article from September 2005 stating that we might see it in 10 years.. That sort of thing would be so revolutionary, and worth SO much money.

Quick, lets defend the integrity of thisismoney.co.uk

no, it's not a loss - it's a gain. you're wasting less of the already available energy that would otherwise flow practically unused down the exhaust pipe. this really is a simple concept.

yes, you have to refill the water, but there isn't any point. because when you burn hydrogen and oxygen together... IT FORMS WATER! (or water vapour to be precise).

water vapour and other waste gases, to be more accurate. it's good to see you finally reached the point where you can realise this isn't a closed system claiming to perpetuate. and this is why there IS a point to refilling the water.

so, water + energy = oxygen + hydrogen. then after placing in a cylinder. oxygen + hydrogen = water + energyX2(some how?)
now, we use the excess energy to to run the car, with the extra fuel. and then we use the first energy to split the water.

see anything wrong with this?

yes - that's not what is claimed to be taking place here. ie: you don't get it.


to roughly correct your equation:

water + energy = oxygen + hydrogen. then after adding it to another fuel (note the 'normal petrol engine' inclusion in the diagram) and possibly adding more oxygen to boot we have converted energy(not X2, where on earth are you getting that from?) + various wastes which are expelled. as they are expelled, some of the wasted energy in their expulsion is harnessed to help produce hydrogen from the water that is slowly being used in the water tank.


this is just a hydrogen/petrol hybrid which niftily produces it's own supply of hydrogen instead of being hindered by the problems associated with supplying hydrogen to the mass vehicle market via service stations.

haha bargain - well at least now you're down to actually arguing something that is possibly in question here - whether the generator doohickey, powered only by the exhaust gases, can produce enough hydrogen from the supply of water to provide enough power gain to make the system worthwhile.

turbos can be more efficient than NA, because you get more fuel burnt per rotation of the engine, ie, effectively less spinning mass. this doesn't happen when the point of the turbo is purely for more power, though thats usually due to tune.

you're wasting less of the already available energy that would otherwise flow practically unused down the exhaust pipe. this really is a simple concept.

it "flows" because there isn't anything stopping it moving, when you put something there. it can't just "flow" can it? its got to push out. and it needs energy to push it out. doesn't it?

besides the point.

energy X 2 was mocking you. no extra energy is created.

water + energy = oxygen + hydrogen. then after adding it to another fuel (note the 'normal petrol engine' inclusion in the diagram) and possibly adding more oxygen to boot we have converted energy(not X2, where on earth are you getting that from?) + various wastes which are expelled. as they are expelled, some of the wasted energy in their expulsion is harnessed to help produce hydrogen from the water that is slowly being used in the water tank.

the point isn't that it wouldn't generate hydrogen. or that teh car wouldn't go. it would. but there isn't any point, because it would be less efficient.

water + 1HP worth of breaking up water = oxygen + hydrogen. fuel gives 4HP. = 5hp output at the crankshaft(i think thats what its called) 1HP is used to break up the water(because if you used up more than 1hp, you wouldn't be going as fast and need more fuel to the same speed, which REDUCES EFFICIENCY! (i.e., uses more ml of fuel to get the same distance). leaving 4HP left to power the car. 1HP used up in frictions, and the left over(i.e., 3hp) moves the car forward.

and thats using perpetual motion.

because you get more fuel burnt per rotation of the engine, ie, effectively less spinning mass.

explain what you mean by "spinning mass"

last edited by WhiteWolf at 01:24:00 08/Jun/06

oh yea - I was never disputing/arguing whether or not this thing definetely could or could not work as claimed - that point is of very little interest to me. (Incidentally, I do highly doubt it could work. It would be cool, but yea, I can't see it happening.)


My arguments are not really even realted to the car. I've simply been taking objection to people's disagreeing with the parts of Whitewolf's post that ARE correct - thermodynamic laws in particular. I'm not saying I agree with everything he's posting, just that the thermodynamic laws he pointed out ARE correct, and disputing them is just a total misunderstading of fundamental physical laws.

it "flows" because there isn't anything stopping it moving, when you put something there. it can't just "flow" can it? its got to push out. and it needs energy to push it out. doesn't it?

the resistance offered by the vanes of a turbo for example, isn't anywhere near enough to negate the extra power produced by the resultant forcing of more air into the combustion chamber. do you have a reason for thinking that in this design, it will? I suspect you don't - I suspect you simply don't understand that driving something off the exhaust doesn't necessarily mean that the engine now needs to be working so much harder that it's not worthwhile.

Also, do you know exhausts for regular production cars are generally designed with some back pressure anyway? If you remove the exhaust system from most production cars so the exhaust can just freely flow out unhindered, you're likely to lose around 5-10% right there.

water + 1HP worth of breaking up water = oxygen + hydrogen. fuel gives 4HP. = 5hp output at the crankshaft(i think thats what its called) 1HP is used to break up the water(because if you used up more than 1hp, you wouldn't be going as fast and need more fuel to the same speed, which REDUCES EFFICIENCY! (i.e., uses more ml of fuel to get the same distance). leaving 4HP left to power the car. 1HP used up in frictions, and the left over(i.e., 3hp) moves the car forward.

none of this junk is of any use because it's not actual values - it's just amounts you've made up and seem to think are constant to the application.

I have to wonder, if this thread was in 1905 and the article was about a swiss scientist who'd invented the turbo charger, would we be here having this same discussion. A turbine driven from a mere car exhaust flow couldn't possibly produce enough force to compress air into the cylinder of an internal combustion engine. It would waste 1HP because it'd impede the expulsion of the exhaust gases leaving you with only 3HP. etc.

My arguments are not really even realted to the car. I've simply been taking objection to people's disagreeing with the parts of Whitewolf's post that ARE correct - thermodynamic laws in particular. I'm not saying I agree with everything he's posting, just that the thermodynamic laws he pointed out ARE correct, and disputing them is just a total misunderstading of fundamental physical laws.

Who here, has been disagreeing with physical laws at all?

dude!^%@

Keep up the good work Whitewolf. These sorts of scams are designed specifically with people like Jim in mind who just know enough jargon like "closed systems" and "conservation of energy" to hang themselves on the rope of their inadequate understanding.

I read the article and it's a load of s***. From the article:
From the article:

Experts see this as the 'holy grail' that could ease the world's energy crisis. If successful, production vehicles will use water as the main fuel and need only a small amount of petrol, dramatically cutting fuel costs for motorists.

Oh yes, using water as the main fuel... that sounds very much like the apologist pseudo-science Jim is trying to invoke as a defense against the obvious reality.

