1969912 0 #26 April 23, 2007 So is that all he did, just electrolytically split water and then use the hydrogen to run the car? If so, then BFD. His website is pretty hoaky, so I didn't bother to read much of it. If that's all he's doing, then he's paying the equivalent of about $5.00/gal of gas to make his hydrogen (assuming a 60% energy efficiency for the electrolysis, which is fairly high). Interestingly, the energy cost of gasoline is very close to that of electricity. At $3/gal, gasoline is $.09/kW-hr, and the US avg for electricity in '06 was $.0986/kW-hr. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #27 April 23, 2007 > So is that all he did, just electrolytically split water and then use the hydrogen to run the car? Looks like it. He keeps talking about HHO, which sounds like mixed electrolysis products (i.e. the oxygen and hydrogen products mixed but not recombined chemically.) Needless to say, storing and using this mixture is much more dangerous than using the H2 and O2 separately and doesn't really have any benefits (other than using one tank instead of two.) >he's paying the equivalent of about $5.00/gal of gas to make his hydrogen . . . . . . based purely on electric power costs for electrolysis. It will be a bit more overall since you have to compress the hydrogen to very high pressures to get a reasonable vehicle range. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
77r 0 #28 April 23, 2007 QuoteYou are WRONG, Royder does understand the science and you don't. Just because you don't understand BASIC science, do not criticise people because they point out you are falling for a con. The likes of you should not be making this decision and neither should congressmen without scientific advisers, because they are not scientifically equipped to see through a very obvious and childish fraud. As it is we'll blow money on a modified hummer and hopefully the testing will reveal that it is less efficient or someone will be smart enough to spot the real engine mods they've made. You should listen to people who can see very clearly what is going on here instead of dismissing what they say. A few posters here understand science and see why this is a fraud. You need to calm your horses dorbie. First of all you don't know what the likes of me are. Second of all I'm not dismissing anything. Like I said Royder could be right. Go back and read what I wrote before jumping to conclusions over something you apparently did not read, but skimmed over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #29 April 23, 2007 That website led me to some writings about "Brown's Gas", "Brown's/Rhode's Gas", "Common Duct Gas", and "Oxyhydrogen". They all seem to be the same thing, just the mixed products of electrolysis. See http://www.energyoptions.com/tech/browns.html. There are some pretty strange claims made about it, but it sounds like a stoich mixture of O and H, which would be really hard to store. Re: energy costs, I was surprised to find that utility-provided electricity was about the same as gasoline. What kind of cost efficiency are people getting with EV's charged at home? I know that electric motors can be pretty efficient, but what kind of losses occur between the AC outlet and the motor? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #30 April 23, 2007 QuoteSo is that all he did, just electrolytically split water and then use the hydrogen to run the car?. Yup, he even mentions electrolysis in the video as how he does the separation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #31 April 23, 2007 I read enough, after posting pseudoscience junk you wrote "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in response to a valid correction, yup later you backpedalled, I really have no interest in you personally but I object to anyone advocating pseudoscience and calling into question the judgement of the people who demonstrate the products of a good education; real knowledge and rational judgement. Congratulations on coming to your senses, welcome to the club. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #32 April 23, 2007 Quote mixture of O and H, which would be really hard to store. No shit! Hey I've got an idea, store it safely as water!!!My waterpowered car is better than his though. You pedal it, your feet drive the cylinders to pump water from the 'fuel' tank straight out the exhaust. It is actually more efficient because you don't have to perform electrolysis or combustion and the water is emitted in liquid form rather than a hot gas, clearly a win. I sell the add on that recirculates the exhaust water back to the 'fuel' tank to save on refueling. I also sell a fuel additive called dihidrogen monoxide, it's really expensive to make though so I have to charge a lot for it. The only obstacle is all these close minded scientists getting in the way of my pure research. If only I could get access to those dopey bastards in congress I know I could convince them that I'm onto something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
77r 0 #33 April 23, 2007 QuoteI read enough, after posting pseudoscience junk you wrote "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in response to a valid correction, yup later you backpedalled, I really have no interest in you personally but I object to anyone advocating pseudoscience and calling into question the judgement of the people who demonstrate the products of a good education; real knowledge and rational judgement. Quote "Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax." isn't "pseudoscience junk". It's an invitation to provide a better explanation as to why the story in the news clip is a hoax. I didn't backpeddal. I said he could be right after he offered a better explanation, since obviously I'm not an expert on the subject. But the comment still stands. Unless you know the science behind it, don't knock it as a definate hoax, to which he obviously came back with a better explanation than I could counter and I acknowledged that. As far as advocating pseudoscience, I posted an obviously interesting newsclip which in case it is what its represented to be it's important that people know about it - so ease up Mr PseudoScience Police. