# The Electric Car Thread- Merged



## CougarKing (17 Jun 2008)

And the new question one should ask is why they did not invent a car that runs on sake?  ;D

http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84367&refresh=true



> *Water-fuel car unveiled in Japan*
> Jun. 13 - Japanese company Genepax presents its eco-friendly car that runs on nothing but water.
> 
> The car has an energy generator that extracts hydrogen from water that is poured into the car's tank. The generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car. Genepax, the company that invented the technology, aims to collaborate with Japanese manufacturers to mass produce it.


----------



## c_canuk (17 Jun 2008)

snake oil salesmen have been pushing this idea for decades.

the problem is the amount of electricity that you can generate from the hydrogen/oxygen by feeding it into a fuel cell is about half of what you need to break down (electrolysis) the water in the first place. 

Burning it is even worse.

The only way a hydrogen vehicle makes sense is if you have the electrolysis gear stashed in your garage running off house power that you fill up with at night. Unfortunatly the energy density of gasseous hydrogen is not that great and you'd need to have massive storage tanks to get the range we have with gasoline.

I don't think much will happen with this "new" idea


----------



## geo (17 Jun 2008)

Hydro Quebec is talking about variable hour pricing - lower rates at night.... when you'd be recharging your car's battery.
This might actualy make sense.  To date, the only problem with it is the range an electric car can travel.

Anyone remember the propane cars and carryalls the CF used to have ?
A propane carryall leaving from St Hubert & headed towards Bagottville would have to call ahead & arrange to be met by someone - else he'd be walking the rest of the way.  Talk about a royal pain !


----------



## RickDevlieger (17 Jun 2008)

I just saw an article on the news about a company in Vancouver that is making a killing converting cars and small trucks to electric. Apparently lithium battery technology is making the electric car a viable option for in town use. The proprietor did make it clear that it is ideal for commuting less than 100ks but is still not really an option for any kind of extended travel. But if you think about how many people use a vehicle only for commuting, it makes sense. It may be the only thing that will keep suburbs viable in the next couple of decades.


----------



## geo (17 Jun 2008)

Yeah.... but electric cars being recharged by coal powered generations is like robbing peter to pay paul.... you're doing just as much good as you are doing bad.... xcept that with lower powered electric cars, people will be driving slower.


----------



## Jorkapp (17 Jun 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Yeah.... but electric cars being recharged by coal powered generations is like robbing peter to pay paul.... you're doing just as much good as you are doing bad.... xcept that with lower powered electric cars, people will be driving slower.



Only 19% of electricity generated in Canada comes from Coal. 70% of electricity comes from eiter Hydroelectric (58%) or Nuclear (12%).

Plus, given that a coal fired plant can generate a kilowatt of energy a lot more efficiently and cleaner than a small combustion engine, I would take the kilowatt from coal any day of the week.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 Jun 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Yeah.... but electric cars being recharged by coal powered generations is like robbing peter to pay paul.... you're doing just as much good as you are doing bad.... xcept that with lower powered electric cars, people will be driving slower.



who cares about Peter robbing Paul, it's all about Esso,Irving robbing me!

I welcome anything that will not cost me 1.42 a liter.


----------



## Sigger (17 Jun 2008)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> snake oil salesmen have been pushing this idea for decades.
> 
> the problem is the amount of electricity that you can generate from the hydrogen/oxygen by feeding it into a fuel cell is about half of what you need to break down (electrolysis) the water in the first place.
> 
> ...



I do think that the "new" part of this is describing a new and more eficient version of this technology.

Has anyone seen that Doc. called 'who killed the electric car'?


----------



## c_canuk (17 Jun 2008)

> I do think that the "new" part of this is describing a new and more eficient version of this technology.



like I said decades, each new snake oil pusher has a new more efficient way to make energy which is impossible.

2H2  + 02 = 1 Unit of energy Plus 2H20

due to efficency losses of everything we do (energy escaping as heat/noise/light) it is impossible to make this equation work

2H20 + 1 unit of energy = 2H2 + O2

therefore to make hydrogen from water you need one unit of energy + system losses. When it comes to Electroysis which is the only way to make hydrogen from just water you are looking at a 25% effeciency so you need 5 units of energy to make 1 unit's worth of power.

there are "working" models out there that pull energy off the alternator to make hydrogen that the engine burns, but they can only idle and will only idle for a while... the reason is that the energy deficit is made up by the battery which has a finite life. 

If you don't understand the problem it's easy to see a magic loophole in the 3rd law of thermodynamics that doesn't exist. I suspect half of them believe they found a loop hole and just can't quite figure out the bugs in their design.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (18 Jun 2008)

This seems to be a promising technology. Leave it to the Japenese to take an old concept and make it work.


----------



## Welshy (18 Jun 2008)

I looked into this yesterday, because the chemistry did not make sense. Essentially what the company is doing is powering their car on HHO (two hydrogen and oxygen). It will burn hydrogen much like other combustion engines but oxygen is mixed in with the fuel providing more power. This is very dangerous to have in a tank because now there is the necessary oxygen to combust inside the pressure vessel. Not to mention you are now using up space storing oxygen when its in the atmosphere. 

Combustion of hydrogen is not nearly as efficient as fuel cells, but it isn't to expensive to convert your vehicle to burn hydrogen.  It may provide the bridge for gas stations to offer hydrogen. Otherwise its the chicken before the egg scenario with fuel cells.


----------



## c_canuk (18 Jun 2008)

indeed. I've been saying that if we want to get serious about getting off fossil fuels we should be building nuke plants up north around the uranium mines, and use the off peak hours to make hydrogen and pipe it like natural gas and look into carbon nanotube storage for vehicles.

that aside though, there is no way a vehicle can be filled up with water and derive energy from it without some other source of energy, if there is another source of energy it would be many times more efficient to just drive the vehicle with that source than convert water to hydrogen gas

water is not fuel, it is the waste from burning fuel.


----------



## Sigger (18 Jun 2008)

And we know that how?

Now, I am as sceptical as the next, but unless you know this for fact, I will watch and shoot. It does seem viable IMO. 

I am still waiting for the Tesla rod car to be figured out.


----------



## c_canuk (18 Jun 2008)

when science calls something a law, that means unless a good portion of science is overturned and ruled faulty it's not possible to break it.

it is not possible to get more energy out of a closed system than you put in. the amount of energy stays the same.

Even with nuclear reactions this is true because the new energy is directly accountable for from missing mass (E=MC2)

Electrolysis is the chemical reaction of hydrogen oxidizing (burning) reversed. it is not possible to get more energy out than you put in.

to break water into it's elements so that you can get 1 unit of energy's worth of fuel will require at 100% efficiency 1 unit of energy, since these systems have reported efficiencies of 50-70% that means you need to put in 1.5 to 2 units of energy to get 1 unit's worth of fuel and the remaining .5-1 unit of energy will be mainly heat.

then when you run the hydrogen/oxygen through a fuel cell which is electrolysis backwards (the cell membrane allows the hydrogen and oxygen to chemically bond without burning, and converting most of the energy to electricity at roughly 50% - 70% efficency 

so now you need 3-4 units of energy going into electrolysis to make 1 unit of energy out of your fuel cell.

if you plan on burning it in a traditional internal combustion engine look at max efficiency of 25% so now you need 6-8 units of energy going into electrolysis to make 1 unit of mechanical energy at the crank, you loose another 20% at the alternator feeding the electrolysis system so you're looking at 7-9 units of energy

compare that to an electric motor at 80%+ efficency and you could be using 1.5 or less units of energy for 1 unit of mechanical energy compared to 7-9 for internal combustion or 3-4 for a fuel cell.

