 Run Shit Off Water! |
Muad'Dib 
Andrejnalin
Registration Date: 02-12-2003
Posts: 4,197
Helpfulness rating:
 |
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surya
| quote: |
Originally posted by Halph-Price
if you can find the video Who Killed The Electric Car? it's very good and explains how the release them, and then took them back from the public after all the subjects fell madly inlove with the electric car.
you may not realize it now, but an electric car CAN be a green vehilce, if the house enrgy you have is green. i live in a township that has 100% green energy coming in, so if i had an electric car it would be 100% green reknewable energy. :/ the only downside of the elctric car is 2 things
1. they havn't made it to travel that far, becasue the technology is still in progress
2. little children won't hear your car coming and will more likley get struck by the car. |
I'm a huge proponent of the electric car too. It's way more energy efficient than any other technology currently available, and it's already "affordable'. An electric car is 75% efficient (75% of the energy used is translated into movement), whereas hydrogen or gasoline cars are only about 30% efficient, and that's after 100 years of combustion engines, and only 20 years of electric ones.
Can't wait to lay my hand on one of these: http://www.zapworld.com/zap-x-crossover |
I believe the efficiency of electromotors is different, much higher (something about 90-95%).
Also, don't get misguided by the time of development. Actually, the progress of electromotors is slightly slower than this because of the square logarithmic type of development in technology. Technology progresses not by adding, but by multiplying. Thus, 100 years of development, in comparison to those 20, is pretty damn much longer.
__
Thinking about becoming an Image-Line/FL Studio customer? Want a 10% reduction in price? Use this affiliate link:
http://affiliate.image-line.com/BADEBDG473
There is no such thing without its opposite
-Bene Gesserit
|
|
|
31-03-2008 01:22 |
|
|
Surya
The Robot
Registration Date: 04-11-2002
Posts: 11,238
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
Doesn't matter, it clearly shows that electric motors are much more efficient, so there's no reason not to switch.
__
"In dnb you should make people jump not swim"
- Pieter Frenssen 2004
|
|
|
01-04-2008 07:42 |
|
|
Surora23
Agressive Melodic Disorder
Registration Date: 05-07-2004
Posts: 2,127
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surya
Yes, but hydrogen only has one problem: it's not an energy source, it's an energy container. You need electricity to make it work. So, where you do get enough electricity to make enough hydrogen to make all cars run on it? Food for thought, when you know you need 3 times as much power to make the fuel, than you can get out of it. It has potential, but it also needs more work. |
yea but even if you do you can use solar energy which is now technologically insanely efficient... not only that our wind technology is fantastic... there was an article her ein cleveland in a magazine called eviromental watch ohio, and it basically said that in a 2.5 yr period of time, a wind farm off of lake erie would power the entire city of cleveland...
so basiically no one would have bills...
__
Rinse it OUT!!!! 
|
|
|
01-04-2008 17:50 |
|
|
Surora23
Agressive Melodic Disorder
Registration Date: 05-07-2004
Posts: 2,127
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by BattleDrone
The've come a long way and nobody ever thought it would be possible to prove the theory of nuclear fusion given the extreme temperatures it takes to get it done, but we are no where near replacing our current nuclear power by the cleaner version.
Time is ticking though in about 70 years all our current energy sources will be gone. And I hear you think: OK, in 70 years I'll probably be pushing up the daisies so not to worry... never get any kids then. |
im sorry but i have to say that none of you are that educated on this...
tesla built an electric car in the 30s so we've been able to simply use electric cars since then...
and no one would need huge pannels to power everything... the solar technology we have today surpasses anything thats been put out to the public...
on top of that sam meyer built a water powered car in the 70's...
there is no debate on whther or not itll work...
it comes down to a corrupt system of politics and money... and thats where all of you come in... people have to put this information out and stop debating...
for those who say its not "practical" are you stupid?
the leading scientist came out on a special with katie couric on global climate change, and the damage has been done... not only that the head correspondant was changing files and data for the media to put out...
long story short.. we really are looking at a possible extinction of the human race...
if you people seriously nay say this youre a sorry excuse for a human being... realise that youre all or mostly young, and dont deserve to live in a horrible future...
now no one should look toward a horrible future... everyone needs to come together and work for the highest possible future...
__
Rinse it OUT!!!!
|
|
|
01-04-2008 17:56 |
|
|
Surora23
Agressive Melodic Disorder
Registration Date: 05-07-2004
Posts: 2,127
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Muad'Dib
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surya
| quote: |
Originally posted by Halph-Price
if you can find the video Who Killed The Electric Car? it's very good and explains how the release them, and then took them back from the public after all the subjects fell madly inlove with the electric car.
you may not realize it now, but an electric car CAN be a green vehilce, if the house enrgy you have is green. i live in a township that has 100% green energy coming in, so if i had an electric car it would be 100% green reknewable energy. :/ the only downside of the elctric car is 2 things
1. they havn't made it to travel that far, becasue the technology is still in progress
2. little children won't hear your car coming and will more likley get struck by the car. |
I'm a huge proponent of the electric car too. It's way more energy efficient than any other technology currently available, and it's already "affordable'. An electric car is 75% efficient (75% of the energy used is translated into movement), whereas hydrogen or gasoline cars are only about 30% efficient, and that's after 100 years of combustion engines, and only 20 years of electric ones.
