wizard7926 wrote:

you're right: fuel cells, light speed, and contest times.

let's start some more.. who's gonna win the NHL/NBA Finals?

Edmonton in 5

DeFlanko wrote:4.20 for Fiji Hi-Octaine volcano filterd water...

water wouldn't have octane in it, since it'd defeat the purpose of using water as a fuel, to replace combustibles like octane-based gasoline, right?

FenStar wrote:

wait, whn you increase your acc to the speed of light your mass is infinite right?

Unless your mass is zero to begin with I suppose. I'm not a mathemetician, and I agree with you that some of the current explanations don't seem to make sense. I think the whole wave-particle thing is a bit shaky, but it works experimentally, so we use it. But any physicist will tell you that the Standard Theory is a patchwork of theories glued together with hand-coded constants and other such mathematical yuckies.

And that brings us to string theory, the current forerunner in the quest for a unified theory of everything. And it's faaaaaaar from complete.

i like the Heat in 6 and the Oilers in 5, too..

wizard7926 wrote:

water wouldn't have octane in it, since it'd defeat the purpose of using water as a fuel, to replace combustibles like octane-based gasoline, right?

Not necessarily -

http://tampatrib.com/Business/MGBKD7YQIGE.html

You don't store the electricty, you store the H and O, from what i understand. Also you need a (is it catalyist?) so it will conduct electricty.

There are many applications for hydrogen-powered cars. Most are powered from straight hydrogen, so the problem arises on how this will happen. Some applications employ electrolysis, separating the H from the O in water and expelling the O in some form or another (oxygen by itself is extremely "combustible"). I have heard of an application that harnesses the energy given off by an H2O reaction, but I don't remember the technique . . .

And on that, ladies and gents, I need to get back to work (46 minutes overmy lunch break . . .).

McGuffy wrote:

Unless your mass is zero to begin with I suppose. I'm not a mathemetician, and I agree with you that some of the current explanations don't seem to make sense. I think the whole wave-particle thing is a bit shaky, but it works experimentally, so we use it. But any physicist will tell you that the Standard Theory is a patchwork of theories glued together with hand-coded constants and other such mathematical yuckies.

And that brings us to string theory, the current forerunner in the quest for a unified theory of everything. And it's faaaaaaar from complete.

I would think it should be one, as the absloute "0" would null the absoulte "infinity" and leave you with the absolute "1", right? Well. that's how I rationalise it anyways...

IlleDuce wrote:

There are many applications for hydrogen-powered cars. Most are powered from straight hydrogen, so the problem arises on how this will happen. Some applications employ electrolysis, separating the H from the O in water and expelling the O in some form or another (oxygen by itself is extremely "combustible"). I have heard of an application that harnesses the energy given off by an H2O reaction, but I don't remember the technique . . .

And on that, ladies and gents, I need to get back to work (46 minutes overmy lunch break . . .).

Use H and O and u get water...

McGuffy wrote:Not necessarily..

thanks, i wouldn't never known. awesome!

FenStar wrote:Use H and O and u get water...

or hydroxide ions (OH), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)...

McGuffy wrote:

Unless your mass is zero to begin with I suppose. I'm not a mathemetician, and I agree with you that some of the current explanations don't seem to make sense. I think the whole wave-particle thing is a bit shaky, but it works experimentally, so we use it. But any physicist will tell you that the Standard Theory is a patchwork of theories glued together with hand-coded constants and other such mathematical yuckies.

And that brings us to string theory, the current forerunner in the quest for a unified theory of everything. And it's faaaaaaar from complete.

There was a rather interesting series (on PBS I believe) that you could watch on the internet. It explained string theory, the concept of there being other dimensions, time travel, etc.

Rather interesting to watch and explained theory in terms us 'laypersons' could understand

other than electrolysis, how would we seperate the H and O?
I thought electrolysis was the only way.

wizard7926 wrote:

thanks, i wouldn't never known. awesome!

Yeah, this is cool stuff if it's legit. A local station here did a piece on it. There's a LOT of hydrogen in water. If there's a way to free it up more efficiently than electrolysis (which requires more energy than it releases in hydrogen), then water could make a darn good fuel. I'm skeptical about this technology, but thought the story was relevant.

someonestolemysig wrote:

There was a rather interesting series (on PBS I believe) that you could watch on the internet. It explained string theory, the concept of there being other dimensions, time travel, etc.

Rather interesting to watch and explained theory in terms us 'laypersons' could understand

I found the link if anyone happens to have 3 hours to contemplate the universe...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

someonestolemysig wrote:

I found the link if anyone happens to have 3 hours to contemplate the universe...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

I don't have anything better to do, but I'm still to lazy.

someonestolemysig wrote:

There was a rather interesting series (on PBS I believe) that you could watch on the internet. It explained string theory, the concept of there being other dimensions, time travel, etc.

Rather interesting to watch and explained theory in terms us 'laypersons' could understand

The oriental gentleman interviewed on there is Michio Kaku. I believe Brian Greene hosted it. It's a great show.

If you're really interested in this stuff, here's my recommended reading (I am not an Amazon affiliate):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400033721/sr=8-1/qid=1149530107/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1197749-3950324?%5Fencoding=UTF8

and


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375708111/sr=8-6/qid=1149530181/ref=pd_bbs_6/104-1197749-3950324?%5Fencoding=UTF8


And you can't go wrong with works by either of these authors.

FenStar wrote:other than electrolysis, how would we seperate the H and O?

Chaperones.

qwertyuiop001 wrote:

Chaperones.

I don't get it.