The LAW of thermodynamics cannot be broken.


----------



## Sigger (18 Jun 2008)

..but still


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (18 Jun 2008)

> Now, I am as sceptical as the next, but unless you know this for fact, I will watch and shoot. It does seem viable IMO.
> 
> I am still waiting for the Tesla rod car to be figured out.



I agree. Without seeing the prototype or the work that went into this, how can anyone label this as vialble or not.  All of a sudden we're all scientists and seem to know more than the real scientists who are doing the work and research. : 

The facts will come out as to whether or not this is real or not, until then i'll keep an open mind.

It's like a taxi driver trying to teach a pilot how to fly a 747.


----------



## geo (18 Jun 2008)

did he stay at a Holliday inn express last night ???


----------



## c_canuk (19 Jun 2008)

no I did not stay at a holiday inn express last night, however I've taken 2 years of engineering and this is highschool science basics.

you can take my word for it, or you can assume I don't know what I'm talking about even though I've proven it's impossible and showed my work.

There is no "but still!" it won't work anymore than any other perpetual motion machine, there needs to be an additional source of energy and even if they've vastly improved the efficiency of electrolysis, Fuel Cells, and hydrogen storage, which is highly unlikely as these are 3 different things full on scientific think tanks have been working on for decades, it would still be more efficient to simply use that source of energy to directly drive an electric motor.


since you've irked me a little bit I did a google search for "water powered cars debunked" to see if I could get a history of these things to show you... low and behold I found this in the first link.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/genepax-water-powered-car-japan-debunking.php

more links

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=56;t=002848

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1769/68

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=646988

the consensus among those with knowledge of science, not the "bee a free spirit, laws of thermodynamics might not apply man *gurgling of bong*" types, is that the Japanese car is not actually powered by water but metal hydride compounds. Same as the heater packs for the US MREs.

Exposing these compounds to water generates heat and breaks releases hydrogen gas as the oxygen is bonded to the metal hydride compound. You will note those don't last very long.

If that is the case the car is not water powered, it's metal hydride powered which is more expensive than and rarer than oil.

2H2O + 8 Units Electricity = 2H2 + 02 + 4 units heat energy

2H2+Os = 2H2O + 4 units of energy (if the = is burning in an engine, 1 unit mechanical energy,3 units heat energy, if through a fuel cell, 3 units electricity, 1 unit heat energy)

8 > 4 

Therefore this will not work PERIOD


EDITED: To correct Energy Efficiency of Electrolysis I said 16 in when it should have been 8 for 50% rather than 25%


----------



## c_canuk (19 Jun 2008)

> Without seeing the prototype or the work that went into this, how can anyone label this as vialble or not.  All of a sudden we're all scientists and seem to know more than the real scientists who are doing the work and research.



I don't need to see it, they claim it will run forever on only water, using Fuel Cell Technology. They are claiming to get more energy out of water than they are putting in. Water is not fuel it is ash, it is what you get after you burn the fuel.

They are not real scientists, if they were they would be providing a whole hell of a lot more information about how they managed to find a loophole or break the laws of thermodynamics and overturn half of established accepted physics, and get the noble prize that comes with a butt load of cash.


----------



## Sigger (19 Jun 2008)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> ... which is highly unlikely as these are 3 different things full on scientific think tanks have been working on for decades...



And mark.

Exactly my point. These "full on scientific think tanks" may have "vastly improved the efficiency of electrolysis, Fuel Cells, and hydrogen storage".
I really doubt that this company would bother with the expense of this for just another hoax... but you never know.

I am in no way debating your engineering and scientific knowledge. But.... still.


----------



## c_canuk (19 Jun 2008)

it doesn't matter what the efficiency of the stages are.

for every 1 unit of energy put into the system exactly 1 unit comes out, no matter what the efficiency. Efficiency in this case refers to the amount of input energy comes out in a useful form.

therefore at 100% efficiency the car could only generate enough fuel to generate fuel, it could do nothing else, as soon as you did something as little as turn on the headlights you are now in an energy deficit.

energy in = energy out you are proposing they are getting more energy out than putting in.

fuel contains chemical energy that when oxidized releases that energy, water is already oxidized therefore it contains no chemical energy.


----------



## Flip (19 Jun 2008)

Isn't that a weird coincidence.
Just last week a young guy came to me to inquire what it would cost to develop the electronic controls for exactly this.
Some noise about a resonant Hydrogen generation device.  His argument was about effeciencies too.
Here's the thing, the energy yeilded by the reaction is EXACTLY EQUAL to the the energy it takes to seperate Hydrogen and Oxygen - MINUS whatever the efficiencies are. 1 Joule times any number less than 1, is still less than one.  Ergo, no energy from heaven.

I told him what it would cost and then asked him " How WILL you seperate the Oxygen from the Hydrogen?
He said he would leave them together to inject into the engine !!!!  >

My advice - DO NOT DO THIS _ EVER!  

I also seem to recall how when "news" first broke about cold fusion.  A whole bunch of scientists in the developing world rushed to validate the discovery.
I think the whole thing lasted about a week.


----------



## Sigger (19 Jun 2008)

But that was then and this is now....

Believe me when I say I have read the articles on debunking cold fusion also and have no intention on debating wether or not this is possible or just plain economical. 

However, I will not stick to centuries old rules and theories that geniuses of old have conjured from hours of endless research. I am sure there is many possibilities out there for these energies.

I am just suggesting that even though there are many pessimistic(or realistic, depending on which side of the rink you are on) people out there attempting to debunk working hypothesis, I am still hopeful.

Oh, and Chain Reaction  rulz


----------



## Bert (19 Jun 2008)

More info
http://www.techamok.com/?pid=4689
http://www.techamok.com/?pid=4678

Is this the debate, "1 unit of energy put into the system exactly 1 unit comes out"?  Perhaps the concept
doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.  The issue of speculative relevance may be the car 
isn't consuming gas and gets around.  So what if it isn't exactly efficient.  I'd like to see how it develops.

What will grind my gears or steam me up may be all the middle men who could nickle and dime the 
hydrogen technologies to death - 32% tax on engine water - wait for it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jun 2008)

Relax everybody, help may not be that far off.  This looks like a viable alternative, and c_canuk, in it's own way supports it'self as a sort of closed loop.  

http://www.discoverychannel.ca/reports/rw/9155/Can-microbes-give-us-fuel.aspx


----------



## 54/102 CEF (19 Jun 2008)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> when science calls something a law, that means unless a good portion of science is overturned and ruled faulty it's not possible to break it.
> 
> it is not possible to get more energy out of a closed system than you put in. the amount of energy stays the same.
> 
> ...



