PDA

View Full Version : There's HOPE for a post-oil society!



Lionmane
06-05-2006, 12:28 AM
Here's the news broadcast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImGaraPrEo8

Here's their website:
http://www.hytechapps.com/

Here's the car info:
http://www.hytechapps.com/applications/HHOS.htm

whiteflags
06-05-2006, 12:39 AM
Hydrogen's always been one of my favorite elements: you combine hydrogen with what it needs to explode, and water is created. There seems to be othing that hydrogen can't do now that I've seen this. Of course, since hydrogen does arrive on this planet through the Sun, it's a giver of life, so it should be able to do a lot. This is cool...

SlyMaelstrom
06-05-2006, 12:56 AM
There has always been hope for a post-oil society. The day all of the oil disappears, all the big fuel companies will pull one of the hundred of workable ideas out of their idea cabinet that they got from one of the many alternative fuel sources that they bought out over the years and start selling that. I'm just not sure how quickly we truly are going to run out of oil. I mean, they've been saying there's 10 years of it left for the past 30 years. I'm interested in seeing an alternative solution before we use of the oil, but that won't happen, I'm sure. The oil companies put too much pressure on anyone that attempts an alternative source.

VirtualAce
06-05-2006, 05:30 AM
Most sites claim 2050 as the year we possibly run out. Note that the oil companies are cutting their own throats. No shortage at all as of now and yet prices are so high people are willing to realistically talk about alternative fuels.

I'm for hydrogen over all the other fuel alternatives. Probably because it requires the least amount of conversion to your car, other than ethanol which is still depedent on the oil economy, just a little less so.

See the recent threats by some oil nations? It's like saying if you hit me, I'll hit your sister. Dumb. I'll be glad when we switch economies and these so called 'important' countries become as insignificant as the sand they live on. I think we are tired of dealing with producers who constantly hold it over our head.
Those days are numbered thanks to hydrogen. It will change geo-politics as we know it and moreso it will alter the world economy significantly.

But that's not to say hydrogen will be the choice. I'd say we will have an in-betweener alternative fuel to slowly ween us off of oil so as not to shock the market. But it's just my opinion which probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

:)

Imagine investing in Microsoft in 1979 or 1980. Imagine investing in oil in the early 1900's. I believe that hydrogen and similar items like those discussed in the article are going to be the next big boom. Not yet as the oil companies are not just going to give up their share - they will also be competing in this market and are doing research in it. However, it opens the door for a lot of small companies to make it big.

Remember AMD? Mom and pop chip manufacturer. Now they are a major rival of the giant Intel. It can happen in just a few short years. Your never too big of a business to be unbeatable. Well, maybe Bill is, but other than that. :D

JaWiB
06-05-2006, 09:09 AM
I have a really hard time believing this (although I admit I'm not a chemist). Maybe someone could shed some light on what this magic "Aquygen (tm)" gas actually is.

It seems deceptive to say that a car "runs on water" considering that it relies on electricity and electrolysis to convert the water into something usuable.

Edit:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635733/posts
Apparently it uses this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29

Sounding more like a load of crap to me.

Mario F.
06-05-2006, 09:28 AM
Most sites claim 2050 as the year we possibly run out. Note that the oil companies are cutting their own throats. No shortage at all as of now and yet prices are so high people are willing to realistically talk about alternative fuels.

Prices are at an historical high because production is at an historical minimum. Political and military uproar on the Middle East is not the only reason why production levels are low. I would dare to venture, oil companies are starting to see their wells drying and telling everyone to go easy.

There's still a lot of untapped oil out there. Alasca, North Pole, Siberia, are those areas I can remember being talked about before. Also, the Western African Coast is still mostly untapped. I wouldn't think 2050 to be a reallistic number.

BUT there's probably also a lot of doomsday advocacy about this issue, even by supposed specialists. Which only gives more credibility to price increases. During the past 2 years, which has had the lowest oil output per rig in history, oil companies incidently had historical gains due to the increase in prices.

BobMcGee123
06-05-2006, 10:37 AM
Hydrogen's always been one of my favorite elements: you combine hydrogen with what it needs to explode, and water is created. There seems to be othing that hydrogen can't do now that I've seen this. Of course, since hydrogen does arrive on this planet through the Sun, it's a giver of life, so it should be able to do a lot. This is cool...


