OT: Hydrogen fuel cell for cars..

I believe the idea is that the process can be modified to improve the efficiency and eliminate the rest of the relatively complex machinery of the bacteria. In other words produce a device like a photo cell that produces fuel rather than electricity.

--

Rick

Well I did qualify it as a story, perhaps urban legand. Pretty sound theory though. Injecting water into the mixture should have certain, predicable e ffects. Theoretically it should at least lower peak combustion temperature like EGR but be able to be throttled in more because it is not hurting driv ability.

cret. The entire point of granting patent is to make them public."

It has to be public for enforcement actually. I am sure patent holders woul d love to keep them secret but the system just won't work that way. That's why I said I would like to see the patent. Until then I have to treat it as one of them thar legends or something.

There are ways. If someoone really knows their way around patent law they c ould get a new patent all the time. Tricky to avoid prior art, and have to remember that you cannot patent a black box. They do grant some improper pa tents, as described by a member here not too long ago. Thing is, if nobody is putting big money into this, nobody would have the legal fees to fight t he big boys.

There would be other complications. Sure, you would fill up your car's wate r tank but you still need gasoline. So just how much more do you get out of it ? And what happens when you run out of water in the tank, is it yet ano ther idiot light on the dash ?

As I said, I consider it like an urban legend, could be true and probably w ill never know, and don't bank on it. The fact is that they would probably be doing it if it was a viable idea, just like almost anything else. Wind, solar, all of it, it all has problems and that is why they kill over fossil fuel. Nothing except nuclear comes close in the amount of bang for the buc k - literally.

Interesting, I got a buddy who, I don't know the name for it, is a aigaist (sp) or something like that. He thinks of the planet like a being, rivers a re like veins, all that. He says we were meant to burn off all this fossil fuel, that we are just doing what we do. Part of nature. Whatever effect it g=has on the climate is what is supposed to happen. Perhaps that means w e kill ourselves off and the cycle starts again. So be it.

Of course to respond to that trend by trying to kill ourselves more slowly is not illogical. Some care about their descendents and the human race. Oth ers can take it or leave it and then others think that we are meant to do w hat we do. Kinda like manifest destiny.

Me, I don't think anything anymore. What happens happens. Some things stupi d humans do annoys me but I don't let that turn into anger. People are gonn a do what they're gonna do. Rapists will rape, thieves will pilfer, druggie s will drug. As long as it doesn't get personal, I guess that's just part o f life. When it gets personal I get out the iron and deliver lead. Other th an that, I dunno.

But unlike the real conspiracy theorists, I see why some things are not don e. For example, let's say Tesla was right. I think he was actually, that yo u could somehow transmit power right through the ground that was like, "rec eived" from some sort of air driven Van De Graff type of generator.

Think about that now, the power for your AIR CONDITIONER is coming right th rough your front yard. That can't be good for it. Remember how hillbillies get bait for fishing ? They take and put stakes in the ground and and wire them up to an electrical plug and plug it in. Up come the worms. And this i s nowhere near what it takes to run a typical 3 ton AC unit.

The contention of these folk is that there is no way to meter it therefore they don't want to do it. Takes all the profit out of electricity. While I am sure that's true, think about the fact that someone has to maintain the generator. Who pays them ? Now how do you pay them ? Go socialistic and eve ryone chips in equally ? No, that doesn't work because you got one little o ld Lady with a TV set and a toaster and not much else. On the other hand yo u have a guy down the street who has a veritable bar in his house, air cond itioned down to 72 when it is 95 out, and electrically heated. A 10,000 wat t audio system for live bands, ten electric vehicles charging all the time.

And he pays the same as this little old Lady when he literally uses a thous and times as much power ?

That is the worst form of socialism I have ever fathomed.

If I remember correctly, they are working on a bacteria based fuel generati on system. the bacteris actually do photosynthesize and put out O2, making the process CO2 neutral including the burning of the fuel. At least that's the claim.

but this is not Bubba in the backyard, there is real research money in this at the moment. I read about it on another forum and don't have the link ha ndy. I thought it interesting. Maybe I can find it, have to think of the ri ght keywords. It is progbably in my bookmarks but the fsac tis that now I h ave so many it is useless. Literally, there are some sites I go to nearly d aily that I just Google up. I mean signed in like Audiokarma. I joined, I d idn't even bother to bookmark it because it takes so long to get to the bot tom of the list.