So what you`re suggesting is that in the event GM has mass produced batteries figured out - dealer show rooms will be filled in the reasonably near future but the cars will be built by robots in darkened factories. And Bud Hargrove isn't happy. Is that what I`m hearing? Great post.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Jun 2008)

Sigger said:
			
		

> However, I will not stick to centuries old rules and theories that geniuses of old have conjured from hours of endless research. I am sure there is many possibilities out there for these energies.



And you have more experience and knowledge than the whole scientific community that still accepts and widely uses those laws and theories even to this day?  Thermodynamic is one of the field of mechanical engineering and those 3 laws are taught to every mechanical engineering students. 

Free energy just doesn't exists.  The most efficient cycle is the Carnot cycle and it is very theoratical.  No mechanical system to date have been able to achieve the efficiency the Carnot Cycle predicts.  Basically, Carnot says that a system at a certian state will take heat (energy), use it, then give the exact same amount of heat back.  Doing that, we say that the cycle is reversible.  With losses this is impossible.  And there are losses in every mechanical system.  You will never have 100% efficiency.  Even the Carnot Cycle is not 100% efficient.  The Carnot efficiency is just the maximum theoratical efficiency a system would give, if there were NO losses.

I'm sure the engineers that designed that car actually used the 3 Laws of Thermo.  There is no way around it when you are designing something that converts energy.

Max


----------



## Flip (20 Jun 2008)

There's a simple analog to this argument.  And absolute proof that the "centuries old" theories are correct.

Any aqueous battery owes it's existence to the mobility of hydrogen.
In every case the battery will run down as an oxidation reaction continues.
In most cases this can be reversed as the battery is charged.
In every case the energy in is almost exactly equal to the energy out.
 The difference is always negative - All of that before you get on to gears and other mechanical contrivances.  All you need is the humble battery.  Everything else is just a Rube Goldburg machine. ;D


----------



## Sigger (22 Jun 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> And you have more experience and knowledge than the whole scientific community that still accepts and widely uses those laws and theories even to this day?



Yes.... I do.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Jun 2008)

Sure...  Then you tell me what kind of experience you have that will make you credible.

Max


----------



## Sigger (22 Jun 2008)

A wild imagination...

By the By if not allready gathered, I have little to no idea on most of anything scientific or credible, that which would give me any hold on debating the possibility of such theories. However. I do believe my ability to hope, and my strong conspiracy theorist notions based from political anecdotes, do give me grounds to attempt a process for public annihilation of antediluvian thinking.

In short - I like to think out side of the box.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Jun 2008)

Your creative ideas will only work withing the boudaries of reality.  Sure, in my imagination, I'll create a free energy engine.  However, withing the boundaries of reality, it just doesn't happen.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (22 Jun 2008)

It is a rare thing when I completely agree with someone.  

c_canuk you are 100% correct.  I'm not saying that I just agree with you; you're right. 

Water is not fuel, it is the result of burnt hydrogen,  to get the the H2O into 'useable form', we'd have to use energy.  For exactly the reasons you've stated this would require using more energy.  The only way to make it work is to add energy to the system, say by plugging it in over night - and if you're doing that why not use a storage medium for your energy that is more efficient and less likely to make a very big boom?

As for the speed of electric cars,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4513529.stm  Electric cars are quite capable of reaching the posted speed limits and then some.  But there are limitations right now -    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06208/709068-185.stm One car can get 135 Mph... but has a range of 200 miles.  (217Km/h and 322Km)

There are 'truck models' that are that slow. For those who hate government BS http://autos.canada.com/green/story.html?id=4ee98d97-93df-48c7-8f5b-10f3dab81db4 A Canadian manufacture of electric trucks can't sell in Canada, but can export.  The government then allows an American company to import the exact product he is making in Canada...


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jun 2008)

Sigger

I applaud your enthusiasm, but please enlighten us about which conspiracy theories you have bought into that have persuaded you that that a water-powered car is a feasible proposition. And by the way, when I was a kid in the late forties and early fifties, the story about the super 100 mpg carburator that the oil companies had bought up and hidden away was already old and tired.


----------



## Sigger (22 Jun 2008)

A





			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I applaud your enthusiasm, but please enlighten us about which conspiracy theories you have bought into that have persuaded you that that a water-powered car is a feasible proposition.



I do not buy into anything, unless I witness it - if that. And this includes a water-powered car being a feasible proposition.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jun 2008)

So you agree that a water-powered car is not possible?


----------



## Sigger (22 Jun 2008)

No.

I am saying, possibilities or lack thereof aside, loopholes in scientific rules can happen. So, I will wait for this water-powered car to be discredited by aforementioned "full on scientific think tanks" before I come to any conclusions on this particular vehicles power generator.

_*edited for further explanation of my answer_


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jun 2008)

Suit yourself. The chances of the loopholes in the scientific laws happening are about as likely as you getting a payout from a Nigerian bank.


----------



## Sigger (22 Jun 2008)

Any ways, It will be interesting to see what happens to this company in the next few months. I do hope there is some sort of economical renewable energy out there that can run our transportation needs. 
Like a beam of light.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jun 2008)

It would be nice to achieve a scientific breakthrough, but it won't be done by bending or breaking the laws of science. 

Unfortunately there is a lot of scope for fast buck artists to milk the system, as there always has been. A couple or three decades back there was an investment boom in a company claiming to have developed plastic major components for the internal combustion engine. It got a lot of publicity and a lot of people, not including me, invested in the company. The bubble burst after the money had all disappeared without a single part being produced. I think the main promoter went to jail for a short period, but I'm not sure.

Even legitimate enterprises are risky investments and what may have been touted in the media as a breakthrough in the end is nothing of the short.


----------



## c_canuk (23 Jun 2008)

Sigger, I suggest you look for documented cases where current modern technology flew in the face of established science and prevailed. You are not going to find many instances.

This company will either disapear quickly like every other junk science alternative fuel car that has been touted in the media as a revolution since about 5 minutes after the first production car hit the roads, or it will it will come up with convincing prototypes that don't quite work and will bilk investors for billions trying to tweak the problems out of the system.

If it hits show room floors running only on water, save this post and use it to claim your prize from me of $1000 dollars. If it doesn't hit the floors you owe me a coke.


----------



## Sigger (23 Jun 2008)

:rofl: wow... Im not sure why, but I found that very funny.

Well, very shortly, there will be a conferance held in the US. This car will be looked at by other scientists as a validity check.

Either way.. I am sure there will end up being major issues in using water as fuel. I am not so convinced that even if it is proven to be possible, it is going to be much better for the environment.



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It would be nice to achieve a scientific breakthrough, but it won't be done by bending or breaking the laws of science.



Reading what little information there is on this new system, it would not be breaking any laws of thermodynamics - just a new and revolutionary ...um... thingy.


_*edited for grammar and quote_


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jun 2008)

Hmmmm....cold fusion reincarnated? 





			
				Sigger said:
			
		

> Reading what little information on this new system i*t would not be breaking any laws of thermodynamics* - just a new and revolutionary ...um... thingy.




In fact, it does.  It pretty much flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in particular, the Clausius model of the heat engine.  Water is already the lowest energy-state model for any combination of hydrogen and oxygen compounds, and gaining any appreciable change in energy would require an input of external work.  Something that couldn't come from the water as an energy source itself.