Let me try another way WW. Jim's defense (which as I've pointed out is not really what the article is claiming anyway) is that our modern ICE has some spare energy that is normally wasted. (Jim proposes) These dudes propose we catch this enery easily enough, convert it into rotational mechanical energy to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen (groan) so we can get some H gas to improve the burn characteristics of our petrol (we don't ask why it's called an Electro Hydrogen Generator when it's spinning the water to break the bonds???hmm). I wonder if there is anything better we could do with all that abundant waste energy our modern highly efficient ICE engines are throwing out with so much reckless abandon. Hmm.. maybe we spin the crankshaft instead of our magic "Electro Hydrogen Generator"??? How about we take some of the load of the alternator and charge our batteries instead of whirling our magic "Electro Hydrogen Generator" around... omg the options are endless!!

The whole thing's baloney and if you fall for it you know a lot less than you think you know, sorry.

PS, Hi Jim!

last edited by plok at 02:07:47 08/Jun/06

Were we ever arguing about something else?

water + energy = oxygen + hydrogen. then after adding it to another fuel (note the 'normal petrol engine' inclusion in the diagram) and possibly adding more oxygen to boot we have converted energy(not X2, where on earth are you getting that from?) + various wastes which are expelled. as they are expelled, some of the wasted energy in their expulsion is harnessed to help produce hydrogen from the water that is slowly being used in the water tank.

taking your snap shot this is in essence a hydrogen making turbo. the energy in the exhaust is used to create hydrogen which you then burn to get energy back. This simply has to be, as a result of the law of energy conservation, less then the energy that went in. You don't recouperate any energy you lose it.

A Turbo charger works because it allows you to burn more petrol. This engine on the other hand wants to create and burn hydrogen while also burning petrol. this system (from the exhaust to the hyrdogen buring) must produce less energy then it starts with. the only way for the cycle to close is to give it more energy and where can this come from other then petrol? Given that the purpose of this is to reduce petrol usage what is the point?

jim, your looking past what im saying and seeing what you want.

the resistance offered by the vanes of a turbo for example, isn't anywhere near enough to negate the extra power produced by the resultant forcing of more air into the combustion chamber. do you have a reason for thinking that in this design, it will? I suspect you don't - I suspect you simply don't understand that driving something off the exhaust doesn't necessarily mean that the engine now needs to be working so much harder that it's not worthwhile.

i didn't say it was enought to negate the extra power given by it. i didn't say that it wasn't "not" worthwhile.

but compairing a turbo to this new superfuel engine, is like saying. damnit, its so increadibly unrelated that i can't even make a machien that does the same thing..

ill try though, its like having air come through at 2psi, the turbocharger then compresses it to 10psi, but adds not extra fuel. then expecting some sort of gain? bah, not even that was really relevent.

but anyway, turbo chargers aren't worthwhile if your going for optimal amount of revs / horses per ml of fuel.

ill try again, to get the engine to spin at 3000rpm, a normal car just needs to use 0.3 ml of fuel per spark to overcome frictions.
to get a turbo charged engine to spin at 3000rpm, the car is actually using a fraction more fuel(i.e., 0.30003ml per spark) to make the compressor run. BUT, the throttle only needs to be half as opened (allowing half as much air, because the air gets sucked through the compressort, instead of just flowing through) giving twice as much power available to the driver if they chose to use it.

you get less KM/L of fuel, but more power.

It would waste 1HP because it'd impede the expulsion of the exhaust gases leaving you with only 3HP. etc

this is true, however it would then give that extra 1HP to the next cycle, giving your car an outputed power of 5HP instead of 4HP. which leaves 4hp for movement and 1hp for turbocharger, next cycle has 6hp all up, 5 for movement and 1 for turbocharger. but because of loses, its something like 3 for movement, 0.9 for charger, 0.1 from losses. :. 3.9 for movement, 0.9 for chager, 0.1 from losses. 4.8 for movement etc. (if no losses then a turbo would be able to give unlimited horsepower. but then again, so would a car engine) Turbo lag is because you have to wait for the next cycle before the previous cycle's kept energy is added.

thats enough of turbos, you simply just don't understand my point of view and are substituting it with a different view, which you disagree with.

you can't compair the two. the "super fuel" system is saying you get enough boost in power from the hydrogen to supply the demand of creating the hydrogen. plus a little extra so that you don't need to use up as much fuel. which is impossible.




last edited by WhiteWolf at 02:12:59 08/Jun/06

last edited by WhiteWolf at 02:18:19 08/Jun/06

haha
a sad troll even by your standards plok

haha
a sad troll even by your standards plok

See whitewolf, don't try and talk thermodynamics to them, accept their flawed premise and show why it doesn't make any sense at all. Then you'll be rewarded with the above usual capitulation. Normally Jim struggles a bit more than this before the inevitable... must be out of practice?

lol

but anyway, turbo chargers aren't worthwhile if your going for optimal amount of revs / horses per ml of fuel.

wtf? I have never heard someone say something like that in my life about cars. When people want a turbo they dont get try to workout how much HP/ml of fuel they make. 99% of the time it would be hp/kg2 or psi.

WW I think you need to read about turbos more. For the amount of power lost through the turbocharger exhaust housing and blades compared to the amount made from the compressor housing side of the turbocharger you cant call it a loss of power or fuel economy.

to get the engine to spin at 3000rpm, a normal car just needs to use 0.3 ml of fuel per spark to overcome frictions.
to get a turbo charged engine to spin at 3000rpm, the car is actually using a fraction more fuel(i.e., 0.30003ml per spark) to make the compressor run.

I disagree. Both engines (if they are the same engine) will use the same amont of fuel to get up to 3000rpm. Infact the turbo motor would probably use less fuel than the NA getting to 3000rpm because the turbo will already be making a very small amount of +ve pressure just from spinning around.

But there are so many variables with this equasion, like the size of the turbo, the kind of engine and its configuration etc..

I have never heard of someone loosing power though exhaust turbine blades..

+ve pressure just from spinning

but how does it make the pressure? by using energy, which uses up more fuel! and unless its a perfect system (which its not, it has losses) it would use up more fuel.

you're telling me that turbos work from free energy?

im sure its not a noticable diference. hence its never mentioned.

but running your car with high beems on doesn't make a noticable difference with fuel consumption, but it still makes a difference.

For the amount of power lost through the turbocharger exhaust housing and blades compared to the amount made from the compressor housing side of the turbocharger you cant call it a loss of power or fuel economy.

how does the turbo charger "make" power. it converts it into a diferent sort of energy. it can't "make up" the energy lost. unless its something else thats making up the energy (i.e., more fuel?) more fuel = fuel economy.

its not that hard, and nobody is saying turbos are free energy

internal combustion engines are heat engines, but not very efficient ones, turbines (ie the rear section of a turbo) are also heat engines. except rather than power the engine directly they spin a compressor wheel which is attached to the same shaft as the turbine.

also by spinning mass i'm refering to the weight of all the engine parts that have to spin for an engine to work, there are significant loses generated just by spinning the weight, there are also heat loses due to friction (which is lost via your radiator). diesels this makes a huge difference.

i hear this car runs on water!!@#! :D

that's some nice arguing lads :D

I hear the entire snowy mountain scheme workforce is capitulating as we speak

turbines (ie the rear section of a turbo) are also heat engines.

in no way shape or form is a turbine a heat engine. TurboChargers work buy harnesing power from the engine to increase the load on the next cycle.

they can't power themselves, they need power from the engine, and if they are using power from the engine, then they are using extra fuel.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 11:26:42 08/Jun/06

Ok, I'm going to have to pull you up on this one too.