I think the word "biogen" will get somewhere in a search for this.

There are other things too. there is a company in Japan working on a way to turn plastic into petroleum, or something similar enough. they have a prce ss, but you are not taking palstic in to the recyclers like aluminum and co pper because the process is not viable. This may change because there is a hell of alot of plastic going in the landfills.

Sorry, that is just so much BS. If someone wanted to make a better carburetor they would have and no one would be able to stop them with an expired patent. More importantly there is no reason for the car makers to want to prevent this from being made. Less money spent on gas makes the car more valuable.

Of course it is urban legend...

I snipped the rest of this because it sounded pretty crazy...

--

Rick

Lol! Where do you think plastic comes from? PETROLEUM!!! Although they can make it from many carbon sources such as coal, but why make plastic just to turn around and make petroleum from that? Heck, you can convert coal into petroleum directly.

The real issues are the energy source and the by products of using the fuel. Then it all has to be made practical. Most of the current ideas will not pan out so well. But we can't see which ones will and which ones won't. It will take a long time to find out and I expect I won't be here to see the answer. I also won't be here when people are impacted by our lack of action...

--

Rick

There does seem to be work like this going on, but I don't think that bacteria have much to do with it. Chlorophyll may have started people thinking, but it isn't much a of model for an efficient fuel generating molecule or molecular mechanism.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

ration system. The bacterium is actually do photosynthesis and put outs O2, making the process CO2 neutral including the burning of the fuel. At least that's the claim.

this at the moment. I read about it on another forum and don't have the lin k handy. I thought it interesting. Maybe I can find it, have to think of th e right keywords. It is progbably in my bookmarks but the fsac tis that now I have so many it is useless. Literally, there are some sites I go to near ly daily that I just Google up. I mean signed in like Audiokarma. I joined, I didn't even bother to bookmark it because it takes so long to get to the bottom of the list.

y to turn plastic into petroleum, or something similar enough. they have a process, but you are not taking plastic in to the recyclers like aluminum a nd copper because the process is not viable. This may change because there is a hell of a lot of plastic going in the landfills.

Some plastic. Casein-formaldehyde resin doesn't owe much to petroleum, but you wouldn't get much in the way of long-chain hydrocarbons out of that, no matter how you processed it.

make

If you can get hold of quite a lot of hydrogen. The commercial process burn s some of the coal to get it hot enough to create "water gas" (hydrogen and carbon monoxide) from water and carbon, then goes from there.

The real issue is that fossil carbon is just the residue of some hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis. Putting a few hundred millions year s worth of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere in a few hundred years i sn't a good idea, and there's only a finite amount of fossil carbon availab le to be dug up - quite enough to severely perturb the global climate if we keep on digging it up at the current rate, but not enough to make it long term energy source for a sustainable civilisation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Well here's something that is not a conspiracy threoy : Car makers and oil companies have a symbiotic relationship. If they did not, there would be ca rs that take fuel you cannot get and fuel you cannot use.

I agree to treat this as an urban legend and/ro conspiracy theroy but there are a few extant facts that support at least the possibility.

Back when this supposedly happened, people used to build cars. My family am ong them. Even our Women had 300 HP and stick shifts. Oh yea, ALL the kids learned how to drive on a stickshift, at about age 13. As soon as they can handle a gun we figure they are ready to learn to drive. No they do not dri ve themselves all over the llace, it is not legal, but we found an out of t he way spot and let them do it. But the point is, almost none o the cars we re stock.

People (not us) bought into all kinds of crazy doodads for their car. Like the little fan for under the carb that was supposed to help the mixture mix . We knew better, it is already mixed when it comes out the jet. But it was legal to do stuff like this. If the timeline is what I think it (supposedl y) was, when the patents expired, there was pollution control on cars and i t became illegal to tamper with them. Of course you did whatver you wanted until they actual started test emissions, but you really couldn't sell such things anymore on the open market. California led the pack in that, there were alot of perfomance parts sold that had to be certified by the state of California to be sold, or it was illegal.