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,434 #34 April 23, 2007 >I was surprised to find that utility-provided electricity was about the same as gasoline. Depends what you want to do with it. It's about 12 cents a kwhr, and a gallon of gas will generate between 10 (inefficient small generator) and 37 (100% efficient generator) kwhr. The only "100% efficient generators" out there are basically heaters, because their "waste heat" is what you want out of them. So for heating applications, a gallon of gas ($3.50) is a bit cheaper than 37kwhr ($4.44) of electricity. But since most gas powered cars are around 30% efficient (tank to wheels) and most electric cars are close to 95% efficient (battery to wheels) you end up with a significant savings when you use electric power. Depending on the battery and charger, the charging process is between 80% (fast lead acid) and 96% (slow li-ion) efficient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #35 April 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteI read enough, after posting pseudoscience junk you wrote "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in response to a valid correction, yup later you backpedalled, I really have no interest in you personally but I object to anyone advocating pseudoscience and calling into question the judgement of the people who demonstrate the products of a good education; real knowledge and rational judgement. Quote "Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax." isn't "pseudoscience junk". It's an invitation to provide a better explanation as to why the story in the news clip is a hoax. I didn't backpeddal. I said he could be right after he offered a better explanation, since obviously I'm not an expert on the subject. But the comment still stands. Unless you know the science behind it, don't knock it as a definate hoax, to which he obviously came back with a better explanation than I could counter and I acknowledged that. As far as advocating pseudoscience, I posted an obviously interesting newsclip which in case it is what its represented to be it's important that people know about it - so ease up Mr PseudoScience Police. Maybe do a little research first. This guy has been trying to sell his snake oil machine for quite a while, and he's not the first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #36 April 23, 2007 You posted something that was obviously pseudoscience junk, not having the knowledge to see that is your problem. You accused someone else of your own flaws when their response didn't meet with your approval. Telling someone "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " was just brazen hypocrisy. The reason you made the post is YOU were incapable of understanding the science and your remark was directed at someone who did. If you didn't backpedal, well that's an embarrassing admission. I don't expect most people to have the physics education to understand this, but if you don't, don't go tossing remarks like "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in defense of such claims because it can make you look spectacularly foolish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ryoder 1,400 #37 April 23, 2007 Speaking of electric vehicles, have you made any more mods to your electric bicycle?"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 77r 0 #38 April 23, 2007 Quote If you didn't backpedal, well that's an embarrassing admission. I don't expect most people to have the physics education to understand this, but if you don't, don't go tossing remarks like "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in defense of such claims because it can make you look spectacularly foolish. I stand behind what I said. There's nothing in that statement that makes me look spectacularly foolish. You spectacularly exagerate the severity of the statement. I never made any claims about my background in physics. I was simply sharing what I thought was an interesting piece of news. And since Ryoder disputed it's validity I said what I said. "Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax." Ryoder apparently does understand the science behind it so in his case he can make an argument. For someone just throwing that statement out there I would say the same thing. If you can't disprove something don't dismiss it outright. I'm not going to fall in line and get a degree in physics before I post a video clip on the subject. Some people in here (you) need to lighten up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ryoder 1,400 #39 April 23, 2007 Quote One more...the ultimate hydrogen powered car. www.buckeyebullet.com This vehicle is VERY real. Looks great, but I'll bet parallel parking is a bitch."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #40 April 23, 2007 Quote Quote One more...the ultimate hydrogen powered car. www.buckeyebullet.com This vehicle is VERY real. Looks great, but I'll bet parallel parking is a bitch. I think the turn radius might also be questionable.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #41 April 24, 2007 Quote Quote Quote One more...the ultimate hydrogen powered car. www.buckeyebullet.com This vehicle is VERY real. Looks great, but I'll bet parallel parking is a bitch. I think the turn radius might also be questionable. You oughta try going up to a drive-thru window or ATM with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #42 April 24, 2007 Quote Ryoder apparently does understand the science behind it so in his case he can make an argument. Yup he does indeed, an admirable revision of your original position, but it was clear from his first lucid post that he had a good understanding of the science. "It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. " - royder. Quote Some people in here (you) need to lighten up. You called the science "snake oil" . Lightening up doesn't mean forgetting a poster who believed in the water powered car & criticized someone who didn't believe for "not understanding the science" despite their clear explanation of why it was bogus. On one level I think that's hillarious, but it also saddens me. Lighten up yourself, you have plenty of company (unfortunately). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 77r 0 #43 April 24, 2007 Quote Yup he does indeed, an admirable revision of your original position, but it was clear from his first lucid post that he had a good understanding of the science. "It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. " - royder. You called the science "snake oil" . Lightening up doesn't mean forgetting a poster who believed in the water powered car & criticized someone who didn't believe for "not understanding the science" despite their clear explanation of why it was bogus. On one level I think that's hillarious, but it also saddens me. Lighten up yourself, you have plenty of company (unfortunately). Running a car off of Hydrogen is not bogus. Yes I believe it is possible to run a car off of hydrogen because it is possible despite the energy efficiency issue at this time in regards to extracting it from water. Which Ryoder pointed out. I don't make any apologies for the video. It's not my job to impress you with regard to taking interest in something that could potentially turn into a viable source of energy for our vehicles one day. Whether or not it has a few hurdles to overcome on the way if someone intends to extract that hydrogen from water. "Snake oil" btw was a reference to what Ryoder himself said he had for sale. Go back and read it. That's not my invention. What is sad is that you would use my posting as an opportunity to blow your top fixating on a statement which holds true in a euphemistic sense if nothing else. Ryoder offered a good explanation as to why it isn’t energy efficient. He still hasn’t proven that it “can’t” work. Unless you’re a specialist in that particular field, you can’t disprove it just because you know enough Physics and/or Chemistry to sound “smart”. All you can do is make a better argument as to why it isn’t likely to work compared to someone who is unfamiliar with the technology or physics/chemistry in general. Which is basically what happened. Now that should have been time to move on, Ryoder made his point and it was acknowledged, but one little voice in the peanut gallery had to quip in and start making accusations on a topic that wasn’t even in question. Namely, the energy it takes to break that water down to make it worth using it as a fuel source. Needing massive amounts of electricity to make that process possible is not something I have ever brought up or disputed. So what’s with this whole “You’ll believe anything and didn’t want to listen to RYODER! ” ? Ryoder still didn’t prove that it’s impossible, he only pointed out that it isn’t worth it to invest the energy it takes to do it. In your case I'm glad you don't have a lot of "company". This forum should be fun and comments as benign as mine should not be fodder for such a pointless argument and personal attack. What I said is the position I take in regard to people discounting everything new and unfamiliar. Yes I was interested in what I saw in the news clip and shame on you for trying to suggest I’m weak minded in my interest. Go tell GM/Hummer (with their working Hyrogen fuel cell models) that Ryoder has something to say about it. He knows a little more than most people apparently, including you I gather from your need to call into question my familiarity with the topic to make yourself seem like you know what you're talking about. I’m glad the off topic science behind the process makes enough sense for you to regurgitate it in this discussion to sound like you have what to offer, but you’re off topic to begin with to start an argument about an entirely separate issue. Namely is it worth it to expend the energy to make it work vs. can a car run off of water/hydrogen, which it has been proven it does. You need to do a little research yourself. As far as your mantra "you doubted RYODER and posted a bogus video!! " goes,….Get over it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #44 April 24, 2007 Quote Running a car off of Hydrogen is not bogus. There's a world of difference between running a car off Hydrogen and anything you posted in this thread. Running a car off water is bogus. I refer you to your first two posts in this thread, if you want to forget them the best way is to stop bumping this thread. Here's a recap using quotes, bold added for emphasis: 77r - "See video - Water Energy powers Cars " royder - "It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. Then you burn the two gases and they release that energy as they recombine into water. So where do you get the energy initially?" 77r - "Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax." This is a classic exchange, but I'd rather not go over this ad nauseum to correct your revisionism. And you're now posting crap about efficiency and being specialists. Look you're wrong, you were wrong at the start, you've been wrong throughout and despite going back and forth you're STILL wrong, many posters, including myself have pointed out exactly why this is bogus and in considerable detail. Most people posting have a better grasp of the physics involved than the charlatan making the claims, his fraud is childishly naive, as I've mentioned. Despite your belief, royder explained beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is bogus in his first post to anyone with a high school education in physics & chemistry. If you think you can wave your hands like this and generate a smoke screen you're mistaken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #45 April 24, 2007 Quit fighting - you guys are making this place sound like the BASE Zone! "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ryoder 1,400 #46 April 24, 2007 Quote Quit fighting - you guys are making this place sound like the BASE Zone! If you look at the profile of 77r, she is obviously a chick, so I have become convinced she and dorbie are a married couple."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DJL 232 #47 April 24, 2007 QuoteSo is that all he did, just electrolytically split water and then use the hydrogen to run the car? If so, then BFD. His website is pretty hoaky, so I didn't bother to read much of it. If that's all he's doing, then he's paying the equivalent of about $5.00/gal of gas to make his hydrogen (assuming a 60% energy efficiency for the electrolysis, which is fairly high). Interestingly, the energy cost of gasoline is very close to that of electricity. At $3/gal, gasoline is $.09/kW-hr, and the US avg for electricity in '06 was $.0986/kW-hr. Essentially, if the cost of gas exceeds the cost of any (not just this form) of replacement fuel then that fuel will begin to be used. The reason that gasoline is usable is because the work we put into it by collecting and refining it is economically advantageous. I can conceive a situation in which a process like this is attached to a wind farm but I think everyone needs to realize the distinction. The cost of putting energy into a usable form needs to be less than what someone will pay for that form of energy. If you have a gasoline generator powering the process then it makes no sense unless it's the form of energy that's important, not the amount of energy you get out of it. As far as making the model work from an energy standpoint, if you have a cheap source of power like a donkey on a turnstyle (ha-ha) or wind then you can make some money."