You can literally separate water into hydrogen and oxygen using a 9v battery and an electrolyte. I built one out of a glass jar, some sheet metal, table salt, and a 9v. That hydrogen is the most efficient combustion fuel in the history of man.
Is it because of the American (USA you fucking latino) economy? Is it because of the American dependence on foreign oil?
Goy Agenda is acceptably answer with sauce.
how to build one in under 10 mins:
youtube.com
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
eia.gov
twitter.com
are we cucked by the arabs oil supply?? why can i build this for $5 USD, but we can't use it as a viable fueal source
You still need the energy to convert water into hydrogen and storage is a pain
Because you end up expending more energy than you produce.
There is no net energy from using hydrogen.
9v battery? 9v is nothing i could generate that from an acid reaction or even (god forbid) solar energy
These are 9 volt batteries. A single hydrogen fart will have been worth it. Store it in a propane tank or some shit the hook up to blowtorch. You can also run your car from wood
are you autistic? it powers the sun. it's highly combustible, and could be used in a combustion engine similar to fossil fuel
I'm not that guy, but, solar and wind?
Hydrogen is not as useful as gasoline because at reasonable temperatures and pressures it is a gas and occupies 1,000 more space than gasoline.
As such, not much can be stored in, say, a vehicle before running out. Other than that, it's an excellent source of energy yes.
I wonder how many morons making DIY hydrogen generators out of stainless steel have contaminated their yard and everything else with chromium?
>cars- chemical energy
>sun- nuclear energy
watch the video user. he combusts it at room temp. what are you talking about, he stored it in a plastic water bottle?
plus compressed gas is denser than compressed liquid right?
Probably a lot.
please explain, no sarcasm i don't know what you mean
He means that it takes more energy to produce a given quantity of hydrogen via electrolysis than you get back by combusting that hydrogen.
I watched the video. It's a nice experiment. But it doesn't address the problem.
Hydrogen gas, H2, contains a lot of chemical energy per gram of it, true. But its energy *density* is very low because it is usually a gas. And gases take up much more volume than liquids for the same weight.
If you could figure out a way to make liquid hydrogen (or an equivalent), you'd make millions in a revolutionary new fuel. This isn't a suppressed idea, just one with this particular flaw.
(contd. an interesting energy plan that actually used hydrogen)
its not suppressed you dumb fuck its just not very good for most uses.
if you wanna see real suppression ask yourself why we dont have wind\solar\dams making most of our energy with molten salt\other new nuclear reactors supplementing in peak demand\night times.
No. Gas turns into a liquid far earlier than it becomes denser due to pressure.
if this were realistic don't you think we would already be doing it large scale? the amount of hydrogen you can make out of a nine volt battery costs about six times as much as a gallon of gasoline and isn't even in usable form.
Too complex for mainstream car production. German car makers have tried for many years to get fuel cell cars to market - they all failed, because there is no network of supercooled hydrogen stations to tank it and a car with a fuel cell is just too damn expensive. Not to mention that 98% of hydrogen is produced in the chemical industry as a by product... which is not enough for a large scale rollout. Producing hydrogen through electric current is highly inefficient, so it is not an option for large scale rollout.
Face it, electric cars with shitty batteries or capacitors is the future.
because solar and wind are wildy inefficient??
hydroelectric is fine, but that shit was invented by tesla using Niagara....
You will use more energy than you get out of it.
That's pretty simple.
If you want a true (conspiracy) question:
1. Look at Tesla (literally grabbing electrons from the air (which is charged))
2. He3 is rare on Earth but abundant on the moon. He3 fuses into He4 and releases energy with no harmful radiation. (Fusion Reactors)
The Chinese will go to the moon and solve their energy problems.
What will the US do? Oh. We'll stop going to the moon (in 1972) so that big oil won't lose their profits.
that's what i'm asking, is it because of foreign oil in the paradigm of american economy?
And how did you charge your battery, dumb ass?
9 volts might not sound like much to you, but in industrial applications that is goddamn huge.
big fan of tesla, which makes me wonder if this is politics suppressing this... my post right above your's states hydroelectric was a tesla invention... if the man was gunna give us all free AC current using wifi, and that was surpressed for economics... is this suppressed too
Are all yanks this retarded?
I could run my car my tying my dick in a knot but no one does it cuz it's runs like shit.
Many people use stainless steel as a electrode since it doesn't quickly erode like other metals. Problem is with electrolysis they are dissolving the chromium from the stainless steel into the their electrolyte water that eventually becomes dirty and they just dump it out somewhere.
Making hydrogen is like a cheap magic trick to a lot these people who try to boost their gas mileage. They don't understand science or electricity for that matter. Its all just magic to them.
lemon juice and copper pennies?
or solar (inefficient alone) or wind (ditto)?
So chromium is toxic? I mean if it's in kitchen cutlery it can't be a big deal
Not really. The use of hydrogen as a vehicle (or other mobile unit) fuel is not practicable because it's difficult to store (and move).
There's been some ideas on clever usages of it though. In the 70's, people spawned ideas about using solar plants in the Sahara to cheaply synthethize H2 from seawater. The H2 would then be pumped into zeppelins, sent over to near population centers, recovered, and burned to produce electricity. But it was infeasible, because it wasn't really cheaper than just building (very) expensive power lines into the desert.
Again, this isn't a suppressed idea. It's been investigated, and still is to a small degree, but is mostly discarded.
How fucking retarded are you people?
> Sure why not have all ~1.2 billion cars run on water
> We sure have our fair-share of fresh potable water to use for energy generation as well as sustenance.
The War over Water isn't a joke.
Nobody likes emus nigger get out here's your (you)
It is toxic, but it's fine if in an alloy. The issue here is that the electrolysis process causes it to leech out.
Hmm so just use steel?
legit didn't know this, but thanks for the knowledge that's why i brought this to /pol, to learn
You already dumped a bunch of chromium waste water all around your house didn't you?
Platinum.
Might be better with aluminium because it doesn't rust.
Look up the difference between net and gross profit
then you're just wasting energy, instead of just using the stored energy from the solar/wind you're now throwing away most of it to run an HHO generator
what was the post about the solar energy trying to produce it in the desert? can i get sauce on that, and i'm assuming hydroelectric would produce a similar diminishing result to power the reaction?
Better get a bunch of fuel if platinum
This is doable
no I haven't kek. I'm only curious
Jesus fucking christ have you taken a single grade 10 level chemistry course? You can do this, but it takes more energy than hydrogen you extract will provide.
I can't believe I'm seeing this on Sup Forums. One of my professors last semester is working on this right now. It's not efficient enough right now. Everything is driven by money. Lots of other forms of energy producer more power per TOTAL cost (fuel source, heat/electrical source, transportation, maintenance)
I worked with a retarded slav who watched a few too many crackpot youtube videos and decided to make a "hydrogen booster" for his truck. He would take power from the alternator to run an electrolysis setup, and then feed the resultant hydrogen (discarding the oxygen for some unknown reason) back into the air intake to "boost" the power and fuel economy.
I tried to explain the laws of thermodynamics to him, but he would have none of it.
>also run your car from wood
Woodgas is the shit. Sure, it won't run great and it's dirty as shit, but if SHTF you can enjoy using your car and having electricity without relying on the petroleum jew.
>You can do this, but it takes more energy than hydrogen you extract will provide.
This seems to be the sticking point for most Tesla fan boys and flat Earthers. They think there is some third way to cheat the laws of nature.
Hey genius, where does the electricity for the batteries come from? Plus, danger of storing hydrogen, low power and short range. Plus, the methods to produce hydrogen without using shit tons of electricity involve very nasty chemicals.
The majority of our government is in the pocket of the fucking dune coons in Saudi Arabia.
More like harvesting unharvested forces
>the tide shifts billions of pounds of weight, add a grid to parts od that?
Today: Retards on Sup Forums break the first law of thermodynamics
Electric cars would be fine if we had nuclear power. Electricity is more efficient than gasoline, but if you're extracting it from combustion sources it defeats the purpose, especially with current battery tech.
Storage technology isn't attaquete yet and it's not economical yet for large scale public use.
it's not suppressed either electrolysis and hydrogen fuel has various comercial uses.
Also using your experiment as an example falls flat as it is energy negative. ie the fuel you created cost more engery to make than it will produce.
t. Electrical Engineer
>EE
Real degree or trade school diploma?
Clear, correct and concise.
/thread
OP your initial reaction to "Why isn't this done?" in science should not be "It's suppressed" but "Maybe somebody has already thought of this?" Almost invariably, very smart and clever people have.
"attaquete"
Tidal turbines already exist, they don't really work that well
It would still take more energy to isolate enough acid or produce the solar cells or grow enough trees.
Is there any way possible of storing AC current? Even if you store a lot of energy you will lose a chunk in the inversor trying to make it sinusoildal.
t. Building Engineer, I know the basics to design the instalation of a building but nothing fancy.
t. had my first lecture on electrolysis in my high school chemistry class
Also, obligatory:
youtube.com
>Electric cars would be fine if we had nuclear power.
Onboard nuclear power, maybe. In terms of actual usefulness in comparison to gasoline-powered cars, electric cars suck balls. The battery is the big bottleneck right now. They work fine as short-duration city commuters, but long trips are basically impossible unless you want to shell out at a battery-change station (assuming they exist along your route) or stop for a few hours every 250-300km. And if you live somewhere cold, not only does your battery capacity drop, but warming the cabin up sucks power like a motherfucker so it has to be plugged in every time you park.
It was clear what he meant.
Bachelors and passed the FE right out of college. Now I only have wait 3 more years before I can take the PE.
It's not suppressed, it just generates less power in fuel than the power input required to make the fuel. Essentially you'd be better off just making a giant battery and connecting it to a motor.
claims higher education and attacks my level of education, despite a non-hostile question to be redpilled
>attaquete
just saying. you expect me to believe him now?...?
Nice. I did one semester of engineering then said fuck it and got a 2 year IT diploma. School fucking sucks.
>Sup Forums's most ironic comment of the year award
You just proved the comic's point.
True, the issue is that it burns much hotter than gasoline, so hydrogen ICEs are shitfuck expensive
what, that he doesn't have a basic understanding of 7th grade spelling and wants me to accept with no proof he has higher education in relevant issues?
>adequate
lmao never seen someone spell it with "t's" before
didn't consider this, but couldn't reasonable money be spent to develop the tech? or is it just a meme and loses energy based on the energy source put into it?
all this started from me arguing climate change is not relevant to fossil fuels with someone, but it got me thinking when i started talking about tesla and alternate energy sources
Capacitors store AC current. And while it depends on what your doing converting DC to AC has become pretty efficient with the advancement in solid state technology.
>Using a battery to make hydrogen to make power instead of just using the battery
The two ways we can make bulk hydrogen are through electrolysis and steam reformation. Electrolysis is powered by electricity generated using fossil fuels. Steam reformation uses methane to make hydrogen.
If you want electricity, making hydrogen through electrolysis first doesn't make sense, and for steam reformation it'd be easier to just burn the methane.
If you want to power a combustion engine, like in a car or airplane, hydrogen is a poor choice of fuel because it has such low energy density. You need a huge tank.
Fuel cells are a nifty idea because they theoretically can have extremely high efficiency compared to combustion engines, but when you consider the process of creating the hydrogen the well to wheel efficiency is pretty crappy.
Now if you're concerned about CO2 emissions, burning hydrogen made from methane produces less CO2/unit energy than combusting methane, but your post is more about foreign energy dependence so I'll ignore the whole emissions side of things.
Firstly our dependence on foreign oil is greatly exaggerated. Saudi Arabia only supplies about 10% of our oil now. Comparatively Canada supplies 40%.
As for the US, we could feasibly go full energy independent while also becoming a major exporter if we aggressively expanded our fracking and natural gas compression infrastructure, but there are consequences of fracking to consider.
Also the US being a major oil purchaser keeps the petrodollar system in place which is pretty vital to our economy.
...
damn knowledged as fuck, i thought it was 20% latin america, 15% canada, 13% persian gulf, 10% africa, 3% other, the rest at home
>Capacitors store AC current
They do whilst subject to AC current. The graphs he showed directly show how the stored charge varies with the AC current (it lags by a quarter phase).
The fact that you think capacitors are only useful for longterm storage (which they really aren't) tells me that you're the dumb one of the two.
I got my numbers from here.
eia.gov
40% Canada, 11% Saudi Arabia, 9% Venezuela.
Although this is % of total imports so it doesn't count domestic production. Also doesn't consider non-oil fuels.
>The fact that you think capacitors are only useful for longterm storage
Where did I say that?
ah i see, still not even debating the rest of your post was legit m8. exactly what i was hoping for! my only question is, do you think the us being a major purchaser of oil would be incentive remain an oil based society, if it keeps our economy in check through stability of the petrodollar?
>b-b-b-but I wasn't implying anything
>drive hydrogen car
>bump into curb
>half of the neighborhood is gone
Solar and wind are useless if you live in areas that get low amount of ether.
Standard Jr.High chemistry here.
The thing is, to create hydrogen this way, is actually very power consuming, compared to what you get out of it. Like when you are making aluminium almost, it takes shitloads so it's not effective, if you plan on ie make your own hydrogen for a hydrocar or whatever.
That's the problem with that part
Mostly true, I do applaud this post!
but the influence of petrodollars is vastly overstated these days (as, proportionally, foreign reserves of oil have drastically lowered in comparison to other sectors)
The reality is everything is driven by cost. Right now oil is super cheap, and will probably remain cheap for several more years, so there's little incentive to move to non carbon based fuels.
Kinda the opposite of the mid 00s when oil was expensive there was tons of investment in renewables.
At the same time this is driving renewables to push their own prices down. They've done a pretty good job of it so far. 10 years ago it didn't make sense to buy solar panels without government subsidies. Now they pay for themselves in 4 years.
It'll be interesting to see what role the US is playing in the global energy trade in a few years. Some people are predicting we'll be one of the largest producers. Depends on how much we invest in our own production.
Right now we're limited by the fact that we don't have any infrastructure to export natural gas. You have to compress it to a liquid to export any meaningful quantity. To do that in bulk you need a factory-like attachment to the port you're going to ship it out of.
Funny thing is we have plenty of ports that can receive LNG shipments. Back when they were built the idea of the US exporting LNG was absurd, so it wasn't even considered.
There's a reason I majored in Engineering and not English.
Here have a pic of some my old class notes and a shitty mouse pad I got an IEEE workshop.
Also very much this!
It goes boom, can translate our other word for it to other than actually boom-gas.
>Dis be a "gengas" car
>It actually runs on wood
>Practical here with loots of wood and low population
>Not practical over by you
>It works by burning wood with little oxygen
>So it generates tar as bi product and carbonmonoxide and a bit h2 in the process too
It was common during the warings and there were no oil, trucks ran on this even up here and in Sweden
Dis be the car of a young swedish engineer a bit back, who did it for keks and shekel savings
You need to go out and stoke it now and then
Why the fuck would I want oxygen or hydrogen? Also learn some chemistry, I guarantee it's not as efficient to break those bonds apart then use the oxygen for fuel, maybe as a last resort to store energy but if you already had the means to make the oxygen then why use it.
No, it's because it's fucking really hard to use.
Hydrogen is like Houdini, it loves to escape impossible confines.
This means fuel cells have to be bulky and very heavy to contain fuel over a long period of time (which is why Fuel Cells have started to overtake Diesel for backup power generation, you can make the fuel cell as heavy a needed as it's stationary)
For vehicles though it's a different story, Honda has been working on Hydrogen for years and has limited rollouts in Japan and California - in both situations you have to refill every fortnight, regardless of usage as the fuel escapes.
This shouldn't be an issue for Trucks and Buses (as they're generally using all their fuel in a day anyway) but the personal vehicle hydrogen 'revolution' isn't coming. Battery storage is the go for most vehicles since it doesn't 'leak'
From the war
NK does this now.
The big part is that the mere existence of the petrodollar system creates huge artificial demand for the US dollar, which props up our currency value. And if it were to be dropped the excess currency in circulation could push the dollar value in the other direction.
Yes you can run your car, with some small changes on.... firewood.
The burning gasses flow through just as gas on a h2 car, but it isn't as dangerous as you don't sit on a big gas tank rather than one that generates it as you go
>Legit Political Reasons this is Suppressed?
It's not. The very fact that even a dumbass such as yourself can perform electrolysis is evidence enough that it isn't being suppressed.
>You can literally separate water into hydrogen and oxygen using a 9v battery and an electrolyte.
Why not just power your car with 9v batteries directly, then? It'd be a lot more efficient.
>Talks about taking the PE
Look guys, it is one of those low paid 'electrical' engineers. Have fun working at Duke Energy or Chevron.
t. Analog IC Designer
KEK