----------



## Sigger (23 Jun 2008)

Oh boy...

Well, when you insert an aluminum plate into water by itself, does it not create hydrogen via oxidation?
This little nugget is a good read.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> In fact, it does.  It pretty much flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in particular, the Clausius model of the heat engine.



I am assuming you have not read anything aboot this car, eh?


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jun 2008)

Sigger said:
			
		

> Oh boy...
> 
> Well, when you insert an aluminum plate into water by itself, does it not create hydrogen via oxidation?
> This little nugget is a good read.
> ...



1.  Your assumption is wrong.

2.  You have proved my point precisely about the second thermodynamic law -- adding additional work in the form of a reactive metal compound to the water, thank you.

3.  As well, my thanks to you for providing me with my chuckle of the day.  I like the picture of the professor with the eye patch...Aaaarhhhh, Billy!   Perhaps he should have been wearing the same protective eyewear that one of his grad students is sporting.  The other student should also be wearing protective eyewear; eyeglasses don't stop wayward chemicals from potentially splashing into the eyes.

G2G


----------



## Sigger (23 Jun 2008)

Your welcome! I also tee hee'd a bit from the eyepatch.

It is not my intention to prove/disprove any fact/law/theory/practice/opinion/whatever.

I am simply saying that there is a lot out there we do not know. There will be many breakthroughs we once thought impossible. Is this one of them? I am sure we will find out soon enough.

And in defence, I only said that link is a good read, not that i think it has anything to do with the 'thingy' in question.


Plus, I am quite enjoying this thread.


----------



## Loachman (23 Jun 2008)

Even on Star Trek, "Ye canna change the laws o' physics".


----------



## Strike (23 Jun 2008)

Sigger,

It's probably best not to try to disprove anything G2G says.  You remember the Pinky and the Brain cartoons?  G2G is both...the mental capacity of the Brain and the goofiness of Pinky.  A dangerous combination to be sure.   

Oh yes, Professor Pirate gave me a nice chuckle to end the day.   ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jun 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> Sigger,
> 
> It's probably best not to try to disprove anything G2G says.  You remember the Pinky and the Brain cartoons?  G2G is both...the mental capacity of the Brain and the goofiness of Pinky.  A dangerous combination to be sure.
> 
> Oh yes, Professor Pirate gave me a nice chuckle to end the day.   ;D



 ;D

A free beer to anyone who can photoshop a realistic parrot onto the Professor's shoulder, and submit the photo to the publication indicating corrected photo credit!

G2G

p.s.  Strike, you know me too well!  >


----------



## Sigger (23 Jun 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> It's probably best not to try to disprove anything G2G says.





			
				Sigger said:
			
		

> It is not my intention to prove/disprove any fact/law/theory/practice/opinion/whatever.





			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A free beer to anyone who can photoshop a realistic parrot onto the Professor's shoulder, and submit the photo to the publication indicating corrected photo credit!



Mmmm free beer...


----------



## c_canuk (23 Jun 2008)

Sigger said:
			
		

> Oh boy...
> 
> Well, when you insert an aluminum plate into water by itself, does it not create hydrogen via oxidation?
> This little nugget is a good read.
> ...



well well well, someone"discovered" whats been discovered for a long time, if you put something in water with a stronger molecular attraction to oxygen than hydrogen the oxygen will be pulled free from the water molecules and chemically bond with the introduced substance...

that makes water the OXIDIZER since it is the source of OXYGEN and the Aluminum the FUEL since it is the substance being OXIDIZED. 

This is the exact same process as using Metal Hydrides.

Aluminium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Production_and_refinement

now aluminium in a reactive state is extremely rare in nature, therefore it has to be refined, Aluminium is refined using electrolysis (sound familiar? instead of using watts to seperate water now you're using KW to seperate Aluminium) to remove the oxygen molecules from the chemical Al2O3

therefore 2Al2O3 + 6 units of energy = 2AL2 + 3O2

at this point some of the original 6 units of energy is lost due to heat energy losses due to the electrolysis taking place in molten metal heated to under 1000 Kelvin, and heat of the electrical process of electrolysis

now we take the 2AL2 and add it to water

2AL2+6H2O = 2AL2O3 + 6H2

Now at this point somemore of the original 6 units of energy is again lost due to this reaction as heat energy (ie MRE heaters) 

after we collect the hydrogen we still only have as much energy as 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O will give us. Due to the laws of thermodynamics we know due to no other energy introduced to the system, the energy we end up with will be much less than the 6 units to create the aluminium in the first place.

now....

that said...

IF this new Aluminium/Gallium fuel can be used as a high density energy storage medium for hydrogen it may have merit, but it is ridiculous to claim that the car is running off water, just as it is ridiculous that a petrolium based engine is running off oxygen.

This proves that yes indeed there is an additional source of energy entering the system and it would be more efficient to power the motor directly rather than use the electricity to refine aluminium. 

So you are still wrong.

HOWEVER

If the aluminium compound can store more energy per square inch than batteries after taking into account of the energy losses in creating it, it may be the new energy STORAGE solution the EV developers have been looking for.

In the end, you still owe me a coke because this car is not fueled by water.

It is fueled by electricity that is transmitted via 2 chemical changes, Thus making it improbable as an efficient energy storage medium. It is a complicated battery that requires disassebly to be reused as it cannot be recharged.


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Jun 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Even on Star Trek, "Ye canna change the laws o' physics".



Other than that whole "travel at the speed of light" or time travel thing.


----------



## Sigger (23 Jun 2008)

I dunno c underscore canuk, while all very interesting, is not a lesson in chemistry I seek.
I am looking for a sitrep on the water-powered vehicles operation.

Although, it is interesting that the same stats that this company has released, is pretty much the same as the electric motor version...


----------



## Shadowolf (23 Jun 2008)

At one point in time, the laws of 'science' stated that the sun revolved around the earth. Most of the greatest scientists viewed that as something not to be argued with.  I will support sigger on this one in that keeping an open mind about water-powered vehicles.  While I doubt the 'Put in water, burn Hydrogen,  and Oxygen is your exhaust' theory, if they can even use the process to somehow mitigate some of the inefficiencies of the engine it may be a step in the right direction.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jun 2008)

Shadowolf said:
			
		

> At one point in time, the laws of the church, masquerading as the official authority of   'science' stated that the sun revolved around the earth. Most of the greatest scientists viewed that as something not to be argued with.  I will support sigger on this one in that keeping an open mind about water-powered vehicles.  While I doubt the 'Put in water, burn Hydrogen,  and Oxygen is your exhaust' theory, if they can even use the process to somehow mitigate some of the inefficiencies of the engine it may be a step in the right direction.



it did, but then un-scientifically constrained science took hold...


----------



## Bert (23 Jun 2008)

I don't think Genepax has released their engine, system design, or overall 
specifications publically.  We just see a car driving around and doesn't take gas
from all reports.  If true, no matter the method, it is interesting and so
may be the engineering.  The specs would show it must adhere to the laws of 
thermodynamics.  Likely other important information and vehicle sub-systems 
we don't know about.  Watch and shoot.


