Thats right !!!!!!
There are two reasons I bought the Civic Hybrid, 1) 70 miles to work 2) It looks like a car.

 

how many mpg do those hybrids get?

I have a jetta tdi. 50 mpg avg, diesel is cheaper than unleaded, no emissions testing (in TX anyway) on diesels makes my annual state inspection cost like $12.50 instead of $60 or whatever it is i dunno.

 

Why don't we all agree to use higher compression motors and burn alchol? Oh no, wait, that idea has been shot down already. Wait, I got a better idea! Why don't we waste money on a vehicle that needs a whole contraption to generate electricity from water to power an electric motor? Doesn't that sound kind of retarted to you? It's like a Diesel train in a car. You got one huge contraption powering an oversized electric motor. I think Alchol is the best way to go for now. It's also completely renewable!

 

my motor is already 19.5:1 how high are you thinking of going.

i'll keep the alcohol for entertainment purposes.

 

If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that we are NOT talking about fuel-cells, but instead Hydrogen fueled internal combustion engines. Besides, fuel cell technology is to the point where the storage of the hydrogen, cells, and motor take up as much if not less room than the parts of a normal gasoline powered car. The "whole contraption" is a lot simpler than all the parts of a gasoline powered cars and would actually be easier to repair and swap out parts.

Also, alcohol powered cars may be cleaner than gas, but Hydrogen is ZERO EMISSIONS. The air coming out the tailpipe is cleaner than the air in most north american cities.

If you really insist on sharing your opinion, you're welcome to do so. Just make sure you know what you're talking about. Let's not be xenophobic about new technologies here people. If people were stubborn that telephones and fax were all they needed to communicate globally, this thing called the Internet wouldn't exist. Just the same, if people are stubborn and insist that Gasoline engines suit them fine and deny all the evidence that they're slowly choking themselves to death (exaggerated slightly, yes), then we'll never move on to alternatives and pollution and lack of oil (IT WILL RUN OUT EVENTUALLY) will ruin most peoples lives in more ways than one.

The future isn't written yet, we can change it everyday. What I'm trying to get across is that by starting the switch to Hydrogen and other clean sources of energy, we won't have to face any of the problems linked with pollution and waning oil supplies.

A side note, in searching for the spelling of "waning", I found this site:
http://bobwhitson.typepad.com/howlings/200..._the_oil_r.html
It's worth a look see.

 

So I was being a bit sarcastic, but is there a crime about that? Didn't someone mention earlier in this topic that hydrogen is hard to extract in mass?

 

Ok, whatever. Yes, someone said that earlier, but it was proven wrong. Hydrogen is really easy to extract in large quantities through reverse fuel cells and hydrolysis.

Note to any mods: Can we get a here? This thread, although very stimulating and informative, is getting exhausting, annoying, and repetitive. I'm tired of repeating myself, and I'm sure people are tired of reading it.

 

Decipher...

There is no reason to close the thread... if people stop posting, it will go away, you don't have to repeat yourself for the same reason.

 

Okay Decipher, I know your supposed to be an expert on H2, but since your not out of high school yet and have yet to take some engineering classes to learn some laws of physics that no advance in technololgy will allow to be broken, maybey you would like to read a release from some PHD's from MIT on why H2 is a bad idea.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/hydrogen-0305.html

You can't get something from nothing. Every action you take costs energy. You simply have to take more actions to make H2 than its worth, it is not the answer.

For everyone out there who thinks H2 is the answer, try looking on any search engine with the phrase "why Hydrogen won't work". Pick up the May 04 issue of Scientific American and educate yourself.

Everyone that is championing H2 keeps saying technology will find a way to solve this and that problem . That is not a solution. You would have to dam every river, capture wave action along every coast, harness all the wind on the continent, collect solar energy in every desert, build thousands of nuclear reactors, and tap into the geothermal energy of the core of the earth to even approach having enough energy to produce enough H2 to match the fossil fuel requirements of today, much less so than in say 50 years when the population doubles and China has 1 billion people driving cars.

There is nothing wrong with being young and passionate about something. But that is simply not enough. I hate to rain on anybodys parade, but that is just how it is.

 

Electrolysis requires power from fossil fuels.


Yes, this has been gone over about 100 times, and yes, I know your response. stalemate

 

Yeah yeah yeah.. whatever I GIVE UP. STOP POSTING. YOU'VE ALREADY KILLED THIS FOR ME, NOW SHUT THE F UP.

For the record, I've been out of highschool for just over a year now and am well aware of the what those people say, but they seem dead set against the technology from the get go, and don't take into account other new technologies, like the one mentioned about being able to power a house by forcing water through a mechanism no bigger than a shoe box. All those studies are great, but out of date. March 5, 2003?? That's a long time in from a technological standpoint. If you insist on trying to prove me wrong, do so if you please, but let it be known that I HAVE HAD IT WITH THIS THREAD.

