Porsche is replacing gasoline with air and water

originally posted by: Bluntone22
This too..

"Some environmental groups don't agree with these claims, however. European environmental group Transport & Environment has called synthetic fuels "a mirage."


www.motorauthority.com...

I have been on here arguing with people like Phage that this will be easy, but the PTB won't allow it. I have seen examples in real life several times and THAT ALONE made me start posting on ATS. Hydrogen car built at my Alma Mater, met an inventor at his shop working on magnetic motors and antigravity devices. He was paid to go away and I met him as he retired. I tried to share the info with my Physics buddies, and they won't even give it the time of day STILL.

NO IT DOESN"T that is how they are keeping it back. CHARGING Batteries for electric cars uses a ton of energy.


The design Middle TN ST University has is one that uses Solar panels to charge a small battery and they produced H2 on demand. NASA had the key part but the company that provided them wanted a $million/per. So the professor built a solar powered car too. They have driven both and combined the idea. Only one like that one so far.
Link to MTSU Car

originally posted by: lordcomac
I mean,
any shmuck can make an engine run on "just water" and emit "just water" by using an HHO splitter, compressing the gasses to a liquid, storing them in high pressure tanks, then leaking it back into an engine.

But it uses a TON of electricity to create and compress the fuel, which comes from coal powered electric plants, so it's not saving anybody anything.

The only people who gain anything from this nonsense are people who live in huge densely populated sardine cans, and they want fewer exhaust fumes in their face...
and then complain when the power goes out

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DoomsdayDude
a reply to: AOx6179


Why not just use strong magnetic pistons in an all aluminum engine block? Use the push and pull effect of permanent magnets attached to a crank shaft and large flywheel? Maybe just use the push or repel effect with air compression or try it in a total vacuum inside that same engine block made of all aluminum? We need an official ATS Think Tank here to make this work! 🤔 💡

I want an anti-gravity vehicle. What's the hold up?

Your freedoms will greatly increase and the elite One Worlder's won't allow that.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: DoomsdayDude

Once a perminant magnet pushes or pulls, then what? It has to alternate and perminant magnets don't.

A saw a design that used a device to break the magnetic signal while it had been moving already on a wheel so that the next magnetic zone would be forced near the other magnet and that leg of the device would move thru the zone. The Newman Device. Paul Harvey the famous radio orator did a segment on him and the device was demonstrated on Morton Downey Jr Show in the 80's IIRC the date range. It was NOT perpetual motion due to friction but it had a lot of potential with a flywheel to start the wheel with magnets to spin. For the Downey Jr show he simply spun the wheel to begin the movement, then demonstrated the electric output. The electrons were ran to a battery thru a massive copper array wrapped like a radio kit we got as kids, and it had other features.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Same thing is happening with jet fuel.

Fast Company, Aramco, and others are all in a race towards “zero carbon” jet fuel. The super sonic jet engine that Rolls (??) pulled out of has a mission to use zero carbon jet fuel.

Why not cars??

We have half burnt fuel in the atmosphere as waste, why not just suck it up and finish the oxidation process?? Two birds, one stone, cleaner atmosphere, and I get my shopping for potato chips and diapers done!!

/sarcasm off

Any steps towards a cleaner atmosphere are welcome! Green hydrogen will happen (actually has to), but so will energy storage. We are on the verge of nuclear fusion which will mean an excess of energy production. Petroleum is not going away but will be reduced in its necessity. Storing electricity as hydrogen only makes sense. And cleaning the atmosphere, especially if you can create an already in use hydrocarbon, also makes sense.

But people have been saying that since the 70s!!

So, we sit and wait until this is released to the masses.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Synthetic fuels, right now, are more of a “look! We’re doing something about climate change!” Until costs come down on production, we won’t see synthetic fuels in large scale use. Just about everything has been certified on them, including military aircraft, and a number of commercial flights have used them, but it’s generally been one engine running on Synthetic and the others (they’ve usually been four engine types) were running straight Jet-A/JP-8.

a reply to: AOx6179

so it looks like we will be paying AT LEAST $12 per gallon,of regular gasoline
to make us switch to the much cheaper $8 per gallon fuel (water)

BEFORE bush #2 was elected president......in 2000
gasoline was only 97 CENTS ......for a GALLON. (pennsylvania)
iraq was only 10 CENTS.. but , how dare they GIVE IT AWAY
we could be making BILLIONS off of that
and, now they do

a reply to: cappie
I will be paying pennies on the gallon by trapping my own rainwater in a barrel or something logical.

Same old stuff. That they want to make methane instead of gasoline is a puzzle as methane use on a large scale would require a new infrastructure.