What if you use waste energy? Consider the possibility that nobody's saying you can get free energy, but what if you use energy that's not otherwise being used?

Say I have a light bulb on my desk. I want to study using that light.

The primary design of a light bulb is to illuminate things. But what if I have some frozen bread that I want to thaw for later. One of the side effects of the traditional light bulb is that it creates a lot of heat that is wasted normally because we don't actually want to use that heat. What if I put my frozen bread near that light bulb? It thaws out a lot faster than if I leave it across the room, right? I've managed to use energy that would otherwise have been wasted.

Now think... do you really believe that the light bulb uses more electricity when I hold my frozen bread up near it? It doesn't, right? All I'm doing is using energy that would otherwise have not been utilised (and would have been lost into the air in my room) to thaw my bread. The light bulb isn't any dimmer, and it doesn't use any more electricity.

There's hundreds of ways that we use waste energy everyday, where we have imperfect conversion of energy from one form to another.

Now lets go to the car. Your typical car engine is an imperfect conversion of chemical potential energy to kinetic and other potential energy (say, the revolutions of the flywheel). Along the way there is a lot of heat put out by the combustion process (so much that we need methods of cooling the engine down) that isn't used to move the car along... that's reserved by the expansion of gases during combustion that then drive the pistons around. The heat from the car engine can be used to heat the air that comes into the main car body through the vents if you like. These days it's air-conditioners which work differently, but in the old days when I turned my heater on all it did was allow the heat from the engine to warm the air coming into my cabin. It didn't put any extra load on the engine, didn't require any extra fuel because the heat was already there. Are you starting to get the picture now? Waste energy isn't free energy... it's still accounted for... but it can be put to use to do other things that are useful.


As for your understanding of Conservation of Energy ... it seems I can't help you there. I can say that it's unfortunate that you're smart enough to copy and paste it but somewhere along the way no-one's taught you how to apply it.

I will give you this, though. Conservation of energy is more about the fact that energy released to get from a start point to an end point is the same as the energy that will have to go back in to get back to the start point from the end point. You need to consider more what it means to be a "closed system"... you're failing to include everything. If you really are still trying to solve this... try listing out what you believe to be the parts of the closed system. I'll point out where you're forgetting things.

you over simplify the fact that engine exaust leaves the engine.

it only leaves the engine, because the engine pushes it out. if you add resistance to that, it has to push harder.


and back on the conservation of energy

the devise splits water to make hydrogen & oxygen, then burns them together to form water. that seems like a closed loop to me. regardless of if there is fuel in the mix when its burnt, its still going to turn into water.

Posting in this epic thread!

I rekon we go back to using horses.

Turbos can do both.

At certain revs and fuel map stages it will actually make the air/fuel mixture more effecient.

But at the same time, you can put your foot down and it will burn more fuel because it will force more in at higher revs, thus using more fuel for more power because it is tuned to do this after say 3000rpm with the ECU.

An economically tuned turbo car driven without thrashing it, will actually burn fuel more effeciently and give more mileage.

last edited by Jessie Slem at 14:21:05 08/Jun/06

blahnana: you've got nothing.

Jim - the snowy mountain workforce just realised that the sun spends the energy to lift water to the top of the montain. So it's all ok there now. work as per usual.

i get free energy all the time... like now! sitting here, typing this on a fully powered computer... i ain't paying for it! :D

you know 500ml of Tolulyne (yes, paint thinners) to about 40L is a well known High Octane Booster. VAROOOM.

Oh, sorry back OT.

it only leaves the engine, because the engine pushes it out. if you add resistance to that, it has to push harder

Are you just retarded? or do you jsut not understand internal combustion engines?
You know what, you should look up what 'scavenging effect' means on an engine.
The exhaust resistance through a negative pressure (actually a wave that comes back up the exhaust but anyway) creates a vacuum at the point the exhaust valve is just closing and the inlet valve is just opening (the overlap - all engines have this, the 'bigger' the cam - the much greater the overlap, hence why big cammed engines sound like they're idling like s*** and about to stall, it's well.. because they are) creates a vacuum which helps draw in more air/fuel for the next stroke and remove exhaust.
The pressure having to push exhaust down the pipes/out the cylinder with a proper tuned length exhaust system (i.e. not a 500" exhaust on a sik stock excel bra) is negligble, adding a turbo doesn't effect that much.
It's like sticking a turbine underneath a waterfall and saying because the turbine is there, the water being pushed over the edge at the top has to be pushed harder.

will give you this, though. Conservation of energy is more about the fact that energy released to get from a start point to an end point is the same as the energy that will have to go back in to get back to the start point from the end point. You need to consider more what it means to be a "closed system"... you're failing to include everything. If you really are still trying to solve this... try listing out what you believe to be the parts of the closed system. I'll point out where you're forgetting things.

Ill indulge you though and point out the sections.

you have the normal ICE.

you have the gizmo that turns your exhaust into hydrogen.

This car proposes to capture the wasted energy in the exhaust in the form of hydrogen and then burn it running the car.

Now the laws of thermo step in here and say a few things.

First of all that the energy was captured can according to conservation be no more then the energy that was wasted in the exhaust.

this car proposes however to run mostly on hydrogen so what they are saying is this.

we take the initial cycle of petrol and capture the exhaust as hydrogen.

we then take that hydrogen and burn it to run the ICE for the next cycle.

we then capture the exhaust of that cycle and store it as hydrogen.

and so on.

typically and engine spurts about 35% of the energy stored in petrol out as exhaust.

the law of energy conservation determines that you will only be able to use 35% of that original 35% in the next cycle to create more hydrogen.

so you need to fill the gap with more petrol. the energy yielded from the hydrogen is going to constantly grow smaller unless it is supplemented with additional petrol. in a perfect world you would be able to capture that original 35% and store it meaning that you would only have to use 65% petrol the next time around. However if you could convert energy to hydrogen via an exhaust powered centrifuge you might be lucky to get maybe 50% of the energy in the exhaust? take the energy to spin the thing and take it from the energy in the exhaust and you get what is left to burn. My guess would be f*** all.

Now the claim is that this car runs on hydrogen. It clearly doesn’t it runs on petrol


I might also add that the parent company of OM Energy is OMX a major energy futures investor, and also no other research group is working on anything like it. Toyota and most major american groups are working on sodium borohydride.