People just don't seem to get it. No matter what is said, it's supposedly wrong - even if the proof they use is way out of date. It seems that because I have no credibility because I have no degrees, the fact that I'm quoting people who DO means absolutely nothing. I'm not going to post here anymore. If you have anything to say or direct towards me, leave it to PMs.

The sheer ignorance of this thread makes me feel dirty and violated.

 

As Badandy said: STALEMATE


GAME OVER

 

I'm a Ford man. But the Hybrid escape is only good for in city driving. On freeways, highways, etc. It gets worse mileage then a fuel escape. believe it or not. but city driving (starting and stopping) its pretty good

 

if it weren't for stopping and going, city driving would always give you better mileage because of the lower speeds; the force exerted by air drag is directly proportional to the speed, so the faster you go, the harder you have to push to maintain that speed. Regenerative braking and so forth factor out the inefficiency involved with city driving, making it easier to see the benefits of driving at these lower speeds.
I don't see why a hybrid escape would be less efficient on the highway than a regular v6 escape, but i guess if you've seen the numbers, that's all there is to it. The added mass of the electric motor wouldn't increase the drag force at all, so once you're moving at highway speeds, the same energy requirements are there, hyrbid or not. Maybe its cause the battery regenerates when you coast. I don't know if that's how ford's hybrid system works though. I always found the coasting thing a little silly. The energy you take out of your moving car by charging the battery when you coast is only gonna mean you have to put more energy back into it to speed back up. But i guess its important to make sure the battery's got enough juice so you can shut down the engine at the next stop.
Anyways, its nice to see The Cheat making his way into people's avatars.


www.homestarrunner.com

 

hey i know this is an old thread but im using alot of what has been said in it for a skool project (n dont worry ill remember to give whoever said it credit) but i need to know. cant really remember: what is the process of sperationg hydrogen from water w/ electricty called? i cant remember

 

there are these 2 i recall
hydrolysis
electrolysis-the one you may be looking for

 

what happened to decipher :scratch:

havent seen him in a long time. i guess this thread make him coocoo for coacoa puffs

 

I just did a presentation for my communications in engineering class about hydrogen powered cars and whether we're ready for em yet. Basically, we said that Ahnold is a food (we had a great picture of him with a goofy smile, fueling up his hydrogen powered hummer). He's spending 100s of millions of dollars building hydrogen powered refueling stations, while most scientists say it'll be at least 20 years before we see mass produced hydrogen powered cars. There was an awesome article in Motor Trend a couple months ago, the issue with the v8 focus vs the lamborghini, a big feature on Hydrogen, they kept it pretty neutral. Talked to experts on both sides of the argument. Personally, it convinced me that there are a lot of problems that will take a long time to work out if at all.
One of the guys they interviewed wrote a really good book called "The Hype about Hydrogen" or something. Its an easy read, not too long, but he explores these issues really well.

I think generating electricity, using it to produce hydrogen, transporting the hydrogen to fueling stations and then pumping it into our cars is kinda circutuous. Hybrid tech is letting us work on and improve such things as batteries and electric motors. Plug-in hybrids (hybrids that you can plug in as well so that if you're just driving to the store you won't even need to tap into the gas tank) could set things up so that gradually, you'll need to use the gas engine less and less, and maybe eventually, the batteries will be able to hold enough, the motors'll be powerful enough, and we'll be able to charge up quick enough that completely electric cars would be very practical. Those test EVs they tried out about 10 years ago stinked a lot, couldn't go far and took very long to charge up. That guy Paul MacCready (the dude who built the man-powered plane that crossed the channel) said that those first EVs came along and crashed just before they really improved battery technology.

I think it makes a lot more sense to simply generate the electricity, send that electricity along the electrical infrastructure we already have set up (would probably need to beef it up to handle the added strain of powering ALL OF OUR CARS, but we can handle that...) and simply store the electricity in the car and use that to directly power the motor. None of this creating electricity, converting it to chemical energy in the hydrogen, transporting it in super high pressure tankers (like 10,000 psi or something for it to be practical) and then converting it back into electricity. Like i said very circuituous.

I think electric vehicles are the future. The end.. hehehe

 

Yeah, I`ll get a hydrogen powered car, and name it the Hindenburg.

 

seriously though, look for that book "The hype about hydrogen"

here's the motor trend article
http://www.motortrend.com/features/consume...gen/index2.html
its also got straight out simple explanations of how hydrogen power works, should be a good source.
Good luck with your project.