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benblee 0 #48 April 24, 2007 You bring up a very good point, now let me take all of your words out and put my own words in: Until you can pee in a gas tank and drive around town, sit your happy little ass down on a bike and start peddling like a motherf##ker, cuz you aint saving anything. It's just too damn expensive and skydivers are just too damn cheap. (I'm a cheap skydiver too, so don't any of you take it personally).Ben Lee www.CollegeSkydiving.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 77r 0 #49 April 24, 2007 I never claimed that without a doubt it wasn't a hoax, I simply invited an explanation before the video in question was dismissed. That's how discussions get started. Ryoder didn't go beyond asking where the energy comes from. That dosn't disprove anything. Once He addressed that comment in better detail than commenting on the energy it takes for the process, he made his point and nothing more was said from me. Like I said, that should have been the end of it. All you're doing is brow beating, and making personal attacks. This thread should have been to discuss the video and the topic in that video, instead you've decided to take one of my begining statements which was already laid to rest, and run with it. You really should quit being such a rabble rouser. That's not what people want to see in these threads Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #50 April 24, 2007 Quote Ryoder didn't go beyond asking where the energy comes from. That dosn't disprove anything. Once He addressed that comment in better detail than commenting on the energy it takes for the process, he made his point and nothing more was said from me. Like I said, that should have been the end of it. All you're doing is brow beating, and making personal attacks. This thread should have been to discuss the video and the topic in that video, instead you've decided to take one of my begining statements which was already laid to rest, and run with it. Asking where the energy comes from was a rhetorical device to invite critical thinking, the whole point is it doesn't come from the water (your alleged fuel remember). You responded to accurate science based criticism of pseudoscience with stunning ill founded hubris. Calling you on it is not a PA, and the ONLY reason I'm still posting is you keep trying to pretend something else happened in this thread (for example by grasping at hydrogen fuel). I'm done here. REALLY, my last post. I'm off to argue with my goldfish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 2,434 #34 April 23, 2007 >I was surprised to find that utility-provided electricity was about the same as gasoline. Depends what you want to do with it. It's about 12 cents a kwhr, and a gallon of gas will generate between 10 (inefficient small generator) and 37 (100% efficient generator) kwhr. The only "100% efficient generators" out there are basically heaters, because their "waste heat" is what you want out of them. So for heating applications, a gallon of gas ($3.50) is a bit cheaper than 37kwhr ($4.44) of electricity. But since most gas powered cars are around 30% efficient (tank to wheels) and most electric cars are close to 95% efficient (battery to wheels) you end up with a significant savings when you use electric power. Depending on the battery and charger, the charging process is between 80% (fast lead acid) and 96% (slow li-ion) efficient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #35 April 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteI read enough, after posting pseudoscience junk you wrote "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in response to a valid correction, yup later you backpedalled, I really have no interest in you personally but I object to anyone advocating pseudoscience and calling into question the judgement of the people who demonstrate the products of a good education; real knowledge and rational judgement. Quote "Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax." isn't "pseudoscience junk". It's an invitation to provide a better explanation as to why the story in the news clip is a hoax. I didn't backpeddal. I said he could be right after he offered a better explanation, since obviously I'm not an expert on the subject. But the comment still stands. Unless you know the science behind it, don't knock it as a definate hoax, to which he obviously came back with a better explanation than I could counter and I acknowledged that. As far as advocating pseudoscience, I posted an obviously interesting newsclip which in case it is what its represented to be it's important that people know about it - so ease up Mr PseudoScience Police. Maybe do a little research first. This guy has been trying to sell his snake oil machine for quite a while, and he's not the first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #36 April 23, 2007 You posted something that was obviously pseudoscience junk, not having the knowledge to see that is your problem. You accused someone else of your own flaws when their response didn't meet with your approval. Telling someone "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " was just brazen hypocrisy. The reason you made the post is YOU were incapable of understanding the science and your remark was directed at someone who did. If you didn't backpedal, well that's an embarrassing admission. I don't expect most people to have the physics education to understand this, but if you don't, don't go tossing remarks like "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in defense of such claims because it can make you look spectacularly foolish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ryoder 1,400 #37 April 23, 2007 Speaking of electric vehicles, have you made any more mods to your electric bicycle?"