I still think horses are an option.

^^^ so is your mum

ISWYDT

in no way shape or form is a turbine a heat engine. TurboChargers work buy harnesing power from the engine to increase the load on the next cycle.

they can't power themselves, they need power from the engine, and if they are using power from the engine, then they are using extra fuel.

you really are a dumb c***. tell me what the difference is between a steam turbine and a turbine in a turbo charger.

adding a turbo doesn't effect that much.

i didn't say it affected it that much, but it still affected it.

a steam turbine uses the motion of hot steam to power an electric generator. a turbine in a torbo charger uses the motion of hot exaust to move more air.

would a steam turbine use the electricity generated to heat up the water? no, because you would loose energy at every part of the cycle, that includes being caught by the steam turbine! FFS.

That loss has to come from somewhere, in a car, its from the engine

a 4 stroke engine has 2 up strokes and 2 down strokes per "fire"

stroke 1 is down, and it "sucks" or draws fuel/oxygen mix into the cylinder, it uses mechanical power.
stroke 2 is up, it compresses the fuel oxygen mix in the cylinder, it uses mechanical power.
stroke 3 is down, its caused because the spark plug fired and the fuel air mix ignites into exaust fumes, it Generates machanical power.
stroke 4 is up, it pushes the exaust out of the cylinder, it uses up mechanical power.

in stages 1, 2 and 4. any resistance will make the engine decelerate (or loses revs). cause there is naturally resistances, then the amount of fuel required to make up for that loss increases (to maintain said revs).

think of it like this.

Why do they have aftermarket mufflers that increase your car power? and how do they increase your cars output power? because they have less resistance.

you've got no idea what you are talking about whitewolf

Except for the part about thermodynamics preventing this car from operating on water.

Mufflers on their own don't do diddly but change the note.

Here it is again for you since you didnt read it the first time.
SCAVENGING
SCAVENGING
SCAVENGING
SCAVENGING
SCAVENGING
SCAVENGING
SCAVENGING
SCAVENGING
c***

Performance exhausts and headers, are actually tuned for the scavenging effect and that's where the increase in performance typically comes from.

By decreasing resistance too much you actually impede efficiency.
The ideal exhaust is a balance between speed of exhaust flow and scavenging effect - By having a large exhaust the air-speed of the exhaust is slower and so on you get the idea (well actually you probably don't).

Hence why a 3" exhaust is too big for an excel or nF's or Maxe's or Pave's.
s***, it's even too big for mine, and it's why an xpipe or balancer is required in a dual-system.

The point? Resistences aren't always a negative variable in internal combustion engines, turbo's can factor in this pressure into the size and design of their exhaust systems, now make like a leaf and....

Give up already, farkin hell.

last edited by Loki at 21:09:50 08/Jun/06

dude there is no need to call people names.

wether a turbo increases or decreases efficiency is unimportant.

what nobody here could claim is that you could have one cycle of petrol and then use the wasted energy on the exhaust to power the car. That is impossible. yet it is exactly what this water car proposes to do.

the only reason anyone is talking about turbos is because Jim drew a bad analogy because this magic water spliter is driven by exhaust pressure.

WW you should stop posting about engines and read more, I mean this in a non offensive way.

loki scavenging dosent really apply to turboed motors because the air is being forced out at such a crazy rate.

sorry to tell you this loki, but your piece of s*** flows less exhaust than my car. turbo cars don't need to worry about scavenging, and the mechanisms optimising exhaust flow are totally different. large duration cams are good on na, but are very bad on turbos.

read, comprehend. then argue.

During the exhaust stroke, a good way for an engine to lose power is through back pressure. The exhaust valve opens at the beginning of the exhaust stroke, and then the piston pushes the exhaust gases out of the cylinder. If there is any amount of resistance that the piston has to push against to force the exhaust gases out, power is wasted. Using two exhaust valves rather than one improves the flow by making the hole that the exhaust gases travel through larger.

i like the part where it says. "If there is any amount of resistance that the piston has to push against to force the exhaust gases out, power is wasted."

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/7158/gasprices5uk.jpg

$1.30+ in Brisbane before a long weekend.

i like the part where it says. "If there is any amount of resistance that the piston has to push against to force the exhaust gases out, power is wasted."

i like the bit where you quoted howstuffworks.com, and thought it'd be accurate.

i understand how you think that a turbo would help with efficiency. sometimes, it might be just as usefull as a properly tuned exaust system (depending on weather your accelerating etc.) however, your better off getting a properly tuned exaust system, because that will give you better fuel efficiency.

it is time for you to sit down and shut up btw.

KTHXBYE

Since a turbocharger increases the specific horsepower output of an engine, the engine will also produce increased amounts of waste heat. This can sometimes be a problem when fitting a turbocharger to a car that was not designed to cope with high heat loads. This extra waste heat combined with the lower compression ratio (more specifically, expansion ratio) of turbocharged engines contributes to slightly lower thermal efficiency, which has a small but direct impact on overall fuel efficiency.

that in itself states that a turbo charger has an overall reduction on fuel efficiency. which proves whoever says "a properly tuned turbo increases fuel efficiency"

and then

Lastly, the efficiency of the turbocharger itself can have an impact on fuel efficiency. Using a small turbocharger will give good response and low lag at low to mid RPMs, but can choke the engine on the exhaust side and generate huge amounts of pumping-related heat on the intake side as RPMs rise. A large turbocharger will be very efficient at high RPMs, but is not a realistic application for a street driven automobile. Variable vane and ball bearing technologies can make a turbo more efficient across a wider operating range, but tend to be too expensive to incorporate into mass produced vehicles.

specifically "but can choke the engine on the exhaust side" meaning that the over all loss of efficency is too much for the gain on power. which means that there is a loss of efficiency, which means it requires more fuel THEREFORE less fuel efficient.

sorry to tell you this loki, but your piece of s*** flows less exhaust than my car. turbo cars don't need to worry about scavenging, and the mechanisms optimising exhaust flow are totally different. large duration cams are good on na, but are very bad on turbos.

ROFLMFAO.
Nowhere was I paying out on any of your cars.
(infact, much kudos to Pave's StocketRocket, and Maxe's, which he and I were 1 each at the end of the night; all in good fun).
Infact, kudos to them all bars yours.

So, whatever you say ya fag -->

last edited by Loki at 23:55:09 08/Jun/06

i never took it as a pay out. i was just pointing out the facts, that your v8 flows less exhaust than a turbo 6 and that scavenging is pretty much irrelevant when you've got a turbo.

but hey, thanks for mentioning your v8, the thread needed it.

also, whitewolf you need to look harder

read this if you insist on using wikipedia to prove your point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_diesel

I think you guys are missing the point ... its running out! Finite resource and all that, apples and oranges, supply and demand, basic mathematics, simple economics.