Hydrogen doesn't exist by itself. We need clever science to be able to obtain energy from other sources to separate these molecules, e.g. energy from the sun (as mentioned) so that we can then use it to obtain energy in vehicles. These hydrogen particles only hold potential energy when they are alone. Unfortunately, the bush administration has cut funding to the national science foundation by about $100 million, the biggest source for funding high-end experiments at schools such as MIT

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/149.html



Prices are at an historical high because production is at an historical minimum. Political and military uproar on the Middle East is not the only reason why production levels are low. I would dare to venture, oil companies are starting to see their wells drying and telling everyone to go easy.


I believe demand is more the factor for high gas prices more than the supply end of it is. As it stands, the country we are currently occupying still sits on over 100 billion barrels of oil (this is a very, very low estimate).

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21626.pdf#search='iraq%20proven%20oil%20reserves '

A newspaper article I recently cut out from my local news print reproduced from washington, titled "House OKs oil drilling in Alaska reguge" (don't remember the data, and I didn't include that in the clipping), claims that "the coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area of 1.5 million acres ... [is] thought likely to hold about 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil."



Why might the global demand for oil be increasing?? ::
Beijing, China, is adding on-average 1000 cars per month. Quoting from the world is flat, by thomas friedman, the updated and expanded version, pg 496:

An email from michael zhao, a young researcher in the time's beijing bureau:



Hi Tom, hope this email finds you well, On your question about how many cars are added each day in beijing, i did some research on the internet and found that...car sales in beijing for april 2004 were 43,000 - 24.1% more than the same period last year. so that is 1,433 cars added daily to beijing, but including second hand car sales. New car sales this month were 30,000 or 1,000 cars each day added to the city. The total car sales from Jan. to April 2004 were 165,000, that is about 1,375 cars added each day to beijing over this period. This data is from the beijing municipal bureau of commerce. The city's bureau of statistics has it that the total car sales in 2003 were 407,649, or 1,117 cars each day added. The new car sales last year were 292,858 or 802 new cars each day....The total number of cars in beijing is 2.1 million...but the recent months seem to have witnessed surigng sales.

....


What is scary is that China is buying oil from places like Iran and Sudan, the former the US does not do business with directly. That fact, combined with the potential conflict over taiwan's status of independence, scares me.

I'm am attending a maritime academy, in which many jobs are power-related for oil riggers/merchant marine, etc. My girlfriend's older brother does just that (I'm going to the same school as him, for the same major). He works in the gulf of mexico laying pipeline for private industry (he has a degree in marine engineering operations). All they are doing is filling up as many millions of barrels of oil as they can. Evidently, the u.s. government is the single largest customer of this product, but I cannot verify that.

Dissata
06-05-2006, 12:48 PM
Hydrogen doesn't exist by itself. We need clever science to be able to obtain energy from other sources to separate these molecules, e.g. energy from the sun (as mentioned) so that we can then use it to obtain energy in vehicles. These hydrogen particles only hold potential energy when they are alone. Unfortunately, the bush administration has cut funding to the national science foundation by about $100 million, the biggest source for funding high-end experiments at schools such as MIT

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/149.html




your kidding right?

dropping the national science foundation's budget 1% is not a significant change, nor does it impedede other private schools from doing research (harvard, stanford, yale, Notre Dame MIT) all of whom have endowments in the billions which they do not touch at all, and all of whom are doing or are capable of doing major research...

As it stands, people complain about there being a lack of funding for education... there are billions laying around being untuched.

its funny, the council for aid to education claims they have an increase in funds, up to 25.9 billion. thats about a billion more dollars given to universities like Stanford, Harvard, U Penn, USC.

so, while the governement cut funds of 100 mill. private corporations (read: fortune five hundred corporation) have increased donations to education 1,000 mill.

...seems like their doing okay to me.
http://www.cae.org/

BobMcGee123
06-05-2006, 01:37 PM
I probably am incorrect or misguided in some way about something I've said above, but your response is...interesting to say the least. Wait, no, I meant useless.

>>dropping the national science foundation's budget 1% is not a significant change

it's actually 1.9%. You were off by nearly a factor of 2. That .9 percent that you gracefully chose to ignore happens to be a difference of $50.2 million.