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 77r 0 #38 April 23, 2007 Quote If you didn't backpedal, well that's an embarrassing admission. I don't expect most people to have the physics education to understand this, but if you don't, don't go tossing remarks like "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in defense of such claims because it can make you look spectacularly foolish. I stand behind what I said. There's nothing in that statement that makes me look spectacularly foolish. You spectacularly exagerate the severity of the statement. I never made any claims about my background in physics. I was simply sharing what I thought was an interesting piece of news. And since Ryoder disputed it's validity I said what I said. "Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax." Ryoder apparently does understand the science behind it so in his case he can make an argument. For someone just throwing that statement out there I would say the same thing. If you can't disprove something don't dismiss it outright. I'm not going to fall in line and get a degree in physics before I post a video clip on the subject. Some people in here (you) need to lighten up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ryoder 1,400 #39 April 23, 2007 Quote One more...the ultimate hydrogen powered car. www.buckeyebullet.com This vehicle is VERY real. Looks great, but I'll bet parallel parking is a bitch."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #40 April 23, 2007 Quote Quote One more...the ultimate hydrogen powered car. www.buckeyebullet.com This vehicle is VERY real. Looks great, but I'll bet parallel parking is a bitch. I think the turn radius might also be questionable.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #41 April 24, 2007 Quote Quote Quote One more...the ultimate hydrogen powered car. www.buckeyebullet.com This vehicle is VERY real. Looks great, but I'll bet parallel parking is a bitch. I think the turn radius might also be questionable. You oughta try going up to a drive-thru window or ATM with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #42 April 24, 2007 Quote Ryoder apparently does understand the science behind it so in his case he can make an argument. Yup he does indeed, an admirable revision of your original position, but it was clear from his first lucid post that he had a good understanding of the science. "It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. " - royder. Quote Some people in here (you) need to lighten up. You called the science "snake oil" . Lightening up doesn't mean forgetting a poster who believed in the water powered car & criticized someone who didn't believe for "not understanding the science" despite their clear explanation of why it was bogus. On one level I think that's hillarious, but it also saddens me. Lighten up yourself, you have plenty of company (unfortunately). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 77r 0 #43 April 24, 2007 Quote Yup he does indeed, an admirable revision of your original position, but it was clear from his first lucid post that he had a good understanding of the science. "It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. " - royder. You called the science "snake oil" . Lightening up doesn't mean forgetting a poster who believed in the water powered car & criticized someone who didn't believe for "not understanding the science" despite their clear explanation of why it was bogus. On one level I think that's hillarious, but it also saddens me. Lighten up yourself, you have plenty of company (unfortunately). Running a car off of Hydrogen is not bogus. Yes I believe it is possible to run a car off of hydrogen because it is possible despite the energy efficiency issue at this time in regards to extracting it from water. Which Ryoder pointed out. I don't make any apologies for the video. It's not my job to impress you with regard to taking interest in something that could potentially turn into a viable source of energy for our vehicles one day. Whether or not it has a few hurdles to overcome on the way if someone intends to extract that hydrogen from water. "Snake oil" btw was a reference to what Ryoder himself said he had for sale. Go back and read it. That's not my invention. What is sad is that you would use my posting as an opportunity to blow your top fixating on a statement which holds true in a euphemistic sense if nothing else. Ryoder offered a good explanation as to why it isn’t energy efficient. He still hasn’t proven that it “can’t” work. Unless you’re a specialist in that particular field, you can’t disprove it just because you know enough Physics and/or Chemistry to sound “smart”. All you can do is make a better argument as to why it isn’t likely to work compared to someone who is unfamiliar with the technology or physics/chemistry in general. Which is basically what happened. Now that should have been time to move on, Ryoder made his point and it was acknowledged, but one little voice in the peanut gallery had to quip in and start making accusations on a topic that wasn’t even in question. Namely, the energy it takes to break that water down to make it worth using it as a fuel source. Needing massive amounts of electricity to make that process possible is not something I have ever brought up or disputed. So what’s with this whole “You’ll believe anything and didn’t want to listen to RYODER! ” ? Ryoder still didn’t prove that it’s impossible, he only pointed out that it isn’t worth it to invest the energy it takes to do it. In your case I'm glad you don't have a lot of "company". This forum should be fun and comments as benign as mine should not be fodder for such a pointless argument and personal attack. What I said is the position I take in regard to people discounting everything new and unfamiliar. Yes I was interested in what I saw in the news clip and shame on you for trying to suggest I’m weak minded in my interest. Go tell GM/Hummer (with their working Hyrogen fuel cell models) that Ryoder has something to say about it. He knows a little more than most people apparently, including you I gather from your need to call into question my familiarity with the topic to make yourself seem like you know what you're talking about. I’m glad the off topic science behind the process makes enough sense for you to regurgitate it in this discussion to sound like you have what to offer, but you’re off topic to begin with to start an argument about an entirely separate issue. Namely is it worth it to expend the energy to make it work vs. can a car run off of water/hydrogen, which it has been proven it does. You need to do a little research yourself. As far as your mantra "you doubted RYODER and posted a bogus video!! " goes,….Get over it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #44 April 24, 2007 Quote Running a car off of Hydrogen is not bogus. There's a world of difference between running a car off Hydrogen and anything you posted in this thread. Running a car off water is bogus. I refer you to your first two posts in this thread, if you want to forget them the best way is to stop bumping this thread. Here's a recap using quotes, bold added for emphasis: 77r - "See video - Water Energy powers Cars " royder - "It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. Then you burn the two gases and they release that energy as they recombine into water. So where do you get the energy initially?" 