So squabbling over turbo's, cylinders and exhausts is rather pointless.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9937/smartpetrolthumb0rm.jpg

I feel sorry for you Whitewolf.

You have 0 idea.

What's worse is, he looks like a girl.

i never took it as a pay out. i was just pointing out the facts, that your v8 flows less exhaust than a turbo 6 and that scavenging is pretty much irrelevant when you've got a turbo.

but hey, thanks for mentioning your v8, the thread needed it.

Thanks for mentioning my engine in ways I never brought it up in this thread nF, it sure did need it.
If I had an emote to represent you jerking off over own ego, I'd post it, but I don't.

last edited by Loki at 00:32:53 09/Jun/06

alright, i give up, you guys can be as stubourn as you want. i no longer give two s***s. also, who the f*** said anything about a diesel? why the f*** am i arguing with the 2 biggest rice fagots on qgl.

booyah. been jerking over my picture again have we? its ok if it makes it easier by saying i look like a girl.

R O F F L E! x 900


guys there are just to many variables that have to be considered when trying to compare fuel consumption between a turbo and non turbo car.

If I had an emote to represent you jerking off over own ego, I'd post it, but I don't.

Maybe you could express it with a poem?

Thanks for mentioning my engine in ways I never brought it up in this thread nF, it sure did need it.
If I had an emote to represent you jerking off over own ego, I'd post it, but I don't.

just post a picture of yourself.

bump

Someone does not like to be proven wrong, so now they get the right to name call.

Good one toe rag.

9-11 was a controlled demolition.

9-11 was a controlled demolition.

There's no way to waste less of the energy from the combustion of fuel and air in a cylinder - the resulting exhaust simply has to freely flow out of the vehicle's exhaust pipe.

er, try again jim? i really don't understand what you said there?

Someone does not like to be proven wrong, so now they get the right to name call.

Good one toe rag.

i fail to see how you proved me wrong, so go f*** yourself mate? :)

you sure don't understand

its funny that anyone even listens to the opinion of a guy who reckons Jesus is real

Jesus is real.
Demon proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Also, the demolition of the towers would have provided enough 'saved' energy to put them back. f*** Americans are dumb. The towers should of had turbos.

speaking of wasting even less available energy, I picked up a new 4x4 monthly today and it had another article on the electric turbos caterpillar are working on to supplement a regular turbo at lower rev ranges:

A research consortium has been set up to develop an ELectric Exhaust Gas Turbocharger (ELEGT). The first-gen design was watercooled and achieved between one and five percent better fuel economy. Version two has enhanced cooling, giving higher maximum operating temperatures and power generation. Caterpillar, Holset, Garrett and others are working on electric motor/generator designs that combine ultra-high-speed electric turbo drive, at times when the (regular) turbo lacks exhaust gas power, with a means of harvesting excess power from the turbo and converting it into electrical energy. This energy can be fed back into the vehicle's 'grid', or used to power an electric motor attached to the crankshaft. (hope you patented that idea plok, cos I got a patent on patenting that idea and I'm looking to cash in)

It enabled compressor output and air-fuel ratio to be boosted under conditions of low or transient speed and low or transient load.

An ELEGT operates during engine-starting sequences, to meet increasing intake-air demands of low-emission engines. The electric motor eliminates the need for a seperate wastegate and can provide a source of high voltage for hybrid electric vehicles, or as a 42-volt power source.

interesting break-out box:

Air, not oil, lubricated bearings
In concert with the ELEGT project turbo makers are working on air bearings. Before water-cooled turbos arrived, burnt oil deposits on turbo shafts were a problem. Latest concerns are with the migration of small amounts of oil from the spindle bearings into the intake charge. As small as this oil quantity is, it's a problem for-emission vehicles. Oil migration is a threat to ELEGT development - oil isn't welcome in an ultra-high-speed electric motor.

Air bearings may have solved this problem. Air is forced into a reservoir surrounding the bearing and passes through precisely metered holes into a narrow gap between bearing and bore shaft. This air layer seperates and cools the two surfaces. With an air bearing, frictional drag is lessened, bearing life increased and higher shaft speeds are possible.

its funny that anyone even listens to the opinion of a guy who reckons Jesus is real

toof***ingright. :)

but how does it make the pressure? by using energy, which uses up more fuel! and unless its a perfect system (which its not, it has losses) it would use up more fuel.

Unless you're just running this engine for s***s and giggle and to piss money into the wind, we can assume the engine is doing some form of work, which will be a weight.

Power: Weight means that even if the turbo causes more fuel to be consumed per stroke than the same engine without it at the same revolutions per second, because each stroke produces more power; less revolutions are required and less fuel drawn into the cylinder through fuel delivery system.

Hence why some turbo cars are more efficient than without.
And hence why in the old days, some v8's were more efficient than their smaller engined counterparts.

(nF disclaimer before he has a typical tangable wobblyf***face: No it has nothing to do with mine)

its funny that anyone even listens to the opinion of a guy who reckons Jesus is real

It's hard to take seriously the opinion of a guy who uses the word "reckons"

but he is maxe, so that cancels your argument out

Power: Weight means that even if the turbo causes more fuel to be consumed per stroke than the same engine without it at the same revolutions per second, because each stroke produces more power; less revolutions are required and less fuel drawn into the cylinder through fuel delivery system.

thanks for proving that you don't know anything about physics.

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/8554/trainwreck0yl.jpg

hey that's an ironic statement coming from you whitewolf

here boys and girls is a classic example of why people dont post on this forum anymore.

thanks for the example cainer

you must use a special browser if you think people don't post on this forum anymore though

heh, you haven't noticed jim ? you and a handful of others constant deriding nitpicking of others turns threads in to trainwrecks.jpg

suuuuuuuuuure it does
hey nice sig

that pics saved under trainwreck0yl.jpg ya nub =p

i wouldn't take that jim

get 'im

hey don't be mean

hmm.......

it seems that....

well.....


erm.....





yo mamma?

alright, me and jim where having an argument. nothing out of the ordinary, it makes life/forums interesting. why do you think everyone remembers the tredmill thread?

however, when randoms just come in, are against your oppinion, and flame you for it, then it makes the thread crap.


jim isn't the problem

what was the treadmill thread about?

what was the treadmill thread about?

how badly ur mum needs one lol

booyah. been jerking over my picture again have we? its ok if it makes it easier by saying i look like a girl.

s*** and i thought that was your sister.

how badly ur mum needs one lol

Not much makes me actually LOL - but this did! :) Nice work

Air, not oil, lubricated bearings
In concert with the ELEGT project turbo makers are working on air bearings. Before water-cooled turbos arrived, burnt oil deposits on turbo shafts were a problem. Latest concerns are with the migration of small amounts of oil from the spindle bearings into the intake charge. As small as this oil quantity is, it's a problem for-emission vehicles. Oil migration is a threat to ELEGT development - oil isn't welcome in an ultra-high-speed electric motor.