----------



## c_canuk (23 Jun 2008)

> if they can even use the process to somehow mitigate some of the inefficiencies of the engine it may be a step in the right direction.



that is impossible

everytime you add a step in the system where you convert one unit of energy to another form you always loose a little bit of energy to heat losses, etc. even if there were 100% efficient processes, they would add no benefit to the system. Adding extra steps in the real world will always increase waste energy

The best that this group has come up with is a complicated impractical battery that uses at least 1 more energy conversion process than existing batteries.

The only way this discovery will be relevant is if the energy density is a magnitude higher than current battery technology, (keeping in mind they aren't using lithium ion tech in cars yet and they are getting 200 km per charge), the reason this process may have merit is that the battery completely consumes itself where regular batteries don't. This could be the break through in energy storage they've been looking for, but it is not turning water into fuel.

This process will consume more electricity than directly powering the motor, but if they can make it store enough energy to drop the weight of a vehicle and extend it's range to 600 km with the ability to rapidly refill, then the total amount of energy might not matter as electricity mass produced is much more efficient, cheaper and cleaner than each car on the road burning fossil fuels.

The limitation on Electric Vehicles is energy density or their storage medium, if this solves that problem we will see a revolution in automotive technology.

I truly hope they are onto something here but I doubt it because if they were legitimate scientists they would not boast the car is running on water when it clearly isn't as that is irresponsible of them, and doesn't bode well for their legitimacy


----------



## Sigger (24 Jun 2008)

When is the last time the Japanese said they have made something, just for fun?
Y'know, besides Godzilla.

The wikipedia page is also a good read.

Oh, and remember when Scientists stated a theory that maggots were created out of raw meat?  Smashed!


----------



## c_canuk (24 Jun 2008)

Sigger said:
			
		

> When is the last time the Japanese said they have made something, just for fun?
> Y'know, besides Godzilla.



last time I heard of was 2 years ago when they claimed to have invented a cloak of invisibility. this was a Poncho with a web cam on the back, feeding an LCD projector displaying an image on the front.

They have hucksters just like we do, to assume they are somehow immune from the ambitions that cause every other nation from creating hoaxes is naive at best and racist at worst.

You continue to spout conjecture and hippy dippy speech while ignoring fact and established science.



> The wikipedia page is also a good read.



not really. That is a page full of debunked water powered cars with one tiny paragraph about how Genepax "says" they have a car that runs on water but won't tell anyone how it works to protect their work, never mind that patents are designed to do just that, and the fastest way to get massive development investment is to show how it works and prove it's not a hoax... 

unless it really is a hoax and you're looking to rip off naive idiots who believe in hippy dippy speech about how innovators continue further science by realizing the power of their dreams, rather than the scientific process : when if fact innovators who succeed are known for putting different systems together in an a way that is not obvious, they do not challenge the laws of science.

That page and the specific article you reference prove you are wrong, it almost perfectly matches what we've been telling you



> Oh, and remember when Scientists stated a theory that maggots were created out of raw meat?  Smashed!



1. Theory is not Law, scientists propose theories on what they think the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is, then they test it. Then if they think they have something they release the results and other scientists test it. 

Theories are expected to be proven false, as that allows the scientists to test the next simplest explanation and so on until no one can bust a theory on what causes that particular phenomenon. 

A LAW is an description of a never changing phenomenon. 

2. The theory you are referencing was debunked by an experiment consisting of 2 jars of meat, one with a cheese cloth one without, The theory was thought up by a crackpot in the 1600s when they were still burning witches. The experiment was conceived as a way to prove "Spontaneous Generation" or that dead matter could spontaneously generate life, it was not taken seriously by anyone who had any education. It was based on a joke that one could create mice by combining rice and underware in the dark.

This half baked theory has only held relevance in the anti evolution crowd as they use this one half baked experiment as proof dead matter cannot come to life, even though it only proves that meat <> maggots.

If that's the sort of place you go looking for scientific data I weep for you.


----------



## c_canuk (24 Jun 2008)

you do realize that the website you just posted with the picture is covered in scams right?

none of that works.

if that is really genepax the companies website, I'd be completely convinced this is a hoax scam.


----------



## Sigger (24 Jun 2008)

Sigh...

I understand the link I provided was squatted, I just like the photograph. The company website is genepax.co.jp/en FYI



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> That page and the specific article you reference prove you are wrong, it almost perfectly matches what we've been telling you



I am unsure as to when I have made any sort of comment in which you think I could be made right/wrong. I apologize for my ambiguousness.
I also have never said anything anybody has claimed in this topic to be wrong/right.

You obviously do not understand that my main point is that I am certain there is more than meets the eye. 
I am not attempting to debate anything scientific as I am way out of my league(If you have not gathered). If I wanted to know how thermodynamics works I would google it. And due to this fact, the only thing I have learnt from you thus far, is the phrase "hippy dippy". 
As for the whole Godzilla and maggot thing, I was being facetious. I did not think that someone who has "taken 2 years of engineering " would need a little  smiley to notate this.

You can continue to pick apart every link, paragraph, word and syllable if you want, however, this is your mandate, proving nothing except how bored you are. This behaviour flatters me to think that you are more concerned with my inconsistencies and erroneous posts than the actual purpose of said posts.



† _Every ounce of pressure used to type these replies, are solely intended for light hearted and friendly debate. Nothing is personal or snide._


----------



## Strike (24 Jun 2008)

This all sounds suspiciously like the group that said they had cloned a human, but refused to reveal said being and have them tested to prove their claim.   :

Although I do find this thread quite interesting, even if it is giving me flashbacks to my uni days of chem eng.   ;D


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (25 Jun 2008)

Energy can neither be made or destroyed, it can only chgange form. If you want to use energy it has to come from somewhere. Water is already in a stable form. The only way to get 'water' into useable form is to add something to it. An electrical current will split the H from the O.  http://www.instructables.com/id/Separate-Hydrogen-and-Oxygen-from-Water-Through-El/

You can add chemicals to strip out the H.  NaBH4 has caused some interest.
http://ecsmeet6.peerx-press.org/ms_files/ecsmeet6/2007/05/20/00001588/00/1588_0_art_0_jicv9e.pdf

Now,  with that said,  here is a really funnt link: http://bestclicknow.net/CarOnWater4Gas/index.php?gclid=COmsy-XjjpQCFRKhxgodOyngfQ

and 

http://car-hydrogen.net


----------



## muskrat89 (25 Jun 2008)

A somewhat related article in today's paper:

http://www.azfamily.com/news/homepagetopstory/stories/phoenix_local_news_062408_water-to-gas.36b68e7c.html



> $700 device turns water into fuel, sold in Chandler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## c_canuk (26 Jun 2008)

I've heard about these, they seem to be using the same idea as a hybrid, but instead of the stored energy going into a battery it's used to crack Hydrogen and used when extra power is needed like a hybrid pulls power from it's batteries when needed. A plus of this is it appearantly makes the combustion process hotter and faster. Deisel Trucks have been doing this for years with propane, but don't find a large difference unless the engine is turbocharged.