77r - "Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax." This is a classic exchange, but I'd rather not go over this ad nauseum to correct your revisionism. And you're now posting crap about efficiency and being specialists. Look you're wrong, you were wrong at the start, you've been wrong throughout and despite going back and forth you're STILL wrong, many posters, including myself have pointed out exactly why this is bogus and in considerable detail. Most people posting have a better grasp of the physics involved than the charlatan making the claims, his fraud is childishly naive, as I've mentioned. Despite your belief, royder explained beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is bogus in his first post to anyone with a high school education in physics & chemistry. If you think you can wave your hands like this and generate a smoke screen you're mistaken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #45 April 24, 2007 Quit fighting - you guys are making this place sound like the BASE Zone! "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ryoder 1,400 #46 April 24, 2007 Quote Quit fighting - you guys are making this place sound like the BASE Zone! If you look at the profile of 77r, she is obviously a chick, so I have become convinced she and dorbie are a married couple."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DJL 232 #47 April 24, 2007 QuoteSo is that all he did, just electrolytically split water and then use the hydrogen to run the car? If so, then BFD. His website is pretty hoaky, so I didn't bother to read much of it. If that's all he's doing, then he's paying the equivalent of about $5.00/gal of gas to make his hydrogen (assuming a 60% energy efficiency for the electrolysis, which is fairly high). Interestingly, the energy cost of gasoline is very close to that of electricity. At $3/gal, gasoline is $.09/kW-hr, and the US avg for electricity in '06 was $.0986/kW-hr. Essentially, if the cost of gas exceeds the cost of any (not just this form) of replacement fuel then that fuel will begin to be used. The reason that gasoline is usable is because the work we put into it by collecting and refining it is economically advantageous. I can conceive a situation in which a process like this is attached to a wind farm but I think everyone needs to realize the distinction. The cost of putting energy into a usable form needs to be less than what someone will pay for that form of energy. If you have a gasoline generator powering the process then it makes no sense unless it's the form of energy that's important, not the amount of energy you get out of it. As far as making the model work from an energy standpoint, if you have a cheap source of power like a donkey on a turnstyle (ha-ha) or wind then you can make some money."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benblee 0 #48 April 24, 2007 You bring up a very good point, now let me take all of your words out and put my own words in: Until you can pee in a gas tank and drive around town, sit your happy little ass down on a bike and start peddling like a motherf##ker, cuz you aint saving anything. It's just too damn expensive and skydivers are just too damn cheap. (I'm a cheap skydiver too, so don't any of you take it personally).Ben Lee www.CollegeSkydiving.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 77r 0 #49 April 24, 2007 I never claimed that without a doubt it wasn't a hoax, I simply invited an explanation before the video in question was dismissed. That's how discussions get started. Ryoder didn't go beyond asking where the energy comes from. That dosn't disprove anything. Once He addressed that comment in better detail than commenting on the energy it takes for the process, he made his point and nothing more was said from me. Like I said, that should have been the end of it. All you're doing is brow beating, and making personal attacks. This thread should have been to discuss the video and the topic in that video, instead you've decided to take one of my begining statements which was already laid to rest, and run with it. You really should quit being such a rabble rouser. That's not what people want to see in these threads Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #50 April 24, 2007 Quote Ryoder didn't go beyond asking where the energy comes from. That dosn't disprove anything. Once He addressed that comment in better detail than commenting on the energy it takes for the process, he made his point and nothing more was said from me. Like I said, that should have been the end of it. All you're doing is brow beating, and making personal attacks. This thread should have been to discuss the video and the topic in that video, instead you've decided to take one of my begining statements which was already laid to rest, and run with it. Asking where the energy comes from was a rhetorical device to invite critical thinking, the whole point is it doesn't come from the water (your alleged fuel remember). You responded to accurate science based criticism of pseudoscience with stunning ill founded hubris. Calling you on it is not a PA, and the ONLY reason I'm still posting is you keep trying to pretend something else happened in this thread (for example by grasping at hydrogen fuel). I'm done here. REALLY, my last post. I'm off to argue with my goldfish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
dorbie 0 #36 April 23, 2007 You posted something that was obviously pseudoscience junk, not having the knowledge to see that is your problem. You accused someone else of your own flaws when their response didn't meet with your approval. Telling someone "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " was just brazen hypocrisy. The reason you made the post is YOU were incapable of understanding the science and your remark was directed at someone who did. If you didn't backpedal, well that's an embarrassing admission. I don't expect most people to have the physics education to understand this, but if you don't, don't go tossing remarks like "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in defense of such claims because it can make you look spectacularly foolish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,400 #37 April 23, 2007 Speaking of electric vehicles, have you made any more mods to your electric bicycle?"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