>>nor does it impedede other private schools from doing research

It does show what is and is not a priority for congress (the fact that it was cut is the biggest point here, and 100 million isn't exactly couch change). Do you understand the basic concept of inflation, in that in order to retain the same "absolute" value programs such as these actually need to be increased at a fixed rate per year (same with tax codes). This is explained in 'the world is flat,' I'm trying to find where so I can quote it. Certain (if not all) taxes also follow this trend (I saw a gas pump that explains how much gasoline tax increases to exactly adjust for inflation, but this may just be in Maine).

>>As it stands, people complain about there being a lack of funding for education... there are billions laying around being untuched.

Do you care to back that up?

>>(read: fortune five hundred corporation)

Which ones?

>>http://www.cae.org/

Where, exactly, on that website does it back up anything you've said? I did the work to make my citations obvious, yours are hidden.

You are the type of person that filters the headlines and punchlines from popular media and uses that to shape your world view. I personally think you're completely full of ........ (unless you can back up any part of what you've stated, up to you).

Do you have anything else to add about the other 66% of my post above? Debating how much $105 million is worth gets old.

kryptkat
06-05-2006, 02:20 PM
<hic> YES! <hic> Ethonal <hic> <hic> <hic> <hic> e85 <hic>! meow !<hic>

whiteflags
06-05-2006, 02:43 PM
I can't believe they made gasoline out of corn. That made me laugh! Food powers your automobile!

Mario F.
06-05-2006, 02:44 PM
You are the type of person that filters the headlines and punchlines from popular media and uses that to shape your world view. I personally think you're completely full of ........ (unless you can back up any part of what you've stated, up to you).

There's no hope for post-oil society

BobMcGee123
06-05-2006, 03:06 PM
Well Mario, that's not entirely true. You and I just need to implement every aspect of society as it stands today in virtual reality such that we never need to leave our homes in the first place!!!

I'm all ready writing the hooker program.

No this isn't like the matrix, stoopid.

EDIT:
>>I can't believe they made gasoline out of corn. That made me laugh! Food powers your automobile!

Yeah, that's interesting. I believe it already is a major fuel additive, and has especially taken off in south american countries.



meow


moo

Mario F.
06-05-2006, 03:23 PM
I'm writting a calm down pluggin and offering it for free...

Dissata
06-06-2006, 02:16 AM
I probably am incorrect or misguided in some way about something I've said above, but your response is...interesting to say the least. Wait, no, I meant useless.

>>dropping the national science foundation's budget 1% is not a significant change

it's actually 1.9%. You were off by nearly a factor of 2. That .9 percent that you gracefully chose to ignore happens to be a difference of $50.2 million.

>>nor does it impedede other private schools from doing research

It does show what is and is not a priority for congress (the fact that it was cut is the biggest point here, and 100 million isn't exactly couch change). Do you understand the basic concept of inflation, in that in order to retain the same "absolute" value programs such as these actually need to be increased at a fixed rate per year (same with tax codes). This is explained in 'the world is flat,' I'm trying to find where so I can quote it. Certain (if not all) taxes also follow this trend (I saw a gas pump that explains how much gasoline tax increases to exactly adjust for inflation, but this may just be in Maine).

>>As it stands, people complain about there being a lack of funding for education... there are billions laying around being untuched.

Do you care to back that up?

>>(read: fortune five hundred corporation)

Which ones?

>>http://www.cae.org/

Where, exactly, on that website does it back up anything you've said? I did the work to make my citations obvious, yours are hidden.

You are the type of person that filters the headlines and punchlines from popular media and uses that to shape your world view. I personally think you're completely full of ........ (unless you can back up any part of what you've stated, up to you).