Now I find it a little hard to believe he's getting a 50% to 100% increase in mileage, there just isn't that much unburnt fuel in regular car's exhaust. I would assume it would be possible to get 5-10%

This would also cause your computer to advance the timing, to account for the faster burn to prevent detonation (when the chamber ignites before the piston is ready, causing the piston to want to reverse the direction of the crank... obviously very damaging to the engine.) If this requires the timing to be advanced farther than the computer can adjust it will cause premature engine failure and void your warranty though you should get a check engine light if this happens.

there has also been problems with the high temperatures of burning hydrogen in engines with ignition from the valves overheating, though thats straight hydrogen oxygen, not just mixing it in.

there are also systems injecting a bit of water to harness steam power when the fuel mixture ignites and vapourizes the water. There are also special 6 stroke engines that use 2 extra strokes to seperate water injection from fuel to avoid slowing the combustion.

There is also a company coming out with bolt on hybrids, you replace the rear axle on front wheel drive car, and it plugs into your computer to determine when the motor should act like a generator to rechage batteries in your trunk, or pull power from the batteries and drive the wheels providing acceleration


----------



## Sigger (30 Jun 2008)

Genepax has released a PDF on their engine.. Any one understand? Its all Japanese to me...

LINK

They also have more info about the system... Any ideas on what you see??
LINK


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (30 Jun 2008)

Its been debunked as BS. Heres the link to Eco Geek. As I posted previously, that I would give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, well here it is.

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/585/water-powered-cars-will-never-work.html


----------



## c_canuk (1 Jul 2008)

I love how page 10 of the PDF shows a stack of mystery elements showing a chemical reaction on one side, and the reverse on the other, and somehow extra electricity is generated with no other inputs.

steaming pile of BS...

I was hoping they had created an efficient way to store hydrogen as a solid but it seems it's just a lot of smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Sigger (2 Jul 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Its been debunked as BS.



I do not believe this link debunks it. It only claims it to be BS.

The only ones to debunk this, IMO, would be the scientists who will look at the thing.
-----------------

It is true, that PDF looks pretty goofy.


----------



## MedTechStudent (2 Jul 2008)

Hehe

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mean_automakers_dash_nations_hope


----------



## Sigger (11 Mar 2009)

So... I was wrong and you were right....

We at GENEPAX have strived to develop new technologies to enable environment friendly energy systems, to mitigate environmental risks such as those posed by global warming.　The systems that we have proposed have received warm words of support from many people. However, we have yet to overcome the many obstacles we face in the current world, to bring our systems to market. Moreover, the costs of development have become very large. As our resources are very limited, we need to retrench and reassess our resources and our development plans at this time, and we are accordingly closing our website. 

We express our deep gratitude for the supportive messages we have received. We hope that you will continue to be supportive of efforts to develop cleaner and more environment friendly energies, and we will continue to strive to develop systems to preserve our environment. 



February 10th, 2009
Yasuyuki Takahashi
Representative Director
GENEPAX


----------



## Galahad (11 Mar 2009)

Oh boy, my IC engines prof would have a field day with this. If you so much as mentioned the word hydrogen in class, you would subsequently be treated to an entire class-long rant about how hydrogen is the stupidest "fuel" on the planet.

Development cost too high? No wonder, its a dead-end technology, we wouldn't even waste our time on it if certain people didn't think it was a miracle because only water comes out the other end...


----------



## c_canuk (12 Mar 2009)

Well.... I wouldn't go quite that far,

We could abandon fossil fuels if we built enough nuclear reactors and used off peak hours to break water down to hydrogen that we then pushed through a pipeline system like natural gas to be used in the same way as well as vehicle fuel -> IC at first then fuel cell electrics when the tech is perfected and mass produced

if it can be stored in carbon nano tubes, the energy density problem could be solved, I think there are some systems that are using weak chemical bonds to store it as well that uses vehicle exhaust heat to release stored hydrogen. They aren't as dense as a liquid fuel, however they can get 100 km per tank, so it's feasible we'd just need a few more refuelling stations.

it could be good for the economy, we break our dependence on external oil, create massive construction projects in building the reactors and pipelines, and many long term jobs and businesses running the extra refuelling stations we'll need. 

Not to mention that we'd end up owning the future of automobiles in that we'd probably have to manufacture our own as no one else would be using hydrogen large scale which would put Ontario Auto workers back to work, and thus should our experiment prove feasible other country's that emulate the system would possibly import our vehicles rather than try to duplicate our existing infrastructure.


----------



## Galahad (12 Mar 2009)

The only problem with fuel cell powered cars is that they are basically an electric car that uses hydrogen to store the electricity. Then you have losses making the hydrogen, storing the hydrogen, and converting it back into electricity. You lose around 50% of the energy doing this.

It would be much smarter to find a better way to store electricity directly, ie ultra-capacitors or some such device. The source-to-use efficiency if you can generate your own electricity, put it in you car and then drive it can be as high as 95%.

An ideal system would bee to have a wind turbine and/or solar panels at your house, which would generate energy to make hydrogen, store it in a big tank as a buffer (in case there is no sun or wind), use a fuel cell to power your home, and the extra energy to run your electric car.

Stationary fuel cells with cogeneration can have efficiencies higher than 90%, and you also get a furnace and water heater out of it. If you have an extra large fuel cell and use the extra power to run your car, you can be completely off the grid, generating all your own energy, for negligible cost. Plus you can sell your extra power back to the power company when you are not using it, so you are actually making money too.


----------



## c_canuk (17 Mar 2009)

well fuel cells are generally better for the environment than high efficiency batteries, and I think they have managed to get hydrogen's energy density in the chemical bond storage to at least as dense as Lithium Polyimer batteries, so it's not that bad a trade off. Liquified Hydrogen would probably even beat super capacitors for energy density.

the problem holding back electric cars isn't efficiency, it's energy density, efficiency is only part of the problem, and a 50% efficiency is a hell of a step up from gasoline based internal combustion. besides if we're using nuclear to power everything squeezing ever last little bit of efficiency out of a system becomes a bit more academic.

the ideal solution is not to store the vehicles' energy on board at all, if we could put a channel down the center of every road that contained an inductance coil, you could put up a pickup coil on the bottom of your car that slots into the channel, and only need a few KMs worth of onboard battery for parking lots and back alleys.


----------



## CougarKing (28 Mar 2009)

"Is it affordable?" will be another question running through prospective customer's minds.



> Tesla Motors -- a Silicon Valley startup backed by entrepreneur Elon Musk, the South Africa-born cofounder of PayPal -- is making plans to roll out its second electric car. The company has released the details of its Tesla Model S.
> 
> *While production is, at best, two-and-a-half years away, car enthusiasts are gobbling up the specs.*
> 
> ...


http://www.teslamotors.com/design/gallery-body.php


----------



## eurowing (29 Mar 2009)

Do tell, where does the V8 fit? >  Silly car .... batteries are for starting the BIG engine.


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Mar 2009)

Silly Car? 0 to 60 mhp in around 6 seconds, price similar to family sedan on the market now, the equivalent of 450 hp.  What else do you want in a car?


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Mar 2009)

Somewhere to store the liquidized dead dinosaurs would be nice... ;D


----------



## BradCon (29 Mar 2009)

If more people researched and developed like this, we'd be far better off, and we wouldn't need drain the earth's supply of oil so damn fast.  Eventually the military will be able to utilize this technology as well,  that ought to save some money.


----------



## GDawg (29 Mar 2009)

...but how does it react to the cold? If I recall correctly, the Chevy Volt won't be a wise investment for people who live very far north of the 49th parallel.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Mar 2009)

BravoCharlie said:
			
		

> If more people researched and developed like this, we'd be far better off, and we wouldn't need drain the earth's supply of oil so damn fast.




No, instead we can drain the worlds supply of coal and natural gas....


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Mar 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No, instead we can drain the worlds supply of coal and natural gas....



Or hydroelectricity, wind power, solar power, etc.  There are other solutions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Mar 2009)

However, since only one of those seems to be a viable solution *at present*, then for now that just is a pipe dream.


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Mar 2009)

Does that mean we should wait until all alternative solutions are out there before we start developing technology that will eventually utilize them?  Plus, the electric motor is probably 3X more efficient than a gas engine.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Mar 2009)

Not at all, we should be actively persuing it vigorously, however when options are listed as taking the place of oil and they, *at present*, cannot, then that is intellectual fraud.


----------



## BradCon (29 Mar 2009)

If you have not yet seen it, "Who Killed the Electric Car" is a very informative documentary film,  about this topic. 

 I think the answer to the question  the film asks might be Bruce Monkhouse :blotto:

If you watch it, keep in mind that the technology it features is now several years old, and we are now capable of much more.


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Mar 2009)

Just for the efficiency, I think it's unfair to call it an intellectual fraud.  We're talking 85% efficiency for the electric motor vs 25-30% for a gas engine...


----------



## GDawg (29 Mar 2009)

There is another reason why these things tend to fail...

People design a "green" product and get all self righteous and demand consumers buy the product, instead of building a "green" product that consumers are looking for and would be happy to buy. If your product cannot compete with traditional automobiles, then don't demand government legislation favoring your product and don't guilt trip the consumer.

Also, it has been pointed out several times that an electric car is only as green as the juice coming out of the socket.


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Mar 2009)

GDawg said:
			
		

> People design a "green" product and get all self righteous and demand consumers buy the product, instead of building a "green" product that consumers are looking for and would be happy to buy. If your product cannot compete with traditional automobiles, then don't demand government legislation favoring your product and don't guilt trip the consumer.



I would pre-order that car for 49K if I didn't buy my car last year.  Customers also have to realize that we will NEED to move away from fossil fuels for several reasons, amongst others, climate change, price and availability.



			
				GDawg said:
			
		

> Also, it has been pointed out several times that an electric car is only as green as the juice coming out of the socket.



You're wrong.  An electric motor is 3 times more efficient than a gas engine, plus there are hydroelectric plants out there.  So, in the end, we win.

I find a lot of military say "I burn XXXX lbs of fuel every day for my job.  What will doing Y at home change?".  What you do in your spare time should not be influenced by what you do at work.  Hell, I burn 3200 lbs of fuel every flight.  Even then, I still turn off the lights in the squadron every night and at home when I'm not there, I try to mimimize my car's idling time, etc.  Being in a professional position where you burn a lot of fuel should not be an excuse for you to be complacent about the environment at home.


----------



## JBoyd (29 Mar 2009)

As much as I am all for electric cars and a better carbon footprint I must be a skeptic on such matters. After seeing the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car?" I feel that efforts for fossil fuel free vehicles will soon join the cure for the common cold.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Mar 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You're wrong.  An electric motor is 3 times more efficient than a gas engine, plus there are hydroelectric plants out there.  So, in the end, we win.



No, like I keep saying but you won't listen, AT PRESENT, there are moments when we do not produce enough electricity to keep up to the workload. Now add in a bunch of recharging cars and guess what, we will have no choice but to fire up the old coal and natural gas powered generating stations and belch out lots of carbon.

So unless you can carve up some new rivers [and space] to dam.........

[personally I think we need more nuclear however, IMO, that is a whole different arguement]


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Mar 2009)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> As much as I am all for electric cars and a better carbon footprint I must be a skeptic on such matters. After seeing the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car?" I feel that efforts for fossil fuel free vehicles will soon join the cure for the common cold.



A famous scientist, and a very succesful one once said : "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."  His name was Lord Kelvin, a very famous physisist and engineer.  We owe him the "Kelvin" unit of measurement for temperature.  

We all know it is completely wrong... 

His first car, the Tesla Roadster was a success.  I don't see why this one should be otherwise.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No, like I keep saying but you won't listen, AT PRESENT, there are moments when we do not produce enough electricity to keep up to the workload. Now add in a bunch of recharging cars and guess what, we will have no choice but to fire up the old coal and natural gas powered generating stations and belch out lots of carbon.
> 
> So unless you can carve up some new rivers [and space] to dam.........



You're right, we do not have all the infrastructure to power these cars with hydroelectricity.  However, even if we only had 1 dam, we would be better than with only fossil fuel.  We need to start somewhere to stimulate the government in investing in greener energy.  I think that car is amazing.


----------



## GDawg (29 Mar 2009)

As far as I know, where I live the electricity is either bio-mass, natural gas, or coal. It gets bitterly cold in the winter, and its around 300 miles to get to Edmonton. I, as a consumer, will stick with my fossil fuel car until an electric car is built that won't become a 4 wheeled paper weight in the cold, and can get me to the big city without having to stop for an hour part way. Even if the electric car is %100 efficient, its still just another appliance plugged into the wall at home that's fueled by something being burnt. Maybe if the birkenstock scientists improved their technology instead of making cry-baby documentaries the consumer would reward them with their hard earned cash?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Mar 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think that car is amazing.



Well I know there is a large thread here somewhere with posters telling us how great the Airbus A-400 is........................I wonder how that's working out anyway? ^-^


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Mar 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well I know there is a large thread here somewhere with posters telling us how great the Airbus A-400 is........................I wonder how that's working out anyway? ^-^



Except that the electric car already proved to be working (Tesla Roadster) and that the Sedan is actually built and being tested.  We can't say as much for the A400


----------



## CEEBEE501 (29 Mar 2009)

This applys in a way


----------



## Corey Darling (29 Mar 2009)

Rotary FTW. Find another motor that will make 500 rwhp on just 11 psi of boost.   8)

I don't have much hope for these purely electric cars.  Although, within 2 years time new Lithium batteries will be on the market which will charge much much faster.

What would normally take 6 minutes to charge, can take 20 seconds with these new cells.

EDIT:  If they can make these electric cars with batteries like those above ^^, Then that would be much more feasible. Rather than wait all night for your car to charge, you might only have to wait an hour.


I do however have high hopes for hydrogen electric cars.


----------



## CEEBEE501 (29 Mar 2009)

I found this article awhile ago talking about the production of the "environmentally friendly" vehicles, it is from a University.
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188


----------



## c_canuk (30 Mar 2009)

power plants are at around 80% efficient, meaning about 80% of the fossil fuel they burn becomes power,

electric cars are about 80% efficient, meaning 85% of the power that goes into them becomes kinetic energy pushing you down the road


internal combustion engine cars are at best 25% efficient, ie 25% of the fossil fuel they burn becomes kinetic energy pushing you down the road. 

this is being charitable because electric motors produce a lot more torque at low RPM than a gas engine...

so if 1 liter of gasoline makes 1KW

if you burn it in a power plant, you get 800 watts out, and if you take the 800 watts and transmit it to your house you get an average of 90% efficiency so 720 watts gets to your car

your car takes the 720 watts and turns 80% of it into kinetic forward motion which is 576watts



take that same 1000 watts of gasoline and burn it in your car and you only get 250 watts of forward motion.

