Stupid World

[mashman]

Maybe you make your point more clear for me?

see the answer I gave to Ocean above in conjunction with part of the quote you quoted

That's a fuckload less energy than goes into creating all of the components that go together to get oil out of the ground before processing it into petrol.

[Fergus]

excuse me for my ignorance. How do these things work?
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-...-all-ages.html

Not saying your wrong - just amazed that we can build cool kids toys like this, weld under water, land stuff on another planet..........but can't make a bigger version of this toy.
I suspect this toy is not as the label implies. Hydro-cell powered.

W can and do make bigger versions of that toy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

The second paragraph answers restates what I was said and, I think, answers your question:

Hydrogen fuel does not occur naturally on Earth and thus is not an energy source; rather it is an energy carrier. It is most frequently made from methane or other fossil fuels, but it can be produced using sources (such as wind, solar, or nuclear) that are intermittent, too diffuse or too cumbersome to directly propel vehicles.

[unstuck]

So why would we have to burn water to get it to propel a machine. There has got to be other ways, we just have not thought of them yet I am sure. Electricity does not seem to be a cheaper or more reliable way to propel stuff, not yet anyway.

The idea of floatation was not concieved by the contemplation of the sinking of things . A few hundred years ago if you said you could get steel to float, they would of dunked you then burnt you.

[Fergus]

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... so it takes less total energy to get oil from the ground, processed into petrol and into my tank than it would to get water into my tank.

There's really nothing I can say if you think water can provide energy...

Fergoos mentioned that the best one could hope for is 50% efficiency, what does the average fuel burning engine recoup efficiency wise?

Try again pops.

That is a 50% conversion (electrical ->chemical; H2) efficiency ie you've poured half your energy down the sink before you have even thought of gettting work done!

This has nothing to do with any engine efficiency (work out/energy in).

[mashman]

There's really nothing I can say if you think water can provide energy...

Is that what I said? All I said was getting water into the tank, I never said anything about how it would be combustabelised.

[Fergus]

Your example leaves out the input of real world "politics". In all the cases you quote people had "proven" long before that the prevailing theory was wrong, however due to current politics of the time the incorrect assumptions still prevailed.

Mankind is a bit more rational now, as far as I'm aware we no longer burn heathen scientists at the stake.

You can't stop people believing in non-scientific things: Astrology, creation theory, 2012 apocalypse, climate change denial, dowsing, tarot cards, crop circles, hypnosis, homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture ect ect

There are many politicians the world over who believe that^ sort of stuff, who cares? Science progresses regardless.

Ancient Greeks/Chinese had proven the earth was round using sticks and shadows, got it to within a few k of the real circumference all before the Roman Empire had climbed off its 7 hills. However because the peeps and their masters wanted to believe it was flat that is what they believed, it was only when it became politically advantageous for it to be round did they look into that theory.

A falsifiable and empirical (ie scientific) method, it's true whether anyone believes it or not

[Fergus]

Is that what I said? All I said was getting water into the tank, I never said anything about how it would be combustabelised.

Once again, you imply water is combustible....

Though, I guess I've missed your point again.

[Fergus]

So why would we have to burn water to get it to propel a machine. There has got to be other ways, we just have not thought of them yet I am sure. Electricity does not seem to be a cheaper or more reliable way to propel stuff, not yet anyway.

Water doesn't burn

H2 has almost 3 times the energy per kg than petrol...and over 100 times the energy per kg than batteries...
So you can see why h2 is attractive for transport.

Whatever happens, when fossil fuels run out, NZ will need three times as many power plants to replace keep our energy demand met

[Oscar]

Water doesn't burn

H2 has almost 3 times the energy per kg than petrol...and over 100 times the energy per kg than batteries...
So you can see why h2 is attractive for transport.

Whatever happens, when fossil fuels run out, NZ will need three times as many power plants to replace keep our energy demand met

Or a couple of small atomic power plants...

[unstuck]

I am well aware that water does not burn, I was just confused perhaps because it sounded like some people were making it sound like it could.(Drugs perhaps) Any way I still think we will be able to use water to propel vehicles one day. Maybe some sort of hydraulic system where the water is compressed to give power and then sent back to a tank to be used again. Or maybe the weed has finally got the best of me.

[Fergus]

Any way I still think we will be able to use water to propel vehicles one day. Maybe some sort of hydraulic system where the water is compressed to give power and then sent back to a tank to be used again.

Water, being heavy and (relatively) in-compressible, is a bad choice. Air is a much better choice, but it still has downsides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car

[Fergus]

Or a couple of small atomic power plants...

The 4 biggest power plants on earth, by energy output, are all hydro dams...The only logical solution is to dam the Waikato and submerge Hamilton, it's win win all round

[Ocean1]

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... so it takes less total energy to get oil from the ground, processed into petrol and into my tank than it would to get water into my tank.

Fergoos mentioned that the best one could hope for is 50% efficiency, what does the average fuel burning engine recoup efficiency wise?

Try again pops.

I cannot believe the depth of your ignorance. Simply stunning.

I am well aware that water does not burn, I was just confused perhaps because it sounded like some people were making it sound like it could.

Yes. Mashmind made it sound like it could, because he's convinced the true freedom fighters have it sussed and the evel corporate baddies have covered it all up.

I believe Fergus replied to your post thinking you were the mashdude. You should feel bad about that.

[unstuck]

Compressed air would be fine if it did not require so much energy to compress it. Maybe compression was not the right word to use for water, (force perhaps?). I suppose it comes down to making something that requires very little energy to utelise. I like to keep an open mind on it though, impossible is nothing after all.

[Ocean1]

I am well aware that water does not burn, I was just confused perhaps because it sounded like some people were making it sound like it could.(Drugs perhaps) Any way I still think we will be able to use water to propel vehicles one day. Maybe some sort of hydraulic system where the water is compressed to give power and then sent back to a tank to be used again. Or maybe the weed has finally got the best of me.

PS, I could build you a car that ran on water now. Water and Sodium. Piece of piss.