It became federal law that it was like a $25,000 fine and a few years in th e pokey for removing the catalytic convertor from a car. I think the law ac tually reads "any pollution device" which means most everything. Thus the o nly market would be for farm tractors n shit, making the whole idea un-viab le economically. OK, it could be put on old cars, but that also limits the market.

Of ocurse it is probably all bullshit, but who says you have to be serious al the time ? Speculation is the mother of, well I guess we could speculate on that.

Which commercial process is that? For making hydrogen or with hydrogen as a by product? What is your point? Are you suggesting that this is a commercially viable source of hydrogen to power automobiles?

Yes, ultimately fossil fuels are not sustainable. The problem is getting people to understand that before we have done irreversible damage. It's sort of like telling people that smoking causes cancer and many other diseases. It took decades for the message to get through to people even *with* irrefutable evidence. Global climate change is a much harder sell since the evidence is not staring them in the face.

--

Rick

neration system. The bacterium is actually do photosynthesis and put outs O

2, making the process CO2 neutral including the burning of the fuel. At lea st that's the claim.

n this at the moment. I read about it on another forum and don't have the l ink handy. I thought it interesting. Maybe I can find it, have to think of the right keywords. It is progbably in my bookmarks but the fsac tis that n ow I have so many it is useless. Literally, there are some sites I go to ne arly daily that I just Google up. I mean signed in like Audiokarma. I joine d, I didn't even bother to bookmark it because it takes so long to get to t he bottom of the list.

way to turn plastic into petroleum, or something similar enough. they have a process, but you are not taking plastic in to the recyclers like aluminum and copper because the process is not viable. This may change because ther e is a hell of a lot of plastic going in the landfills.

but you wouldn't get much in the way of long-chain hydrocarbons out of that , no matter how you processed it.

hy make

an

burns some of the coal to get it hot enough to create "water gas" (hydrogen and carbon monoxide) from water and carbon, then goes from there.

The one I had in mind was Fischer-Tropsch - there are others but I think th ey all work much the same way.

To provide the higher hydrogen content in gasolene - which is roughly two h ydrogen atoms per carbon atom. Anthracite has two hydrogen atoms per three carbon atoms.

The point was that you throw away about half the carbon in coal (as CO2) wh en you use it to make gasolene. It is a commercially viable source of hydro gen, but not one that you'd use to set up a hydrogen economy.

s

eds of millions of years of photosynthesis. Putting a few hundred millions years worth of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere in a few hundred yea rs isn't a good idea, and there's only a finite amount of fossil carbon ava ilable to be dug up - quite enough to severely perturb the global climate i f we keep on digging it up at the current rate, but not enough to make it l ong term energy source for a sustainable civilisation.

It isn't? Curiously, the techniques used to divert people from the evidence on anthropogenic global warming were pioneered on smoking, and several of the organisations that were put together by the tobacco companies are still around, now lying about anthropogenic global warming.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

There is some confusion. I was asking why anyone would convert plastic to fuel when it is easier to convert the coal directly. You are telling me about converting the coal to fuel. Even that may not be practical depending on the costs of feedstock vs oil, both rather volatile.

I suppose there is plastic from recycling. I don't actually know what happens to all of that since only some of it is useful for recycling.

Yes, we are talking about different things.

I don't know that it matters that you toss carbon. What matters is the end cost of the hydrogen. Unless of course that carbon ends up as CO2 perhaps.

I'm not sure we are disagreeing here. I just think the evidence is harder to show people and easier to misunderstand. With tobacco the only real issue with the evidence was that there was no "smoking gun" to show it caused cancer, just tons of epidemiological proof. With climate change the evidence is hard to see since it is buried in noise. By the time it is crystal clear there will have already been irreparable damage to the environment just as we have done irreparable damage to the environment in other ways.

--

Rick

You'd really need industrial-scale electrolysis for that to work anyway. Oh, and lots of either nuclear or fusion reaction capacity to power the electrolysis.

No, the techniques used to "attack" global warming were pioneered in the tobacco wars. The hydrocarbon people did not make the first move here.

I suppose we're just doomed to argue about the PR instead of the substance of the thing.

Since Nimoy died today - of presumably smoking related COPD - the latency of that is horrendous and an absolute nightmare in terms of analysis as a pathology. And he was 83 - well past his threescore and ten.

But SFAIK, COPD was introduced very late in the debate .