CO2 + H2 -> CO + H2O
CO + 2H2 -> CH3OH (Methanol)
CH3OH + ZSM-5 catalyst -> Gasoline + H2O

Note all the hydrogen needed to make fuel using recycled carbon as a carrier. Hydrogen is always the economic showstopper in any of these schemes. Elemental hydrogen is expensive to make by electrolysis and is also among the worst fuels proposed by the ignorant.
CO2 has little to do with climate change.

a reply to: pteridine

Hydrogen as a fuel has to happen.

Sure, current methods of production, either cracking gas or electrolysis, are “expensive”. But that is where we stand now. Which is not the point either of my comments or why it only makes sense to go green hydrogen power: when you have an energy source that is nearly unlimited, satisfies your current needs, and you cannot only make it on demand but run 24x7 until you have to shutdown to replace parts, then you will have to have some method of storing the created energy. Now that is where both redox flow batteries and hydrogen become, not just a hippie dream, but the smartest method of storage (maybe heat, chemical is too much of a hassle compared to molten silicon).

The OP is saying “here! This is happening! Now”. Which is the first step in the other stuff, yes, hydrogen as an energy source included, happening.

Which only the truly ignorant cannot see.

The future will be here faster than we can adjust to it as a society! But hey, we still have television!!

so now we have to buy porches?

I respectfully disagree on a couple of things.

One, we already have the mechanism to CHEAPLY split H2O into H2 and O2. A lead acid battery using solar power does the trick for only the cost of equipment for hydrolysis. Middle TN State U with the help of Nissan of N America has one and has had it working for around 30 Years now in Murfreesboro TN where I obtained my Bachelors degree.

The Boston Museum of science on a special showing to the EPA gathering I attended many years back was demonstrating this mechanism to cheaply split water. This was over 20 years back when I attended the gathering as a participant in a training session for analyzing data. Note: the MTSU Car does now use compressed H2 because of an issue with parts needed that were held back from MTSU by NASA companies who made the parts out of their price range until the school moved on to a Solar car. Now those parts are more affordable and we still aren't getting Nissan to build a second one on their own despite the results and the awards that design has won.

Two, methane sure could be made to easily burn the majority of the molecules in combustion into CO2 and H2O in the presence of an Oxygen rich atmosphere without a catalyst. That is a function of combustion temperatures. Long chain hydrocarbons found in fuels are cleaned up with Catalytic converters to complete the process so that CO is not emitted into the atmosphere. There will be NOx and SO2 byproducts from the combustion of the fuel happening in our Nitrogen/O2 rich atmosphere for the NOx and from the presence of sulfur in fuels to create SO2. Therefore a simple molecule would not bring SO2 into the equation for pollutants, but NOx would still be an issue.

Then finally, I do agree 100% with your observations on CO2.

originally posted by: pteridine
Same old stuff. That they want to make methane instead of gasoline is a puzzle as methane use on a large scale would require a new infrastructure.

CO2 + H2 -> CO + H2O
CO + 2H2 -> CH3OH (Methanol)
CH3OH + ZSM-5 catalyst -> Gasoline + H2O

Note all the hydrogen needed to make fuel using recycled carbon as a carrier. Hydrogen is always the economic showstopper in any of these schemes. Elemental hydrogen is expensive to make by electrolysis and is also among the worst fuels proposed by the ignorant.
CO2 has little to do with climate change.

a reply to: Justoneman

You can also use electrolysis with copper and nickel plates to split salt water into chlorine and Draino. Draino and aluminum foil produce hydrogen…can’t remember what that byproduct is other than sodium aluminate once all the hydrogen is gone.

a reply to: Ahabstar

These are a salt based solution and are very toxic as the lead is to us anyway, but yes you can create H2 with other processes. Lead acid batteries we do know how to recycle all the fluids and solids but are heavy as, well, lead.

a reply to: sarahvital

so now we have to buy porches?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?

Janis Joplin

Interesting but most likely a pipe dream...we'll see

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: pteridine

Hydrogen as a fuel has to happen.

Sure, current methods of production, either cracking gas or electrolysis, are “expensive”. But that is where we stand now. Which is not the point either of my comments or why it only makes sense to go green hydrogen power: when you have an energy source that is nearly unlimited, satisfies your current needs, and you cannot only make it on demand but run 24x7 until you have to shutdown to replace parts, then you will have to have some method of storing the created energy. Now that is where both redox flow batteries and hydrogen become, not just a hippie dream, but the smartest method of storage (maybe heat, chemical is too much of a hassle compared to molten silicon).

The OP is saying “here! This is happening! Now”. Which is the first step in the other stuff, yes, hydrogen as an energy source included, happening.

Which only the truly ignorant cannot see.

The future will be here faster than we can adjust to it as a society! But hey, we still have television!!