McGuffy wrote:

The oriental gentleman interviewed on there is Michio Kaku. I believe Brian Greene hosted it. It's a great show.

If you're really interested in this stuff, here's my recommended reading (I am not an Amazon affiliate):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400033721/sr=8-1/qid=1149530107/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1197749-3950324?%5Fencoding=UTF8

and


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375708111/sr=8-6/qid=1149530181/ref=pd_bbs_6/104-1197749-3950324?%5Fencoding=UTF8


And you can't go wrong with works by either of these authors.

Cool, your links say "Fencoding!"

FenStar wrote:

You don't store the electricty, you store the H and O, from what i understand. Also you need a (is it catalyist?) so it will conduct electricty.

you explain it..

DeFlanko wrote:

{cool techno picture}

you explain it..

Magic.

McGuffy wrote:

Yeah, this is cool stuff if it's legit. A local station here did a piece on it. There's a LOT of hydrogen in water. If there's a way to free it up more efficiently than electrolysis (which requires more energy than it releases in hydrogen), then water could make a darn good fuel. I'm skeptical about this technology, but thought the story was relevant.

First law of thermodynamics: you can't get something for nothing.

DeFlanko wrote:
[img]hydrogen car[img]

you explain it..

how come concept cars and any car using an alternative fuel are always so butt fugly?

qwertyuiop001 wrote:First law of thermodynamics: you can't get something for nothing.

from an engineer's point of view...... more or less, yeah.

DeFlanko wrote:
you explain it..

I don't know what to explain, it's still a combustion engine, just redesined to use hyrodgen and oxygen insted of gasolene, isn't it? I guess I don't understand it.

wizard7926 wrote:i like the Heat in 6 and the Oilers in 5, too..

Just to be contrary: Mavs in 7.

qwertyuiop001 wrote:

First law of thermodynamics: you can't get something for nothing.

Not trying to. Water is mostly hydrogen. Hydrogen burns real good. But that pesky oxygen is REALLY sticky. If there's a way to unstick it that uses less energy than is available from the newly liberated hydrogen, then you have a way to use water as fuel.

Something for nothing would be a perpetual motion machine. In this case, we are consuming fuel.

qwertyuiop001 wrote:

First law of thermodynamics: you can't get something for nothing.

That's the law of EVERYTHING.

FenStar wrote:

I don't know what to explain, it's still a combustion engine, just redesined to use hyrodgen, isn't it? I guess I don't understand it.

Fuel cell. Not combustion. Lots of membranes, probably.

ejvogie wrote:
how come concept cars and any car using an alternative fuel are always so butt fugly?

Now THAT'S a question worthy of some serious research!

qwertyuiop001 wrote:

Fuel cell. Not combustion. Lots of membranes, probably.

Why would you do it that way? I guess I just assumed I know what they where talking about and never found more out about it.

McGuffy wrote:

Not trying to. Water is mostly hydrogen. Hydrogen burns real good. But that pesky oxygen is REALLY sticky. If there's a way to unstick it that uses less energy than is available from the newly liberated hydrogen, then you have a way to use water as fuel.

Something for nothing would be a perpetual motion machine. In this case, we are consuming fuel.

You start with water. You unstick the hydrogen. You use the hydrogen in an engine. You end up with water and energy. That sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me.

qwertyuiop001 wrote:

You start with water. You unstick the hydrogen. You use the hydrogen in an engine. You end up with water and energy. That sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me.

qwerty, stop playing dumb.You have to use electrolisis to unstick the H from the O, just storing elect energy as chem energy.

FenStar wrote:

Why would you do it that way? I guess I just assumed I know what they where talking about and never found more out about it.

Hydrogen/oxygen combustion burns very hot. Hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells are a bit more "controlled," and you get electricity out more or less directly.

qwertyuiop001 wrote:

Hydrogen/oxygen combustion burns very hot. Hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells are a bit more "controlled," and you get electricity out more or less directly.

But I like fire!

plus combustion is directly converted into KE.

FenStar wrote:

qwerty, stop playing dumb.You have to use electrolisis to unstick the H from the O, just storing elect energy as chem energy.

I am arguing against defining water as a fuel. You get energy from a fuel. You have to add energy to water to make it do anything. Water isn't a fuel.

qwertyuiop001 wrote:

You start with water. You unstick the hydrogen. You use the hydrogen in an engine. You end up with water and energy. That sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me.

Which is probably why it hasn't been done yet. I did say I was skeptical. It takes more energy to break the covalent bond between the H and the O than is gained by re-oxidizing (burning) the H. From the very brief article I read on the technology I linked to, it sounds like they're using SOME energy from carbon fuels to assist in the separation, so it won't run exclusively on water, it will just use water along with the carbon fuel in this fashion.

I agree with your argument 100%, just summarizing the claims I've seen.

McGuffy wrote:

Which is probably why it hasn't been done yet. I did say I was skeptical. It takes more energy to break the covalent bond between the H and the O than is gained by re-oxidizing (burning) the H. From the very brief article I read on the technology I linked to, it sounds like they're using SOME energy from carbon fuels to assist in the separation, so it won't run exclusively on water, it will just use water along with the carbon fuel in this fashion.

I agree with your argument 100%, just summarizing the claims I've seen.

I thought the entire point was to creat a small compact battery... with massive amounts of power.

qwertyuiop001 wrote:

Chaperones.

LMAO....
couldent help it...

Source:
http://www.res.pickens.k12.al.us/P1010141%20chaperones.jpg

McGuffy wrote:

Magic.

dark evil corporate black magic.... i agree...