I wouldn't justify the attack on nor the defense of tobacco, but it makes it into some sort of jousting contest rather than a means of disseminating information people need.

I suppose that's where the money is.

Ditto the other side. It'd be nice if we could trust either camp, but we simply cannot, I fear.

I do trust a PhD applied math guy I know who ran me through the basic statistics stretching, but I can't say I understood it.

The math is very daunting. I sort of have to take this one guy's word for it. It sort of boggles my mind how much they can stretch just a little data.

--
Les Cargill

s burns some of the coal to get it hot enough to create "water gas" (hydrog en and carbon monoxide) from water and carbon, then goes from there.

k they all work much the same way.

wo hydrogen atoms per carbon atom. Anthracite has two hydrogen atoms per th ree carbon atoms.

) when you use it to make gasolene. It is a commercially viable source of h ydrogen, but not one that you'd use to set up a hydrogen economy.

The carbon that doesn't get into the gasoline ends up as CO2. You get the h ydrogen from the reaction

2xH20 + C = 4xH2 + CO2

he

eas

h

't

dreds of millions of years of photosynthesis. Putting a few hundred million s years worth of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere in a few hundred y ears isn't a good idea, and there's only a finite amount of fossil carbon a vailable to be dug up - quite enough to severely perturb the global climate if we keep on digging it up at the current rate, but not enough to make it long term energy source for a sustainable civilisation.

nd

o

ence on anthropogenic global warming were pioneered on smoking, and several of the organisations that were put together by the tobacco companies are s till around, now lying about anthropogenic global warming.

The evidence is already crystal clear. 97% of the top 300 climatologists ar e convinced and the remaining 3% (roughly ten of them)are irrational.

The poster denialists - Spencer and Christy

aren't irrational in the sense of needing to be locked away, but they are b orn-again Christians, and their irrational faith dictates how they see the data. It's an article of faith with them that God wouldn't be mean enough t o give us coal, then require us to stop digging it up before it's completel y exhausted.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It's only a "little" data if you look at a very limited set. It is

*very* clear that CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. The correlation with industrialization is nearly perfect. Then there is a smoking gun in that we *know* how much CO2 we produce every year. The only question is the impact. Even that question has a clear answer, the only uncertainty is how fast it will happen, 50 years, 100 years, 200 years?

But then we don't have a huge incentive to be realistic about it. Even the worst case scenario doesn't really have any impacts until most of the people discussing the issues are dead. Just like nuclear waste this is a problem being created by the present to be dealt with by the future. It will become more important once the effects become part of the "now" rather than the "then". But "then" we will likely to be able to do little about it.

--

Rick

It's been known about for a while. One of my co-workers had chronic bronchi tis, which is the precursor to COPD (which we tended to call emphysema) bac k around the mid-1980's and we all understood the connection to smoking. My youngest brother - the doctor - said that 18 months of smoking was enough to make it irreversible, if you were susceptible.

I've not detected much misinformation in the propagada supporting the reali ty of anthropogenic global warming. Al Gore's cute polar bears weren't quit e as doomed as he made out, but - by and large - the truth is all they need .

You haven't been paying attention. Mann's hockey stick was based on tree ri ngs, but - sadly for McIntyre - a whole lot of new data, based on other pro xies, including deep sea and lake sediments - has published since, all tell ing much the same story.

There's a lot more data than there was in the 1990's, and it all consilient .

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Errrr...cyanobacteria do not work that way.

COPD my logical ass. He died because he was 83 and his body couldn't take i t anymore.

My buddy was at a funeral a while back, he related this story to me;

Whoever it was, was smoking, back then it was allowed in public places. It was a funeral. The preacher come across a guy he knew and talked to him. th e preacher asked "So, did you ever stop smoking ?" and they guy replies "I am 93 years old, why would I stop now ?".

IN THIRD GEAR.

What way? I know you don't know what you are talking about, but there's a larger audience out there who needs to know that your enthusiasm for snappy one-liners considerably exceeds you capacity for understanding what is being discussed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Absolutely.

Exactly. And there is quite a bit (if modestly confusing) evidence that temperatures are also rising.

Exactly again - this is why it's a lot like tobacco - the latency kills out ability to deal with it.

--
Les Cargill