77r 0 #38 April 23, 2007 Quote If you didn't backpedal, well that's an embarrassing admission. I don't expect most people to have the physics education to understand this, but if you don't, don't go tossing remarks like "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in defense of such claims because it can make you look spectacularly foolish. I stand behind what I said. There's nothing in that statement that makes me look spectacularly foolish. You spectacularly exagerate the severity of the statement. I never made any claims about my background in physics. I was simply sharing what I thought was an interesting piece of news. And since Ryoder disputed it's validity I said what I said. "Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax." Ryoder apparently does understand the science behind it so in his case he can make an argument. For someone just throwing that statement out there I would say the same thing. If you can't disprove something don't dismiss it outright. I'm not going to fall in line and get a degree in physics before I post a video clip on the subject. Some people in here (you) need to lighten up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,400 #39 April 23, 2007 Quote One more...the ultimate hydrogen powered car. www.buckeyebullet.com This vehicle is VERY real. Looks great, but I'll bet parallel parking is a bitch."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #40 April 23, 2007 Quote Quote One more...the ultimate hydrogen powered car. www.buckeyebullet.com This vehicle is VERY real. Looks great, but I'll bet parallel parking is a bitch. I think the turn radius might also be questionable.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #41 April 24, 2007 Quote Quote Quote One more...the ultimate hydrogen powered car. www.buckeyebullet.com This vehicle is VERY real. Looks great, but I'll bet parallel parking is a bitch. I think the turn radius might also be questionable. You oughta try going up to a drive-thru window or ATM with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #42 April 24, 2007 Quote Ryoder apparently does understand the science behind it so in his case he can make an argument. Yup he does indeed, an admirable revision of your original position, but it was clear from his first lucid post that he had a good understanding of the science. "It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. " - royder. Quote Some people in here (you) need to lighten up. You called the science "snake oil" . Lightening up doesn't mean forgetting a poster who believed in the water powered car & criticized someone who didn't believe for "not understanding the science" despite their clear explanation of why it was bogus. On one level I think that's hillarious, but it also saddens me. Lighten up yourself, you have plenty of company (unfortunately). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
77r 0 #43 April 24, 2007 Quote Yup he does indeed, an admirable revision of your original position, but it was clear from his first lucid post that he had a good understanding of the science. "It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. " - royder. You called the science "snake oil" . Lightening up doesn't mean forgetting a poster who believed in the water powered car & criticized someone who didn't believe for "not understanding the science" despite their clear explanation of why it was bogus. On one level I think that's hillarious, but it also saddens me. Lighten up yourself, you have plenty of company (unfortunately). Running a car off of Hydrogen is not bogus. Yes I believe it is possible to run a car off of hydrogen because it is possible despite the energy efficiency issue at this time in regards to extracting it from water. Which Ryoder pointed out. I don't make any apologies for the video. It's not my job to impress you with regard to taking interest in something that could potentially turn into a viable source of energy for our vehicles one day. Whether or not it has a few hurdles to overcome on the way if someone intends to extract that hydrogen from water. "Snake oil" btw was a reference to what Ryoder himself said he had for sale. Go back and read it. That's not my invention. What is sad is that you would use my posting as an opportunity to blow your top fixating on a statement which holds true in a euphemistic sense if nothing else. Ryoder offered a good explanation as to why it isn’t energy efficient. He still hasn’t proven that it “can’t” work. Unless you’re a specialist in that particular field, you can’t disprove it just because you know enough Physics and/or Chemistry to sound “smart”. All you can do is make a better argument as to why it isn’t likely to work compared to someone who is unfamiliar with the technology or physics/chemistry in general. Which is basically what happened. Now that should have been time to move on, Ryoder made his point and it was acknowledged, but one little voice in the peanut gallery had to quip in and start making accusations on a topic that wasn’t even in question. Namely, the energy it takes to break that water down to make it worth using it as a fuel source. Needing massive amounts of electricity to make that process possible is not something I have ever brought up or disputed. So what’s with this whole “You’ll believe anything and didn’t want to listen to RYODER! ” ? Ryoder still didn’t prove that it’s impossible, he only pointed out that it isn’t worth it to invest the energy it takes to do it. In your case I'm glad you don't have a lot of "company". This forum should be fun and comments as benign as mine should not be fodder for such a pointless argument and personal attack. What I said is the position I take in regard to people discounting everything new and unfamiliar. Yes I was interested in what I saw in the news clip and shame on you for trying to suggest I’m weak minded in my interest. Go tell GM/Hummer (with their working Hyrogen fuel cell models) that Ryoder has something to say about it. He knows a little more than most people apparently, including you I gather from your need to call into question my familiarity with the topic to make yourself seem like you know what you're talking about. I’m glad the off topic science behind the