Air bearings may have solved this problem. Air is forced into a reservoir surrounding the bearing and passes through precisely metered holes into a narrow gap between bearing and bore shaft. This air layer seperates and cools the two surfaces. With an air bearing, frictional drag is lessened, bearing life increased and higher shaft speeds are possible.

Are these the foil-bearings i keep hearing about?

maxe, it's those kind of insulting, ego-bruising comments from you and a handful of others that drive our mothers away from these forums

Haha

Go f*** myself, nice call.

Get a f***ing clue about how turbo engines work then come and talk to me.

alright genious, point out to me where i am wrong. im in need of a good laugh.

alright genious, point out to me where i am wrong

hmm, i really wasnt going to bother with this thread but..
For starters you assume the car is a closed system, when it quite clearly is not

no, but turning water into hydrogen/oxygen into water is.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 20:04:46 13/Jun/06

dude, according to the picture and article it doesn't try to use any water/steam resulting from the combustion to make more hydrogen from (even if it might be possible to a certain degree). it goes out the exhaust pipe as usual - it's expected that you refill the water tank like you would refill a regular fuel tank.

from a bucket

damn that treadmill thread was probably the most epic thread i can remember

it turns water into hydrogen and oxygen, it then sends that to the engine, which then burns it into water. (plus co2 etc because of the petrol). regardless of keeping it or not, its still turning water into hydrogen/oxygen into water.

to some extent probably, but what's your point though? I can't see how that makes it a closed system, or one claiming to create energy

its a closed system in the fact that it "might as well be".

x amount of energy to make hydrogen/oxygen, then you get less than X back from burning it. so if you remove the system, you get more efficiency, which is the oppisite to what the car add is saying.


think of it like this: the car, on normal fuel, generates 100hp. now, using the superfuel, the car outputs 110hp. however, because you can never make more energy than it takes to use. the to make the extra 10hp the car uses up 11hp.

so effectivily reducing the power to the wheels. which, means higher revs/fuel is needed to keep the car going at the same speed.

if that makes sense. im talking on the phone, so i can't really think too much about it.

its a closed system in the fact that it

Well yeah.. except for that huge gaping hole that is the exhaust its closed.

for it to be a closed system (that could continue running indefinitely) wouldn't it need to be able to produce as much reusable water post-combustion as it started with prior to any combustion? clearly though, it doesn't claim to be able to do that. So I don't get why you say it might as well be a closed system.

x amount of energy to make hydrogen/oxygen, then you get less than X back from burning it. so if you remove the system, you get more efficiency, which is the oppisite to what the car add is saying.

I don't agree - it's not claiming to be more efficient in terms of gross raw energy consumption - it's claiming to be more efficient in terms of gross fossil-fuel consumption. That is to say, instead of needing to use as much petrol as it would if it was a petrol-only engine, it can now be fed less petrol plus some water instead - the idea being that it's much better to be using water instead of fossil fuels. Also, don't forget that hydrogen has a much higher btu per pound compared to petrol.

It's no different from any existing hydrogen/petrol hybrid in that regard - the difference is that instead of filling it's tank with hydrogen, you fill it with water and it uses moving exhaust gas to get hydrogen from the water. This is why I originally made the turbo comment - while not entirely comparable, they are similar in that you have a task you can perform by using those moving exhaust gases, which can mean better results than simply feeding the engine with more petrol alone and leaving the exhaust gases alone.

think of it like this: the car, on normal fuel, generates 100hp. now, using the superfuel, the car outputs 110hp. however, because you can never make more energy than it takes to use. the to make the extra 10hp the car uses up 11hp.

and with this - I don't see why there's even a need to assume the car now outputs 110hp on the superfuel. For all we know, it might still generate 100hp, or let's even say perhaps less. But the point is, it didn't need as much petrol to achieve that, as it did when it was using petrol alone.

you fill it with water and it uses moving exhaust gas to get hydrogen from the water.

but it takes alot of energy to get hydrogen from water. more than you get from burning it.

because you will never make more energy turning water into hydrogen than it takes to make the hydrogen in the first place.

which can mean better results than simply feeding the engine with more petrol alone and leaving the exhaust gases alone.

it's not claiming to be more efficient in terms of gross raw energy consumption

but it is. for it to "use hardly any fuel" and "use mostly hydrogen from water" it would have to "power itself. with a little help from petrol"

even if the hydrogen gives more power to the car, its still going to take more than that power to make the hydrogen.

so even if the hydrogen engine make 100watts of power. and it takes 110watts of power to generate teh hydrogen, slapping a 20watt fuel engine to the mix isn't going to mean that the car is now a 110 watt beast.

i how to explain it any other way

ill try though



normal car.
C13H28(fuel) + O2 = CO2, CO, H2O etc. + energy (5 units)
Gross energy. 5 units.
fuel used, 5 units.


hybrid water fuel car
H2O + energy (lets say 2 units) = H2 and 02, // Making hydrogen
C13H28(fuel) + O2 + H2 (2 units worth) = CO2, CO, H2O etc. + energy (5 units from fuel, 2 units from hydrogen)
Gross energy, 5 units (total used - total made)
fuel used, 5 units. and this is in a perfect system.


now they prepose that they can shrink the usage of fuel. but that will just end up in a general loss of gross energy.

because you will never make more energy turning water into hydrogen

Who said they were trying to?

Imagine the water is a battery, the turbo takes wasted energy that would otherwise go out the arse of the car and charges the battery. (i.e. extracts Hydrogen from the water)
Now lets use your retarded numbers that are pulled out of your arse.
Car A - Engine makes 100kw, 80 go to the wheels, 20 go out the exhaust.
Car B - Engine makes 100kw, 80 to the wheels, 20 to the turbo, of which 10 is usable as hydrogen fuel. Total atw = 90.

How can you not get that energy is wasted going out the exhaust and this system is trying to capture WASTED energy, it isnt taking from the already perfectly usable energy.

whitewolf is more or less right about hydrogen/oxygen/water system fellas... geez.

Just consider the hydrogen process alone. Lets assume there is a full tank of water in the car. The fact that petrol is added can be disregaurded when examining this particular cycle, because the petrol has no bearing on the path of the water through it's cycle, and has no bearing on the potential chemical energy stored in the water. The amount of energy that the water contains remains constant. That water can effectively be considered as part of this 'closed' system.

For now, lets assume it's a perfectly efficient system losing no water to it's surroundings; the water stays within the systems boundaries. The only reason more water would have to be added is if the system was flawed, inefficiently allowing water to escape. But we're assuming a perfect system with no matter loss in this example for illistrative purposes.

mechanical work spins centrifuge --> which splits water into hydrogen and oxygen --> Hydrogen and oxygen burn creating energy --> mechanical work is extracted from the energy to continue spinning the centrifuge.