Do you have anything else to add about the other 66% of my post above? Debating how much $105 million is worth gets old.

if the the stated percentage is off, but the actuall amount claimed is more or less correct... doesn't it seem asinine to argue the missing monies in the percentage?

and as far as the sources, on the home page it tells the "statistic" for the increase in funding. if you click on the link that says "supporters" you get a large list of corporations that donate.

as far as endowment information, this is university exclusive. that is to say, each university, in their PUBLIC financials state how much money they gain, and how much money they spend.

here is a pamphlet by Notre Dame explaining in lamen terms how they plan to retain their endowment plus 5.5% over inflation per year.

http://www.nd.edu/~invest/notre_dame_endowment/documents/endowbrochure.pdf



as it stands, higher education should not necissarily be a governmental responsibility, therefore, if there is a large increase in private education funds, there is ample reason to cut it from their budget. But then, a 100 mill cut per year to a public education fund, is greatly outweighed by the 1.1 billion more dollars available privately.

and btw, I like how you *must* add some form of insult to the post. As if demeaning me changes the facts. :)

as far as commenting about the rest of your post, I obviously had nothing to add (or rebute) but I will say this: I agree with the demand of oil playing a larger role than the supply.

kryptkat
06-06-2006, 08:20 PM
Problem is engine design. They are trying to use water for an engine designed for gasoline. It would be better if they used an engine designed for hydrogen oxygen. That way it would be more effishent. Gasoline alcohol and hydrogen oxygen burn at different rates so the engine has to be designed for that type of fuel.

Having a problem with the water injection idea. Sure the heat would make steam and lower engine temperature but everyone knows that sticks and leaves burn better if it is dry so the water would be moisture that dampens everything making ignition more difficult.

Fun look up sterling engines that run on heat differential. Put one under your car seat and expose you butt and sit on it so that it would power your automobile from the heat of your seat. That way you could have a bumper sticker that says



455 or well just 455 nobody rides for free

Lionmane
06-06-2006, 09:17 PM
They're not using water. The structure they're using is HHO instead of H2O.

I think HHO is a gas at room temperature (this is how he did the blowtorch). Based on my limited "knowledge" of cars the gas might be administered to a fuel-injected engine. So it seems plausible to me.

mw

SniperSAS
06-06-2006, 10:19 PM
They're not using water. The structure they're using is HHO instead of H2O.



doesn't HHO = H2O?

isn't it two hydrogen and one oxygen?

gcn_zelda
06-06-2006, 10:29 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO

kryptkat
06-07-2006, 06:44 AM
ok that is twice i disagree with wikipedia. the problem is when companys try to place their trade mark on a chemical compound thus confusing many people. as to what the chemical realy is.

hoh = hho = h2o aka hydrogen hydroxide

the other time is when wikipedia said "Water injection is a method for cooling the combustion chambers of engines by adding water to the incoming fuel-air mixture, allowing for greater compression ratios and largely eliminating the problem of engine knocking. This effectively increases the octane rating of the fuel, meaning that performance gains can be obtained when used in conjunction with a supercharger or turbocharger, altered spark ignition timing, and other modifications. Many water injection systems use a mixture of water and alcohol (usually 50/50), partly because the alcohol is combustible, while water is not; in addition, the alcohol serves as an antifreeze for the water.

again refer back to the sticks and leaves that burn better dryer

BobMcGee123
06-10-2006, 10:47 AM
and btw, I like how you *must* add some form of insult to the post. As if demeaning me changes the facts.


It has the well thought-out purpose of motivating you to make a substantial argument, which includes backing up sources and minimizing the reliance as much as possible on "hearsay" arguments, which constitutes essentially all of what you've said. People that are mad typically tend to want to retaliate, and the attacks are aimed at the lack of sources...I was hoping you'd find more to back up what you've said as a way to 'fight back' (I actually understand where you were coming from). But your replies are still useless.

Clyde
06-10-2006, 11:55 AM
hoh = hho = h2o aka hydrogen hydroxide


Hmm it can't just be water, if it was just water it wouldn't react exothermically with oxygen (aka burn) and so would be useless as fuel. Still "HHO" is just a silly name, as you point out if taken literally that really is water.

Sounds like it's just normal diatomic hydrogen and oxygen. At the moment AFAIK if you want to use water to make that then yea you're gonna have to electrolyse it and that's going to cost you energy which you'll probably get from burning fossil fuels. - water photolysis to create hydrigen is coming along but it's not yet an economical process.

Edit: Just read their "journal article" on aquablah (http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/international_journal.pdf), it's nonsense. It's clearly not written by a scientist - the author doesn't know what the words he's using actually mean.

Water loses it's "polymerisation"... ok then.