process makes enough sense for you to regurgitate it in this discussion to sound like you have what to offer, but you’re off topic to begin with to start an argument about an entirely separate issue. Namely is it worth it to expend the energy to make it work vs. can a car run off of water/hydrogen, which it has been proven it does. You need to do a little research yourself. As far as your mantra "you doubted RYODER and posted a bogus video!! " goes,….Get over it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #44 April 24, 2007 Quote Running a car off of Hydrogen is not bogus. There's a world of difference between running a car off Hydrogen and anything you posted in this thread. Running a car off water is bogus. I refer you to your first two posts in this thread, if you want to forget them the best way is to stop bumping this thread. Here's a recap using quotes, bold added for emphasis: 77r - "See video - Water Energy powers Cars " royder - "It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. Then you burn the two gases and they release that energy as they recombine into water. So where do you get the energy initially?" 77r - "Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax." This is a classic exchange, but I'd rather not go over this ad nauseum to correct your revisionism. And you're now posting crap about efficiency and being specialists. Look you're wrong, you were wrong at the start, you've been wrong throughout and despite going back and forth you're STILL wrong, many posters, including myself have pointed out exactly why this is bogus and in considerable detail. Most people posting have a better grasp of the physics involved than the charlatan making the claims, his fraud is childishly naive, as I've mentioned. Despite your belief, royder explained beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is bogus in his first post to anyone with a high school education in physics & chemistry. If you think you can wave your hands like this and generate a smoke screen you're mistaken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #45 April 24, 2007 Quit fighting - you guys are making this place sound like the BASE Zone! "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,400 #46 April 24, 2007 Quote Quit fighting - you guys are making this place sound like the BASE Zone! If you look at the profile of 77r, she is obviously a chick, so I have become convinced she and dorbie are a married couple."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #47 April 24, 2007 QuoteSo is that all he did, just electrolytically split water and then use the hydrogen to run the car? If so, then BFD. His website is pretty hoaky, so I didn't bother to read much of it. If that's all he's doing, then he's paying the equivalent of about $5.00/gal of gas to make his hydrogen (assuming a 60% energy efficiency for the electrolysis, which is fairly high). Interestingly, the energy cost of gasoline is very close to that of electricity. At $3/gal, gasoline is $.09/kW-hr, and the US avg for electricity in '06 was $.0986/kW-hr. Essentially, if the cost of gas exceeds the cost of any (not just this form) of replacement fuel then that fuel will begin to be used. The reason that gasoline is usable is because the work we put into it by collecting and refining it is economically advantageous. I can conceive a situation in which a process like this is attached to a wind farm but I think everyone needs to realize the distinction. The cost of putting energy into a usable form needs to be less than what someone will pay for that form of energy. If you have a gasoline generator powering the process then it makes no sense unless it's the form of energy that's important, not the amount of energy you get out of it. As far as making the model work from an energy standpoint, if you have a cheap source of power like a donkey on a turnstyle (ha-ha) or wind then you can make some money."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benblee 0 #48 April 24, 2007 You bring up a very good point, now let me take all of your words out and put my own words in: Until you can pee in a gas tank and drive around town, sit your happy little ass down on a bike and start peddling like a motherf##ker, cuz you aint saving anything. It's just too damn expensive and skydivers are just too damn cheap. (I'm a cheap skydiver too, so don't any of you take it personally).Ben Lee www.CollegeSkydiving.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
77r 0 #49 April 24, 2007 I never claimed that without a doubt it wasn't a hoax, I simply invited an explanation before the video in question was dismissed. That's how discussions get started. Ryoder didn't go beyond asking where the energy comes from. That dosn't disprove anything. Once He addressed that comment in better detail than commenting on the energy it takes for the process, he made his point and nothing more was said from me. Like I said, that should have been the end of it. All you're doing is brow beating, and making personal attacks. This thread should have been to discuss the video and the topic in that video, instead you've decided to take one of my begining statements which was already laid to rest, and run with it. You really should quit being such a rabble rouser. That's not what people want to see in these threads Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #50 April 24, 2007 Quote Ryoder didn't go beyond asking where the energy comes from. That dosn't disprove anything. Once He addressed that comment in better detail than commenting on the energy it takes for the process, he made his point and nothing more was said from me. Like I said, that should have been the end of it. All you're doing is brow beating, and making personal attacks. This thread should have been to discuss the video and the topic in that video, instead you've decided to take one of my begining statements which was already laid to rest, and run with it. Asking where the energy comes from was a rhetorical device to invite critical thinking, the whole point is it doesn't come from the water (your alleged fuel remember). You responded to accurate science based criticism of pseudoscience with stunning ill founded hubris. Calling you on it is not a PA, and the ONLY reason I'm still posting is you keep trying to pretend something else happened in this thread (for example by grasping at hydrogen fuel). I'm done here. REALLY, my last post. I'm off to argue with my goldfish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