Of course there is petrol burning as well, creating more energy - but that energy is used to provide the mechanical work necessary to move the car. Ideally, now, adding something to the engine would be for the purpose of achieving a)the same amount of mechanical work done with less petrol spent, or, by the same token b)more mechanical work done by the same amount of petrol. So the addition of this hydrogen/oxgen cycle, which can be examined AS a closed system, then must be able to AT LEAST be able to support itself, if not ADD more energy for the car's motion. If it can't do either of these, why add it to the engine...? So, if it CAN'T add energy or even support itself, either it has no bearing on the mechanical work done by the petrol OR some of the enegy from the petrol that would normally be used for the motion of the car is used to help the closed system maintain it's energy level.

So, in a nutshell, when we're assuming a perfect system, the absolute best that can be hoped for is that it supposrts itself. It can never add energy. If it is perfectly isolated and void of any frictional losses, it will never lose or create any energy at all. chemical will be converted to mechanical energy and vice versa indefinetely.

So added to how pointless such a device would be in the most ideal conditions possible, in reality no system is truly perfect, and WILL suffer losses to heat and friction. Which means, as whitewolf was saying, that you do not, CANNOT, create an amount of potential chemical energy (in the form of hydrogen and oxygen) equivilant to the amount of mechanical energy it took to convert it from water. And you cannot create an amount of mechanical work equivalent to the amount of potential chemical stored in the hydrogen and oxygen prior to being burnt to create the mechanical work. There is unavoidable losses through friction and heat to the systems surroundings.

I know all that is obvious s*** and I'm not telling yas anything you don't know... so why are people having such problems.

A closed system of course is a system where matter doesn't pass the boundaries, but the system can loose heat to it's surroundings and do work on it's surroundings. How can you's not see that this can be viewed as a closed system?

wow, i didn't realise that exaust goes out by its self. i always thought that it was pushed by the engine. who needs an engine when you have an exaust that powers itself?

anything that abstructs the exaust from freely flowing is going to take power from the engine.

if 20 goes to the turbo, you still need the 20 to go out of the exaust, effectivly making total ATW 70.

So whats the point of a turbo then, why not just use a supercharger?

this is hilarious

From Plok

These dudes propose we catch this enery easily enough, convert it into rotational mechanical energy to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen (groan) so we can get some H gas to improve the burn characteristics of our petrol (we don't ask why it's called an Electro Hydrogen Generator when it's spinning the water to break the bonds???hmm).

There is almost no information on this magical Electro Hydrogen Generator, However where it gets the 'electro' part in the name is from an Electro-magnetic field that is generated upon spinning the water at high speeds. This field supposedly pulls the hydrogen from the water.

The whole thing's baloney and if you fall for it you know a lot less than you think you know, sorry.

Now dont go pretending you know everything about the world, you dont, no-one does. Remember, people thought the whole idea of throwing a plane into the air was baloney.

A closed system of course is a system where matter doesn't pass the boundaries, but the system can loose heat to it's surroundings and do work on it's surroundings. How can you's not see that this can be viewed as a closed system?

A closed system is a system that dosnt lose ENERGY, not just matter. If heat is passing through the 'walls' of the system then it is not closed. In reality no system we can create will be compleatly closed. We can come close tho.

Whitewolf, your assuming the energy taken to liberate a hydrogen atom is not worth the energy gained by using several hydrogen atom mixed with the fuel molecules.

Lets look at photosythesis quickly, 1 H20 molecule is split into its hydrogen and oxygen components by a seriers of biochemical steps. A photon of UV light powers the inital reaction and sets up the electron flow within the system. The free'd hydrogen is then used in another process nearby where various molecules are created by the energy of the hydrogen passing through a membrane within the cell. The hydrogens eventually get used to build a unit of a suger. That suger is then used for energy elsewhere, such as making the plant GROW. Oxygen is released into the atmosphere as a whast product.

So from this we can gather that YES you can split a H20 molecule into its component parts and use the energy liberated to power something else. A little extra energy is needed at the start to break the bonds in H20.

From what I can gather, this system gets that extra bit of energy from the exaust, the energy was going to be whasted anyway.
The car dosnt claim to reuse the H20 after splitting and using the hydrogen. It is just another source of stored energy. The pivitol question we should all be asking, is exactly how does the Hydrogen get seperated from the Oxygen?

There is more then 1 way to split apart the water molecule, some approaches will take more energy then others. With our current tech, it generally takes a fair bit of energy to break the bonds, too much for it to be useful. However a plant can do it farr more efficiantly then we can, to the point where it becomes useful. We just need to develop a system that has similar efficiency so as to make it useful.

That is what the 'electro hydrogen generator' has supposedly done. If they have got it right, then we will see this tech after its patent has been accepted, if not well, it'll be another one to throw onto the heap.



last edited by Tollaz0r! at 10:45:26 14/Jun/06

haha
plok will be trolling people with his forum posts even long after he's dead

So from this we can gather that YES you can split a H20 molecule into its component parts and use the energy liberated to power something else. A little extra energy is needed at the start to break the bonds in H20.

yes, but the plant doesn't go on and power the sun does it? or turn that hydrogen back into water. it moves the energy gained from the sun, into something more usefull to the plant. it didn't create extra energy, nor does it use more energy than it recives from the sun.

im not saying that you can't use hydrogen as a fuel. but when you use the energy made by useing it as a fuel to make the fuel. it won't work.

So whats the point of a turbo then, why not just use a supercharger?

because its easier to trick people into thinking this machine will work. ie, people view exaust as "waste" so they asume that everything to do with the exaust is "waste" and therefore, isn't useing up any energy from the engine if they chose to power the divice from it.

I dont want to waste my time trying to explain it to you, "genious".

I would rather explain it to this stapler sitting on my desk. He will understand.

shutup faget.

that stapler sure is a lot more intelligent, i've often had deep and meaningful debates with it

lol

Haha

That must be french for "f*****". Pronounced "faa-jay".


The stapler is now crying because you have upset him. :-(

Dudes why are you still talking about a closed system. Energy conservation is universal same as matter conservation. Only entropy must rise in a closed system. Go and read.

because its easier to trick people into thinking this machine will work.

Forget about this machine, why would people use a turbocharger which is pushed by exhaust gasses, rather than a supercharger which is driven directly by the engine if as you say the exhaust isnt waste energy.
Seems to me being driven directly by the engine would be more efficient than being pushed by hot gas.

because its not more efficent to run a turbocharger off exuast. it however directly increases the pressure in the piston, which then means that the exaust gasses are going to be going X amount faster because of the boost in pressure for the same revs. effectivly giving a performance increase even if the revs are the same, however, a supercharger is based purely off the revs, and although it gives more of an instant response, it doesn't stack like a turbo charger does.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 13:06:15 14/Jun/06

yes, but the plant doesn't go on and power the sun does it?

heh nor does this idea go on and power itself. it doesn't create the water it uses, it just performs electrolysis on it.

im not saying that you can't use hydrogen as a fuel. but when you use the energy made by useing it as a fuel to make the fuel. it won't work.