Can't wait to lay my hand on one of these: http://www.zapworld.com/zap-x-crossover |
I believe the efficiency of electromotors is different, much higher (something about 90-95%).
Also, don't get misguided by the time of development. Actually, the progress of electromotors is slightly slower than this because of the square logarithmic type of development in technology. Technology progresses not by adding, but by multiplying. Thus, 100 years of development, in comparison to those 20, is pretty damn much longer. |
ok...are you people forgetting that the battery in the car is enough energy to start the electrolysis process? so... this sam meyers technology, wether its "more efficient or not" you can fill oyur car up for pennies at the FAUCET
his fuel is WATER (NOT HYDROGEN) the process creates HHO which seperates the molecules then burns the hydrogen...and the exaust is water..required for life... how is that even a bad thing...
why are people making this "difficult" there are basic fundementals to science in which people are finding out all over again that have been hidden... these things work, and were suppose to be using them... were still animals, human or not, we werent meant to destroy, and use the worlds resources like this...
i mean seriously... lets talk about morals and human responsibility... some of you might have kids right now...let me tell you, that if the fucking US senate passes this glabal climate act billl (you can look it up) it would drop the gdp -6.9% throwing the usa into another depression as severe as the 30s, and will then feed into the glbal economy...
i dont really think people are aware of the actual danger that awaits us...
__
Rinse it OUT!!!!
|
|
|
01-04-2008 18:04 |
|
|
Muad'Dib
Andrejnalin
Registration Date: 02-12-2003
Posts: 4,197
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surora23
| quote: |
Originally posted by Muad'Dib
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surya
| quote: |
Originally posted by Halph-Price
if you can find the video Who Killed The Electric Car? it's very good and explains how the release them, and then took them back from the public after all the subjects fell madly inlove with the electric car.
you may not realize it now, but an electric car CAN be a green vehilce, if the house enrgy you have is green. i live in a township that has 100% green energy coming in, so if i had an electric car it would be 100% green reknewable energy. :/ the only downside of the elctric car is 2 things
1. they havn't made it to travel that far, becasue the technology is still in progress
2. little children won't hear your car coming and will more likley get struck by the car. |
I'm a huge proponent of the electric car too. It's way more energy efficient than any other technology currently available, and it's already "affordable'. An electric car is 75% efficient (75% of the energy used is translated into movement), whereas hydrogen or gasoline cars are only about 30% efficient, and that's after 100 years of combustion engines, and only 20 years of electric ones.
Can't wait to lay my hand on one of these: http://www.zapworld.com/zap-x-crossover |
I believe the efficiency of electromotors is different, much higher (something about 90-95%).
Also, don't get misguided by the time of development. Actually, the progress of electromotors is slightly slower than this because of the square logarithmic type of development in technology. Technology progresses not by adding, but by multiplying. Thus, 100 years of development, in comparison to those 20, is pretty damn much longer. |
ok...are you people forgetting that the battery in the car is enough energy to start the electrolysis process? so... this sam meyers technology, wether its "more efficient or not" you can fill oyur car up for pennies at the FAUCET
his fuel is WATER (NOT HYDROGEN) the process creates HHO which seperates the molecules then burns the hydrogen...and the exaust is water..required for life... how is that even a bad thing...
why are people making this "difficult" there are basic fundementals to science in which people are finding out all over again that have been hidden... these things work, and were suppose to be using them... were still animals, human or not, we werent meant to destroy, and use the worlds resources like this...
i mean seriously... lets talk about morals and human responsibility... some of you might have kids right now...let me tell you, that if the fucking US senate passes this glabal climate act billl (you can look it up) it would drop the gdp -6.9% throwing the usa into another depression as severe as the 30s, and will then feed into the glbal economy...
i dont really think people are aware of the actual danger that awaits us... |
There is one problem with hydrogen-based cars, in the domain of efficiency:
the car engine has to run when the car is stopped, while as, the electromotor can stay without power, and work right away when it receives it. That is a big saving, I would say.
I don't remember the figures, but some huge percent (in the range of 20-50%) was mentioned of spent gasoline in trafic jams and on idling in place, in the overall gasoline usage.
__
Thinking about becoming an Image-Line/FL Studio customer? Want a 10% reduction in price? Use this affiliate link:
http://affiliate.image-line.com/BADEBDG473
There is no such thing without its opposite
-Bene Gesserit
|
|
|
02-04-2008 01:07 |
|
|
Halph-Price
Zombie Algorithm
Registration Date: 22-12-2004
Posts: 6,160
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
oh ad the brake pads generate energy that can be used in electric cars becaus ethe battery is what makes it go unlike internal combustion engines which only use one sourc eof energy.
you could take the electrice car add solar panels, kentic energy brakes, and whatever the hell else an be converted to energy to be used, foot peddling, who knows.
