Skip to comments.
OSU engineer: Hydrogen system in autos a scam (!)
www.gazettetimes.com ^
| 7-31-2008
| By Steve Lathrop
Posted on 07/31/2008 11:54:15 AM PDT by Red Badger
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 261-272 next last
To: AnalogReigns
Your probably right mate...I am not a bit technical on this subject and I bow to the wisdom of others. All I do know is that I saw it happen with my own eyes and it seemed a damn good idea even back then.. when gas was about 10c a gallon.
141
posted on
08/01/2008 12:02:05 PM PDT
by
Brit
(brit)
To: ColdWater
"
Hydrogen has three times the btu/lbm of gasoline." Irrelevant, because it has to be compressed to about 3% of its volume to even equal gasoline in an engine, and that cannot be done. As fuels go, only diesel/kerosine exceed gasoline for available energy.
142
posted on
08/01/2008 12:04:11 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
To: ColdWater
Nuclear reactors convert heat energy into mechanical energy. The loss of efficiency occurs in that step-down process. They are nothing more than an elaborate boiler/steam system.
143
posted on
08/01/2008 12:04:19 PM PDT
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(Juan McCain....The lesser of Three Liberals.")
To: editor-surveyor
D-1, a diesel engine already has hydrogen to burn from the diesel fuel. That hydrogen produces less than 2% of the energy that the engine produces. Adding more hydrogen will do nothing for the combustion; adding more carbon would do a lot, but the only way to do that is to put a bigger fuel pump, and bigger injectors on the engine. Unless you have a bigger load to move, the above would be useless. There is no fairy godmother of fuel efficiency.
I think you guys are under the false impression that I think this device works. I don't think it does. That being said, I want to hear the word of someone who actually took at look at the device, confirmed that it was described acurately, that it was set up in the manner that it was described as being set up, that they measured the output, and that they determined that it is what you folks think it is, a dead end.
I don't ask that each of you go down there and do that. I simply want a small group of people to do that and sign off on it.
Humans are interesting creatures. They get an idea in their head, and then walk right by something they weren't looking for, when confirming that their first assumption was correct. Have you ever been looking for what you thought would be a perfect solution to your problem, only to run into something that you hadn't previously considered, that will solve your problem in a much better manner?
Each device deserves it's day in court. Dismissing any device up front without hands on, is in my opinion a very big mistake.
If we're talking about a fan on top of a car to generate energy, we can write it off as an absurdity. If we're talking about a device that is contributing to some process, I want to see some sort of measurements to prove conclusively that something isn't happening that some folks didn't understand up front. Yes, you folks will be right 500,000 out of 500,001 times. It's that 500,001st item I want to make sure doesn't get dismissed.
If that bothers you, I don't mind.
144
posted on
08/01/2008 12:04:54 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(I'm a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 1, who won't be voting for McCain.)
To: editor-surveyor
“Nothing can work at 100% efficiency except a nuclear reaction.”
If you say that a nuclear reaction is “100% efficent” then you must also state that a hydrogen explosion is 100% efficient. Apples to apples. It’s an engineering thing.
To: ColdWater
Your the smart guy. You can’t think of any such device on your car?
146
posted on
08/01/2008 12:06:29 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(I'm a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 1, who won't be voting for McCain.)
To: ColdWater
"
Then why do our nuclear reactors run at about 33% efficiency?" Because they are not bombs. They have to operate under stable control.
147
posted on
08/01/2008 12:06:30 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
To: ColdWater
You’re the smart guy. You can’t think of any such device on your car?
148
posted on
08/01/2008 12:06:56 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(I'm a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 1, who won't be voting for McCain.)
To: DoughtyOne
“says Bob Paasch, the Boeing professor of mechanical design at Oregon State University”
Here’s one expert.
To: ColdWater
"
If you say that a nuclear reaction is 100% efficent then you must also state that a hydrogen explosion is 100% efficient." You've changed the subject; go back and read the post that I replied to.
150
posted on
08/01/2008 12:08:34 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
To: ColdWater
Did he take a look at the device and go through the steps I mentioned just above?
151
posted on
08/01/2008 12:09:16 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(I'm a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 1, who won't be voting for McCain.)
To: DoughtyOne
“Youre the smart guy. You cant think of any such device on your car?”
I can think of lot’s of things on the car that “utilize” the wind. I thought you wanted to discuss a certain one. Please elaborate on the system that you are referring to.
To: ColdWater
You are comparing an “explosion” to nuclear fission as apples to apples.
You obviously need to go back to class and study this subject a bit further.
153
posted on
08/01/2008 12:11:23 PM PDT
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(Juan McCain....The lesser of Three Liberals.")
To: Red Badger
By the same token though, there are people who say adding two ounces of acetone to your tank can increase mileage.
Some folks swear by it.
154
posted on
08/01/2008 12:11:39 PM PDT
by
djf
(Locusts? Locusts??! What a podunk plague! Let me tell you about the Bernankes...)
To: editor-surveyor
“Because they are not bombs. They have to operate under stable control.”
It is the same reaction. It is either 100% efficent or it is not.
To: ColdWater
If you can think of lots of things on your car that utilize the wind in a manner that you set up the parameters for, then perhaps you should list them.
156
posted on
08/01/2008 12:12:07 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(I'm a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 1, who won't be voting for McCain.)
To: editor-surveyor
"You've changed the subject; go back and read the post that I replied to." No. You stated that a nuclear reaction is 100% efficient. By that statement, you must also believe that a chemical reaction is 100% efficient or explain why not. Remember to reference E=MC2
To: DoughtyOne
"
If that bothers you, I don't mind." Then you need more coffee! ;o)
158
posted on
08/01/2008 12:14:18 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
To: editor-surveyor
Ummm no... not under the conditions we’re discussing.
At NORMAL air pressure, in an uncompressed state, and in a gaseous form what you said is untrue. Gasoline in the same condition has much more explosive power than hydrogen in the same form (a 1 atmosphere, and at normal room temp, and in a gaseous form).
And we are talking about ‘normal pressures’, the gas (hydrogen) NOT being under extreme pressure, or reduced in temperature, etc.
So... oh well, though, you’re right in that “hydrogen” has more potential energy. Did some calculations and hydrogen CAN produce more energy under certain circumstances.... But NOT under the conditions you will find in a car.
Sorry, that’s just plain wrong and this is my whole point here.
The author isn’t taking into account ALL of the facts.
The READERS are not taking into account all the facts.
The “inventor” of these items doesn’t know his science.
Some of the readers here (including me) sometimes leave out a lot of information in trying for brevity thus confusing others.
So... while you’re RIGHT in your statements, I’m right too. We’re comparing different circumstances.
159
posted on
08/01/2008 12:17:00 PM PDT
by
Rick.Donaldson
(http://www.transasianaxis.com - Please visit for latest on DPRK/Russia/China/et al.)
To: ColdWater
A nuclear bomb is from a statistical point of view 100% efficient. Nothing else comes close.
Capiche?
160
posted on
08/01/2008 12:17:23 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 261-272 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson