Burning Saltwater: anybody see this yet?

I told my science teacher that this makes sense back when I was 15... oxygen burns and hydrogen explodes, but the fire won't happen without impurities and separating the two... so you ionize the water burn the product and the byproduct is... guess what... water.

I haven't understood why this issue is so complex... and the arguments against it based on ratio of output... are stupid... electric cars gain charge when the brakes are applied. We don't need a system which generates more power then it requires... we only need kinetic change within an already moving system... so long as you have times where the car has to slow down... you have a power source for the other system.

Why is that ignored while it's so obvious with windmills and water wheels... geez it's not rocket science.
 
Using corn to make ethanol is a bad idea. Why use all the water to grow those crops? When you could just use the water to power your car? plus wouldn't you destroy the land? Growing to much of the same crop would ruin the soil.

er. You would also be wasting the fresh water on crops no one will ever eat. Not to mention all the people going hungry. etc
 
Native grasses yield more usable oil with less footprint than corn or soy.

Again, I know the science, but the science indicated ignores one key fact - that we're using much less efficient fuels at the moment. Why not publish the same data for fossil?

e
 
overlandfilms said:
Native grasses yield more usable oil with less footprint than corn or soy.

Again, I know the science, but the science indicated ignores one key fact - that we're using much less efficient fuels at the moment. Why not publish the same data for fossil?

e
Click to expand...

Very simple... oil companies have a LOT of money.
 
overlandfilms said:
Again, I know the science, but the science indicated ignores one key fact - that we're using much less efficient fuels at the moment. Why not publish the same data for fossil?
Click to expand...

It's not the fuel efficiency that's in question. It's the get-the-fuel efficiency that shoots it down.

If you have 10 units of power and use them to produce a fuel that nets you 5 units of power, why not keep what you already have? You've already got twice as much.
 
Evan S said:
http://www.i4u.com/article4477.html

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5666417.html

You can get up to like 4 hours on one fuel cell. It's interesting that you don't have to constantly charge your batteries and all. Does that mean however you have to keep buying compressed gas to fill your canisters? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
That is the way I see it, but I'm not exactly a rocket scientist and could be wrong. I just thought it was funny that cameras are getting these before cars are.
 
GenJerDan said:
It's not the fuel efficiency that's in question. It's the get-the-fuel efficiency that shoots it down.

If you have 10 units of power and use them to produce a fuel that nets you 5 units of power, why not keep what you already have? You've already got twice as much.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - but I think Overland's point is still valid....the "get the fuel" efficiency of fossil fuels should still be explored and compared to new technologies.

It will always take energy to get energy.
I would venture to guess that it takes more energy to get gasoline to me than I get out of it....so why not try to find the source that is going to be closest to a 1:1 ratio?
 
Everybody knows that Brazil is OPEC independent right? Back in the Carter days... when the western hemisphere was crippled by the oil industry Brazil said "we won't be fooled again"... and they weren't.

Big oil has too strong of a presence here in the USA... and the infrastructure required to collect, process, and distribute the fossil fuels is already in place. Big oil equals big money and all the propaganda pushing the idea that big oil is pushing fuel alternatives is just that... propaganda.

I don't think we'll see any major changes in the energy issue until it's a government mandate... and the connection with the government and big oil is way too strong... at least for now.

I think the transition from fossil fuels to something else will be like a cross-dissolve... much like the hybrid cars and electric cars that get some charge during braking. It's likely that the transition will actually take place WITHIN the evolution of products/vehicles... as the efficiency of the alternative improves the "assist" system of a normal engine will fade out.
 
HONDA's 2008 FCX Hydrogen Fuel Cell car, limited number release....leased only:
2008.honda.fcx.20121487-E.jpg


Their current [and a lot uglier] vehicle model (only 15 or so existing at a cost of $1m each) are leased to Hollywood types...can anyone say EV1?
02.jpg
 
Last edited:
Luis Caffesse said:
It will always take energy to get energy.
Click to expand...
Yes. But the aim is to not use more than the output. :)


Luis Caffesse said:
I would venture to guess that it takes more energy to get gasoline to me than I get out of it....so why not try to find the source that is going to be closest to a 1:1 ratio?
Click to expand...

Bad guess. For gasoline, you're at 85%, and diesel is at 83%. (Meaning the other 15 & 17% balances out what you used to make the fuel.)(And those numbers look backward to me...but that's what I found.)

Ethanol from switchgrass requires 50% more than what you get out of it.
Ethanol from wood, 57% more.
Ethanol from corn, 29% more.
Biodiesel from soybeans, 27% more.
Biodiesel from sunflower, 118% more. (!)(Why do they even think about it? Cause the flowers are pretty in the meantime?)

That bad figures for the "new" fuels are mainly because we're not geared for it...I'll assume. Figure out a way to knock down the cost of planting/processing, and they'll be better. Hopefully better enough to replace petroleum.
 
Bad guess. For gasoline, you're at 85%, and diesel is at 83%. (Meaning the other 15 & 17% balances out what you used to make the fuel.)(And those numbers look backward to me...but that's what I found.)
Click to expand...

Not a bad quess at all.
What I said was that it would take more energy to get gasoline to me than I am able to get out of it. If I understand your post correctly then that is exactlly the case (as it does with any source of energy I can think of currently). And if I misunderstood...could you clarify that for me?

I wasn't saying there were better alternatives out there - all i was saying was that it is something that should be constantly explored in hopes of finding a way to get to a 1:1 ratio.

But all that aside - interesting numbers.
Thanks for digging those up.

EDITED TO ADD
Okay, just reread your post and realized I did compleletely misunderstand what you wrote.
I'm getting out of my element here, but I have a hard time believing I can get 15-17% more energy out of gasoline than it took to get that gasoline to me.
Are you saying that takes into account the making, delivery and storage of gasoline?
 
Last edited:
Luis Caffesse said:
EDITED TO ADD
Okay, just reread your post and realized I did compleletely misunderstand what you wrote.
I'm getting out of my element here, but I have a hard time believing I can get 15-17% more energy out of gasoline than it took to get that gasoline to me.
Are you saying that takes into account the making, delivery and storage of gasoline?
Click to expand...

I hate math.

Say 100 is the amount of energy gotten from gas/oil.

In order to pump, refine, store, ship it to you, etc., they use the 15/17.

The net is the 85/83 figure.

You get, basically, 6 to 7 times what you put into it, when everything is added up.

The other fuels just don't measure up so far. No reason they couldn't, however.

I think they should look into making fuel from kudzu. The damn stuff has to be good for something.
 
Nektonic said:
That is exactly what they are doing. In my excitement I just didn't let my brain fully understand all the technical details. So you would need an extremely powerful radio wave to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in a mass of water as large as an ocean, which is not likely to be possible anytime soon with current technology.

Now, lets pretend that it was possible to do this to the oceans. Why would any nation use this as a weapon. It would destroy the oceans and all life on the planet. They may win the war, but in the end they will still lose. At least a nuclear weapon has some degree of precision.
Click to expand...

think of it like this, Radio waves are in essence a spectrum of light, so is heat, sound, and gamma radiation. all detectabel energy is basically waves of differing intensities and wavelengths.

imagine that a spot light can produce enough heat to burn a piece of paper. it can do that from 1 foot away, but imagine the light neccesary to burn a piece of papaer that 6,000 miles wide....... Thats alot of "radiowaves".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top