Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by rockape34, Aug 29, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
That, if true is potentially seismic news. Very interesting - we watch with interest
In theory this solves the hydrogen car problem - being able to tap hydrogen from a liquid storeable at room temperature without a large amount of power means we can use our existing infrastructure. A question the article doesn't answer is what the energy ratio is in terms of electricity in vs. the potential energy of the hydrogen produced.
Won't it just mean a rise in the price of beer?
How much electricity does it take to get the hydrogen out of urine?
A very good question. But I'll better it by using different terms...
How many joules of electrical energy are required to produce one joule of energy from the released hydrogen?
As energy can neither be created nor destroyed, any heat produced in the conversion represents reduced efficiency.
If your urine-powered car needs to lug big batteries to liberate the hydrogen, why not use the batteries to drive a motor instead? - And use a small generator to keep the batteries topped up.
When I invented the Poo ped which was basically a toilet with two wheels, they said it would never work and unfortunately for me they were right, I would squeeze one out and the bike would never move. Drat a failure.
But now I think your just takin the pi ss
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but how it transforms itself depends on the type of reaction. It's possible the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen gives off more energy than the proccess of seperating hydrogen from nitrogen (which you'd need an electricity supply in your car for) takes up: this isn't the case in separating hydrogen from oxygen. Of course the catch is that the energy put into bonding hydrogen and nitrogen in the first place has to come from somewhere.
Bottom line: this is about storable green fuel, not magic.
I have now reached the age where it seems mandatory to get up at around 2am for a piddle. I won't mind so much if I know that I am filling the car up. Roll on Piddle Power.
That's exactly it - or as the spaniards would say, SOCKS. (Eso si que es!)
The story goes on about "Soldiers in the field could carry their own fuel" but that's misleading. What needs to be carried is a mobile form of the fuel, not the constituents.
With the technology quoted, unpredictable energy resources, such as wind power, could be used for the "cracking" process - putting the gas into storage on favourable days and merely being an interesting landscape feature on adverse days. This would provide a better supply to the National Grid (electrical and gas), being more easily turn off and onable.
It also produces mobile fuel - far better than buckets of wind or electricity - therefore more suited to use in vehicles.
So, three cheers for the development, but it seems that certain US academicians need to engage brain before releasing mouth to prevent the possibility of being quoted out of context. (Or did she really mean that?)
As a historical note, when I was about 6 or 7 years old, Puttees Senior told me that this technology was already available (mid 60's) but that petroleum companies had quietly bought up the patents and other rights in order to prevent it's useful development, thereby protecting their industry. Perhaps he wasn't spouting such bo!!ocks after all and, just maybe, his current theory that the holes in the ozone layer are caused by US and Russian space rockets may be closer to the truth than I give him credit for....
Puts a new slant on "Taking the Piss" ie, You,re not taking my Piss, it,s for my car.
Separate names with a comma.