They are using water in the car as another source of energy, much like the fuel. They are mixing the hydrogen from the water with the existing fuel system to STRETCH it out furthur.
They are NOT making fuel. They are simply seperating the components of the water by some magical system that involves using the exaust and electromagnetics, not electrolysis.
The Water HAS TO BE REPLACED as it is being USED.
What you are saying would be somewhat correct IF they reused the water that is consumed in the first few steps, however they are not.

ok maybe not electrolysis HAVE IT YOUR WAY

My way is the ONLY way. Once you relise that, my plans for world domination shall be complete, MUaHAHAHAHAhahahahaHAAHAHah

kinky

but when you burn oxygen and hydrogen, it creates WATER! regardless if they use the same water or not, its still being turned into water.

so?

so the energy used to make hydrogen out of water will always be more than the extra energy gained by burning it.

lawl @ supercharger comments. Depends on suprecharger config and size.

You will find that a supercharger infact uses more power to charge the air by creating a rotating mass for the engine to fight against instead of exhaust gas.
turbo's are more efficent that sc's.
why do you think nearly every 2nd V8 modifier is using turbos these days instead of sc's?

so in conclusion I think all of you should stfu about forced induction unless your NF or loki because its damm obvious when someone who dosent know what their talking about pipes up and thinks their right.

oh you guys! you're so cute with your little internet scuffles.

Yes, when you burn Hydrogen (2H2) and oxygen (O2) you get 2 H20.
However the combustion of fuel inside the intake manifold isn't 100% efficiant. The Fuel you get at the servo is a mixture of Hydrogens, Carbons, Oxygens and so on. The air used in the combustion has those and others such at Nintrogen. There are waste products created from incomplete combustion, this stuff is part of what gets pushed out the exuast as you would know.

Injecting hydrogen into the combustion chamber at time critical moments produces a more efficant force driving the piston. The added hydrogen is used to complete some of what would have undergon partial combustion. This gives more efficiancy to the standard fuel.

The problem with having a hydrogen tank onboard is that hydrogen is a highly flamable gas at room temperature. It makes it difficult to store on a car. Storing it as water would be great if you could have an efficant, compact means to seperate the hydrogen from the water. The work needed to seperate the hydrogen needs to be less then the work gained from adding hydrogen at key moments in the combustion system.

The magical electro hydrogen generator is claiming to have done this with good efficiancy.

However, I wonder what it does with the oxygen gas that will be created when the water is split. Does it release it into the athmosphere? O2 is a green house gas too..

so the energy used to make hydrogen out of water will always be more than the extra energy gained by burning it.

I think you mean: the energy used to make hydrogen out of water will always be more than it takes to reunite all of the hydrogen with the matching amount of oxygen to result in the original amount of water

because its not more efficent to run a turbocharger off exuast

alright, i retract that statement. im wrong in that sense.

Injecting hydrogen into the combustion chamber at time critical moments produces a more efficant force driving the piston. The added hydrogen is used to complete some of what would have undergon partial combustion. This gives more efficiancy to the standard fuel.

your talking about very tiny boosts to fuel efficiancy. far lower than what you would get from making the hydrogen in the first place. because that little bit of extra power, will never be more than the little bit of extra power taken to make the hydrogen.

Jim, from what i can gather, your saying that making hydrogen/oxygen will take more energy, than the energy REQUIRED to make it back into water.

i see two places that say it requires energy.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 16:03:53 14/Jun/06

i see two places that say it requires energy.

John 2:12 and Matthew 23:5?

My stapler wants to get to know you a bit better so he can explain how this wonderful world of turbo efficiency works.

He knows his stuff, trust me.

If someone want to try to sell this car on an efficiency claim, they are being idotic. The best way to decrease petrol consumption is make sure the petrol is doing as much work as posible. Why not just face up the fact that the ICE is not an efficient means of turning chemical energy into mechanical work. Getting a more complete burn of petrol isnt going to change the fact that colosal amounts of energy are wasted when you try to turn it into work. Much less energy is wasted when you convert to electricty and use that to do the work. Hence the toyota prius.

The point is simply this. If the sole purpose of this hydrogen hybrid is to improve efficiency and not to run the car from hydrogen, why in gods name would waste energy in a mechanical process, not to mention the fact that you are lugging both water and petrol around now, to try and improve a fundamentally inefficient process?

Oh yeah, Theodore sure knows his stuff!

http://www.pcbypaul.com/wpclipart/office/supplies/stapler.png

^^^

I concur.

However you would not see me driving a prius because it looks like an infection.

^ Sad to say Jess that when petrol runs out, you and everybody else won't give a f*** what an electric car looks like as long at it will get u where you need to go.

It's our brainwashed superficial society. We;ve forgotten what really matters and 'Peak Oil' is civilization's wake-up call.

Remember... a car without fuel is a rather expensive lump of useless metal.

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/4816/fuel20cartoon20small8pf.jpg

I'll just fill my tank with vegie oil :D
poor old rudolph will finally have his way

i think we're around the corner on a major advance in technology that will solve all our energy problems

i can feel it

^

haha, he can stay

Remember... a car without fuel is a rather expensive lump of useless metal.

unless that piece of metal has fuelsavers attached

What if you have a horse?
http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/3752/horsecar7zg.jpg


last edited by Bah at 13:48:16 15/Jun/06

OMG! Imagine if you put fuelsavers on that!

Had a look but saw no link to this. Seemed related to topic.

http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/06/waterfuel.html

why do you think nearly every 2nd V8 modifier is using turbos these days instead of sc's?

Most people doing this are balancing the internals to the s***house so it revs up/down alot quicker too though.
Newer tech v8's/large displacement engines also rev smoother, quicker and higher than the old ones so Turbo's are more viable.

Either way who cares, we're going to see jetson's mobiles soon.

The best way to decrease petrol consumption is make sure the petrol is doing as much work as posible

.

I would have thought the best way was - to make sure the petrol was doing as least work as possible - that is, not driving at all. Ride a bike = best way to decrease petrol consumption.

uhh, bikes are worse for our environment than cars

why, what do we do that's so bad

I would have thought the best way was - to make sure the petrol was doing as least work as possible - that is, not driving at all. Ride a bike = best way to decrease petrol consumption.

Hilarious.

car that runs on water?


























http://www.lievehemel.nl/ferrmhoed_kblinkswb.jpg
http://zorba.members.winisp.net/images/ferrari.jpg

that was already done on page 1