I think a greater than twofold difference in efficiency is worthy of respect, as it results in a reduction in green house gasses by over 50%.

-------------

in cold weather batteries only have a problem if they are stored cold... the a large part of the 20% inefficiency is heat lost due to the batteries heating up while drawing current.

electric cars work fine if you have something as simple as an electric blanket in an insulated battery box to keep them above freezing until you start driving and the batteries can keep themselves warm.


----------



## Long Sword (30 Mar 2009)

CEEBEE501 said:
			
		

> I found this article awhile ago talking about the production of the "environmentally friendly" vehicles, it is from a University.
> http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188



That's a good article, but it deals with hybrid cars which use a nickel battery. Teslas use a lithium ion battery.


----------



## BradCon (30 Mar 2009)

Finally some what I guess is un common sense on the subject of electric cars.  As the technology advances we will see things we never could dream of. 
 Hyper efficient wind turbines, the miniaturization of solar panels, an increase in safety and use of nuclear power and advances in hydro electric power as well.  

More people must reach the conclusion that the current system is breaking quicker than it can be repaired.  Green causes need to be championed, my daughter thanks you, as do I.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Apr 2009)

Found this article in one of those 'Artsy' type newspapers in a hotel lobby in Buffalo. I wasn't expecting the article to be anti-electric car but......

http://artvoice.com/issues/v8n14/electric_car_kool_aid


----------



## c_canuk (15 Apr 2009)

> Dr. Michael I. Niman is a professor of journalism *and media studies* at Buffalo State College



The lack of numbers, embracing biomass and the above tells you all you need to know about him. 

Yet another greenie preaching gosple instead of looking at the numbers.

I'd believe it if it was an electrical/mechanical engineer saying this but I've never met one who thought the electric car model was flawed in any way but power density of existing batteries.

The problem with electric cars is we'll need to beef up the electrical grid and disposing of spent battery packs.

that said, we're going into an economical down turn that's hitting the auto industry rather hard... building our home grown electric might be a way to keep them employed and beefing up the grid would be a good way to spend some federal capital work project money. The recycling of battery packs could be a new industry that would expand should electric cars be embraced.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Apr 2009)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> power plants are at around 80% efficient, meaning about 80% of the fossil fuel they burn becomes power,
> 
> electric cars are about 80% efficient, meaning 85% of the power that goes into them becomes kinetic energy pushing you down the road
> 
> ...



c_canuk, your analysis is a bit off.  

Conventional fossil fuel power plants have efficiencies in the high 30's to low 40's of %, and newer supercritical designs (like combined gas turbine/steam plants) can reach mid-to-high 50's of % efficiency.  Gasoline engines running the Otto cycle (primarily adiabatic compression/expansion) are generally 25-30% thermally efficient and diesel engines (isentropic compression/expansion) are 35-40% thermally efficient. 

If you run the power generation thermal efficiency as 50%, transmission efficiency as your assumed 90% (this is a bit low for average distances) and take your 85% efficiency of an electric motor, the result is a generation to electric vehicle overall effectiveness of 38.25% (.5 x .9 x .85 = .3825).  Not to burst your bubble, but a clean diesel Jetta TDI will exceed this efficiency level as there is only the .4 efficiency factor of the use of the fossil fuel.

An electric car just pushed the polution problem back to the power source...you didn't get a "two-fold" increase in efficiency.



> so if 1 liter of gasoline makes 1KW



As a point of "power" order, I'm not sure where you figure this.  

A Kilowatt is a unit of power -- the rate at which work can be done: work / unit time (1 Watt = 1 Newton-meter per second).  

A quantity of a fuel on the other hand (your litre of gasoline) represents "Energy", not "power". Energy is the ability to produce a certain level of power for a given duration of time (power x time) and is expressed in a unit like Joules or, if you're going to use kW in the term, a kWh (kilowatt-hour...like how Hydro bills you for your house's 'energy' consumption).

There is no direct linkage between a litre of fuel and the kW.  Burn it in a moped, it'll take you quite a while.  Burn it in a dragster, it'll last a fraction of a second.

As for power, I'd like to see some folks investigate advanced capacitor storage instead of batteries because as you don't have to worry about lithium or lead or cadmium or other chemicals related to batteries...food for thought.

G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Apr 2009)

G2G, your analysis implies we only use Fossil Fuel power plants, which we don't, and hopefully, we'll move away from this in the future.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Apr 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> G2G, your analysis implies we only use Fossil Fuel power plants, which we don't, and hopefully, we'll move away from this in the future.



Max, I used that as an example because c_canuk was trying to compare use of fossil fuel through power generation-transmission-consumption to direct consumption via an internal combustion engine.  

If you power a car through nuclear/wind/solar/geothermal/tidal/other power source, then no, fossil fuels would not be consumed.

G2G


----------



## TimBit (16 Apr 2009)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Max, I used that as an example because c_canuk was trying to compare use of fossil fuel through power generation-transmission-consumption to direct consumption via an internal combustion engine.
> 
> If you power a car through nuclear/wind/solar/geothermal/tidal/other power source, then no, fossil fuels would not be consumed.
> 
> G2G



EVEN with fossil fue, even with coal-fired power generation:

Most cars would be recharged at night, and so no need for additional capability, since nighttime usually has plenty of available power.
The resulting greenhouse gases from coal-fired power generation, transferred into car battery power, is still less than that created by your average internal combustion engine, according to http://evcanada.org/evfaqs.aspx. Arguably, this is a biased site, however Technology Review, a MIT publication, seems to demonstrate the same here https://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20213/?a=f, and reproduced here http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1569/ (no registration rqrd on the last site

So, electric cars would mean less pollution, fewer greenhouse gases, cheaper running costs, no required increase in production, and in some provinces (i.e. Quebec and Nfld, I believe), almost entirely emission-free car-park thanks to hydroelectrical production. What's not to like?


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Apr 2009)

Timbit, hydroelec is definitely a win-win.  I'm not anti-electrical, but just interested in making sure folks understand all the facets of the issue.  

If you want to try and figure out positive or negative energy efficiencies try researching E85 and do the energy-cycle math when you include power used in crop production pre-processing!


----------



## Antoine (15 Aug 2010)

Sorry for the necroposting but I think the following could be of interest:

Measuring The Electric Vehicle's Environmental Footprint, _Chemical & Engineering News_, August 13, *2010*

By Naomi Lubick

www.pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i33/8833news6.html



> Transportation: Life-cycle analysis shows that lithium-ion batteries are not the environmental concern experts once imagined.
> 
> Electric vehicles have more than technical hurdles to overcome: Some experts fear that the vehicles' environmental impact is no lighter than that of gas-powered vehicles. And the biggest concerns center on the vehicles' all-important batteries.
> Now researchers have published the first in-depth environmental analysis of electric cars using lithium-ion batteries, and have found that they beat their gas-fueled counterparts (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es903729a).
> ...


----------