__
|
|
|
02-04-2008 08:05 |
|
|
Surya
The Robot
Registration Date: 04-11-2002
Posts: 11,238
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surora32
his fuel is WATER (NOT HYDROGEN) the process creates HHO which seperates the molecules then burns the hydrogen...and the exaust is water..required for life... how is that even a bad thing... |
As I understand it, the fuel is not water but electricity, that is combined with water to produce HHO. You don't only have to refuel the water, but also recharge your batteries.
But as with al conversion of energy, you loose efficiency, so I still think that running off of pure electricity is more efficient.
__
"In dnb you should make people jump not swim"
- Pieter Frenssen 2004
|
|
|
03-04-2008 07:52 |
|
|
Halph-Price
Zombie Algorithm
Registration Date: 22-12-2004
Posts: 6,160
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
There's interest in using old mines that are abbandoned for thermal nergy, simpyl filling it with water the temperature near the bottem is warmer and heats up the water, and that transfer of energy has been used to power entire factories, and a town, and with energy extra. thermal power is pure and renewable and one of the best available.
solar power has gone a long way with serious development into solar cells, i see it used now allt he time, and with new LED lights which can now be as bright as regular STAGE lights, which normally took 3 amps, and had a bulb that would burn out after each use, they now last for a lifetime, and take minute energy to use, with high intensity.
we will have renewable energy and it's easy to see where it's going. whatever is economical.
__
|
|
|
03-04-2008 15:45 |
|
|
Muad'Dib
Andrejnalin
Registration Date: 02-12-2003
Posts: 4,197
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surya
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surora32
his fuel is WATER (NOT HYDROGEN) the process creates HHO which seperates the molecules then burns the hydrogen...and the exaust is water..required for life... how is that even a bad thing... |
As I understand it, the fuel is not water but electricity, that is combined with water to produce HHO. You don't only have to refuel the water, but also recharge your batteries.
But as with al conversion of energy, you loose efficiency, so I still think that running off of pure electricity is more efficient. |
The only pay-off source of hydrogen would be to find some source for a star, for instance, or somewhere in space where a star is just being born.
__
Thinking about becoming an Image-Line/FL Studio customer? Want a 10% reduction in price? Use this affiliate link:
http://affiliate.image-line.com/BADEBDG473
There is no such thing without its opposite
-Bene Gesserit
|
|
|
04-04-2008 01:26 |
|
|
tetsuo
Guiness factory
Registration Date: 26-12-2004
Posts: 678
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Muad'Dib
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surya
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surora32
his fuel is WATER (NOT HYDROGEN) the process creates HHO which seperates the molecules then burns the hydrogen...and the exaust is water..required for life... how is that even a bad thing... |
As I understand it, the fuel is not water but electricity, that is combined with water to produce HHO. You don't only have to refuel the water, but also recharge your batteries.
But as with al conversion of energy, you loose efficiency, so I still think that running off of pure electricity is more efficient. |
The only pay-off source of hydrogen would be to find some source for a star, for instance, or somewhere in space where a star is just being born. |
IMO, if they go to get some "fuel" from space, it won't be hydrogen...but helim 3.
A bit old, but very good article on it:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html
Bush mentioned not so long ago that he wants the US to go back on the moon pretty soon.. and I guess the US won't be the only one to go and get it, even tho the technology is not ready yet...Imagine, 25 tons could supply the entire United States energy needs for a year...
__
Yesterday' s futur is today!! 
|
|
|
04-04-2008 12:52 |
|
|
Surora23
Agressive Melodic Disorder
Registration Date: 05-07-2004
Posts: 2,127
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by tetsuo
| quote: |
Originally posted by Muad'Dib
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surya
| quote: |
Originally posted by Surora32
his fuel is WATER (NOT HYDROGEN) the process creates HHO which seperates the molecules then burns the hydrogen...and the exaust is water..required for life... how is that even a bad thing... |
As I understand it, the fuel is not water but electricity, that is combined with water to produce HHO. You don't only have to refuel the water, but also recharge your batteries.
But as with al conversion of energy, you loose efficiency, so I still think that running off of pure electricity is more efficient. |
The only pay-off source of hydrogen would be to find some source for a star, for instance, or somewhere in space where a star is just being born. |
IMO, if they go to get some "fuel" from space, it won't be hydrogen...but helim 3.
A bit old, but very good article on it:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html
Bush mentioned not so long ago that he wants the US to go back on the moon pretty soon.. and I guess the US won't be the only one to go and get it, even tho the technology is not ready yet...Imagine, 25 tons could supply the entire United States energy needs for a year... |
weve been on the moon for a while.. therse a usa base built on the darkside
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042651/
__
Rinse it OUT!!!!
This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Surora23: 04-04-2008 22:39.
|
|
|
04-04-2008 22:38 |
|
|
|