Reduced species provide chemical potential in an oxidizing atmosphere. Hydrogen may sound like a solution, but it is probably low on the list of useful fuels. Hydrogen is a derived product that requires energy to produce so the Toffler's concept of the "Hydrogen Economy" was the result of insufficient technical knowledge. The production of hydrogen via electrolysis of water is inefficient with about a 70% efficiency on a good day, going downhill with a tailwind. The srgument is easily made for putting the power used for electrolysis directly on te grid and skipping the production of hydrogen piece. Transport of hydrogen is problematic. One may pipeline it under pressure to end users as is already done industrially but not commercially. Cryogenic liquefaction was thought to be a solution to ready transport by the same folk who bought into the Toffler error. Alas, they did not comprehend the thermodynamics of ortho and para hydrogen. This has to do with nuclear spin in the molecules. Bottom line is that the liquid hydrogen is self-warming and, hence, self-evaporating.
If one wishes to use hydrogen as a reduced species to produce chemical potential, the best way to do so would be to use a carrier, such as methanol or a hydrocarbon. This also has to do with energy density -- the amount of energy available in a given volume of fuel. Then there is the problem of infrastructure. Rebuilding the production and distribution networks during a transition to hydrogen is a non-starter. Think chicken-egg with respect to the existing vehicle fleet and any new hydrogen powered vehicles. The best thing to do is to produce a fuel that fits the existing infrastructure with little or no modification required. There are many papers on this concept, and I have written my share of them over the last 40 years or so. Carbon is the ideal carrier (Diesel or gasoline preferred, methanol less so but better than H2) as it provides a high density fuel that is easily handled and fitis existing infrastructure.
As I have stated earlier, CO2 has little to do with climate change and only those with vested interests in transitioning away from petroleum based fuels or getting grants for studying such will defend the concept that CO2 is a problem.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Justoneman

You can also use electrolysis with copper and nickel plates to split salt water into chlorine and Draino. Draino and aluminum foil produce hydrogen…can’t remember what that byproduct is other than sodium aluminate once all the hydrogen is gone.

The energy required to make aluminum is greater than the energy required to produce hydrogen directly. If you wish to use a metal as the reduced species, a battery would be the way to do it. Look up Zinc-air batteries if you are interested,

originally posted by: Justoneman
I respectfully disagree on a couple of things.

One, we already have the mechanism to CHEAPLY split H2O into H2 and O2. A lead acid battery using solar power does the trick for only the cost of equipment for hydrolysis. Middle TN State U with the help of Nissan of N America has one and has had it working for around 30 Years now in Murfreesboro TN where I obtained my Bachelors degree.

The Boston Museum of science on a special showing to the EPA gathering I attended many years back was demonstrating this mechanism to cheaply split water. This was over 20 years back when I attended the gathering as a participant in a training session for analyzing data. Note: the MTSU Car does now use compressed H2 because of an issue with parts needed that were held back from MTSU by NASA companies who made the parts out of their price range until the school moved on to a Solar car. Now those parts are more affordable and we still aren't getting Nissan to build a second one on their own despite the results and the awards that design has won.

Two, methane sure could be made to easily burn the majority of the molecules in combustion into CO2 and H2O in the presence of an Oxygen rich atmosphere without a catalyst. That is a function of combustion temperatures. Long chain hydrocarbons found in fuels are cleaned up with Catalytic converters to complete the process so that CO is not emitted into the atmosphere. There will be NOx and SO2 byproducts from the combustion of the fuel happening in our Nitrogen/O2 rich atmosphere for the NOx and from the presence of sulfur in fuels to create SO2. Therefore a simple molecule would not bring SO2 into the equation for pollutants, but NOx would still be an issue.

Then finally, I do agree 100% with your observations on CO2.

originally posted by: pteridine
Same old stuff. That they want to make methane instead of gasoline is a puzzle as methane use on a large scale would require a new infrastructure.

CO2 + H2 -> CO + H2O
CO + 2H2 -> CH3OH (Methanol)
CH3OH + ZSM-5 catalyst -> Gasoline + H2O

Note all the hydrogen needed to make fuel using recycled carbon as a carrier. Hydrogen is always the economic showstopper in any of these schemes. Elemental hydrogen is expensive to make by electrolysis and is also among the worst fuels proposed by the ignorant.
CO2 has little to do with climate change.

I don't know where to start on this one. I have answered another poster, above, and request that you read than first and then ask questions of me regarding the production and use of hydrogen. The least expensive hydrogen is from reforming of methane to CO2 and H2. Methane has been produced by the Great Plains Gasifier in ND for many years, so the technology is well understood. Methane for transportation also requires a change in infrastructure and does not have the energy density of a liquid hydrocarbon.