Hydrogene powered boat

Answers coloured

And the only realistic use for hydrogen on a boating is to use it for cooking and for balloons at new year party by the pier
BR Teddy

 

Not many years ago, folks scoffed at the notion of sending pictures thru the air.
And " If God wanted man to fly, He'd have given him wings!"

Somebody will devise a way. But not if everybody who tries gets slammed for mentioning it.

Look at what happened to TESLA

 

Dark energy is the energy necessary to fuel the ever increasing rate of expansion in the universe. Basically they don't know whey the universe is expanding at a rate faster than predicted so the invent an invisible energy to explain it. Not very good science but its what we get. Although expansion theory now also includes something called the multiverse which is a construct designed to explain how such fine limits might be overcome in a random world. The dark energy is something like -10^129th J/sqm It can be thought of as something like uncle Ailbert's cosmological constant.

Personally I'm not buying it. I'm inclined to thing that the electrical component isn't being accurately calculated. As if I'm going to be able to figure that one out eh. Fat chance, but I've seen the numbers and its mind bending how complex the electrical component is. Even just the magnetic fields generated in the nebula are virtually impossible to measure let alone quantify

Oh well
we now return you to your normally scheduled programing

Yab
love you brother but you just don't do science very well.
fuels have to provide more energy out that what goes into making them. Or they are just not viable as a fuel. Its pretty basic. I had earlier thought that someone had managed to run an engine on water, but I was mistaken. One of the most important parts of the learning process is admitting and correcting ones errors, that way we move forward to a place of better understanding rather than backwards to the dark ages. Challenging ones self is great, but accept the challenge for what it is, a tool by which we can advance or retreat, its just a mater of how well we listen that determines which

 

Thanks Boston,
The great thing, but frustrating thing, about scientific discoveries is, every answer raises a hundred new questions.
History is replete with scientific hypothesis and even "facts", that bit the dust because of later discoveries that proved them erroneous.
So like the line in the movie Men in Black, "Imagine what you "know" today, will be wrong tomorrow!", or went something like that.

 

the more complex constructs of science are always subject to revision, but the basics are pretty clear. Sure there's things we think we know today that might not stand the test of time but most of the time those elements of science have fairly low consensus views. Theory of gravity for instance has about a 50% consensus at best, the standard model in cosmology has maybe 35% even evolution doesn't have the consensus you might think it does.

Remain open minded, sure, but stick with the basics when developing new and complex ideas.

 

My only contention is, (an assertion actually because I'm convinced of it), we WILL solve our problems given time, manpower and resources.

Hydrogen from water or natural gas may be a solution to our energy needs. We have both resources in abundance. But it won't happen if we don't study ways and means.

I dislike the atitude of " Oh! THAT again! Here's my canned rejection response!"

That's not reasoning, it's obstinancy! And I'm an expert on obstinant! It's my middle name!

And what is the famous Edison quote? Trying hundreds of different elements in his light bulb wasn;t hundreds of failures. It was sucess in learning hundreds of ways NOT to do it?

 

kerosene,
quote: Turbocharger does partially achieve capturing some of the waste heat. Still plenty of heat wasted in ICE. End quote.

I've been looking and looking and I'm totally surprised I can't find any reference to anybody inventing or manufacturing a TURBO ALTERNATOR for an internal combustion engine.

Now THAT wouldn't brake the engine. High RPM and torque for generating electricity from wasted exhaust heat/gasses.

Free energy anyone? That doesn't foul the laws of physics?

If anyone knows of such an turbo powered alternator, I'd like to buy a small engine so equipped.

 

I think it might pose significant issues. at questionable return.

Using turbo for charging mixture makes sense as (generally) the output and need change in tandem.

And spinning turbo is not fully "free" energy - it does resist the exhaust gasses and pistons through added back pressure. Some of the energy is "free" (otherwise wasted).

Not sure a $2000 system for charging batteries is necessarily worth the complexity.

 

thanks kerosene.
maybe it should do two jobs. Turbo boost and alternator?

 

Agree with eddison. The problem with the water to fuel scams is that they are all essentially the same "filament" (that doesn't work) every time. And I would be pretty confident to claim that the so called inventors know that they don't wokr but proceed to collect money for investments etc.

The other problem is that people understand hydrogen pretty badly - and physics in general. It is so tempting to think that we can just get water vapor as exhaust that people fail to understand that by nature you are going to end up losing energy in a chain that starts from one substance and ends up the same. Water to hydrogen to water -chain can work as a battery but it will not be a _source_ of energy.

Maybe we find very cheap an expandable ways of using sunlight to break water to the component gasses or something else - but water is the result of burning - not a fuel. That is unlikely to change.

Don't mistake these attitudes for pessimism. I spend fair amount of time thinking of ways how energy could be preserved or collected. So far no huge innovations but I still do it. I think it is however responsible to notify about proven dead ends. You may call it "canned rejection response" if you want. I call it educating.

 

Wasn't intended as a personal attack. Sorry if offended.
I'm not a scientist. I'm hands on, not a theorist.
I see so very much "scientific" mis-information that I've SEEN the contary evidence with my own eyes. Example: The oceans are dying. Pure hogwash! Take a trip with me sometime to Africa. We'll head SE from St Lucia passing south of Barbados till arrive 7 degrees N Lat. Between 7N and 5N we'll encounter the East Equatorial Counter Current and ride it across to Cape Palmas. It's a circus 24 hours a day. Dolphins, whales, flying fish skittering from under your bow every few minutes. At night the sea is solid red wherever you put a searchlight on it. It's the eyes of squid and shrimp on the surface.
The sea is a living soup from Brazil to Africa.

So, I take some salt with other "scientific opinions.

 

More "scientific" BS? Man is poluting the oceans with petroleum! Pure Rot! The sea has more natural oil seeps putting more oil in the sea every hour than mankind ever dreamed of harvesting. Been doing it for a long long time.
20 years ago, We did a research on an undersea knoll 50 miles south of Mobile Ala. 2000ft depth. An oil company wanted to park a semi-submersible rig anchored over it an drill. Why? Because these "bubbles" knolls, in the crust are caused by oil pressure underneath. Our research? Two fold. Collect samples of crude oil eating clams and tube worms that had established colonies around the cracks leaking oil. Two! RSV map the colonies so an anchor pattern could be designed that wouldn't disrupt the colonies. These "knolls" are everywhere! especially in Indian ocean. The sea absorbs and carries on inspite of dire warnings by scientists.

 

That is a bit like talking about the granny who lived to 103 though she smoked a pack a day. Happens but statistics are more accurate for these things. You were not on said spot 100 years ago - maybe it was 10 times as crazy then - or maybe spots you are talking about are fine - but I think its ignorant to deny the fact that fish stocks have collapsed.

And with all respect I do believe scientific evidence (esp. when I know how it was gathered) over "gut feel" isolated fragments of info.

 

fish stock are depleted by over fishing. Grand Banks case in point

 

overfishing. These links mention degradation of habitat but only offer data only on overfishing. ecology seems to have become a required password. if you want folks to pay attention to your data, you have to at least mention, pay token lip service to the ecology.

http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/fisheries-and-aquaculture.php

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fisheries/index.htm


My last voyage to africa was 2010, returned feb 2011. Been Waiting for a call to go again. Some delay, don't know why.

Crossing with the East Equatorial Counter Current, days pass without seeing another vessel. When sighted, they're bound north or south and aren't fishing vessels, but tankers and freighters.
You don't have to take my word for anything.
But I'm one of the relative few out there.
If some office bound professor has more credibility in your eyes, well that's what they depend on, the publics gullibility.