Water/Hydrogen powered vehicles
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=188249
Printed Date: 16 July 2025 at 5:38pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Water/Hydrogen powered vehicles
Posted By: impulse418
Subject: Water/Hydrogen powered vehicles
Date Posted: 02 May 2011 at 6:57pm
|
Why are we still using petroleum to power our vehicles? Why can auto manufactures only produce vehicles that get maybe 40 MPG? You are telling me, Joe Schmoe, can watch a youtube video. Buy a drill press, some good bits, and the components from any Home Depot . And in a few hours build a hydrogen generator in their garage? But the big 'ol auto manufactures cannot? Give me a break. But people will spends thousands on a new hybrid vehicle, that only gets a measly 50 mpg. When they could of spent $200, and got the same gas mileage out of the vehicle they already owned. How expensive does gas have to get, for us to finally say enough is enough. (inb4 conspiracy theories) |
Replies:
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 02 May 2011 at 7:01pm
$6.23 Give or take a nickel. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
impulse418 wrote:Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 02 May 2011 at 8:30pm
Build a "hydrogen generator?" Sure. Build a hydrogen generator and associated hydrogen-fueled vehicle that is actually energy efficient? That's another matter entirely. Not to mention a hydrogen-powered vehicle that is safer than a 1975 Ford Pinto. And even if "they" built it, there would need to be an entire refueling infrastructure built up... Hydrogen cars are a waste of time. ------------- 
|
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 02 May 2011 at 8:51pm
It's not an exact science ------------- 
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 02 May 2011 at 9:22pm
You are regurgitating that BS? |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 02 May 2011 at 9:27pm
|
Which BS in particular? That hydrogen is more volatile than gasoline? Or that gases are more difficult to contain than liquids?
-------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 02 May 2011 at 9:32pm
The construction of hydrogen tanks being thousands of times stronger than gasoline tanks. Ever worked with a gasoline tank, its made of pot metal. Or the fat that hydrogen will out run the flame. While gasoline will pool on the ground and burn you alive. |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 02 May 2011 at 9:49pm
|
... and gasoline tanks cost about $20 to make. ... and hydrogen may outrun the flame in the open, but not so much in an enclosed space. Here is a picture of hydrogen "outrunning the flame:"  -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 02 May 2011 at 10:07pm
|
If you have a car that is covered in canvas, and built a century ago. You have bigger problems. I like pictures too!  |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 1:58am
|
Those Hydrogen generators actually take more energy out of the system then they put in. By consuming the electricity required in hydrolysis from the current circuit, you make the engine work harder and the overall benefit of the hydrogen is rendered mute. Look it up if you like. ------------- |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 2:06am
$3.50 ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 2:54am
|
DOT will never let hydrogen tanks out there unless they were so armor plated the weight would be too much for power ratio. DOT would not even allow the Peterbilt Class 8 semi with a small diesel 100hp motor turning an alternator to charge batteries and a full electric drive just as rail locomotives use. The DOT reasoning was the amount of batteries and battery chemicals even when housed in between the massive frame rails, was as they called it, an explosive/spill risk. The hydrogen gas released from battery charging I guess. Now consider the DOT reasoning of a full tank of hydrogen even the size of a propane tank going 'BOOM' in a test collision, don't see the tech going far, potential yes, but not at today's tech level. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kaine_777
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 2:57am
|
gas is like $4.25 in my town. ------------- Assassin... sounds so exotic... i was just a murderer... |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 9:22am
To be fair, every combustion machine takes more energy to perpetuate than what is put towards propulsion. But yeah, if we're talking about the "Garage science" guy, he did something a thousand other people have done before. You buy the hydrogen kit out of a magazine, attach it to your car either using the alternator or another carried battery sources, crank your car, and think you've invented the wheel. Catch is that the car almost never has enough power to actually move. But hey, the headlights work.
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 9:31am
| Man, impulse is doing a troll roll recently! |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 9:42am
|
Electric motor running an alternator. Profit.
------------- 
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 11:59am
Not quite. Anyway, hydrogen is junk. With all of the modern amenities, if the auto manufacturers wanted to make 40+ MPG cars, they can and would. Europe has gazillions of them around. A 1972 Pacer would get an upwards of 30+ MPG, and that was with three-speed autos and carburetors. Just like how if I really wanted to and had some extra space, I could make my own fuel if I wanted. (Ethanol, anyone?). IMO, if I were to design my own fleet of eco-cars, they would consist of electric cars with a diesel generator. Fuel shortage? No problem, use grease. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 12:41pm
|
I'm not really as down on hydrogen as our lovely new other-worldly friend, but I do recognize that functional hydrogen vehicles are a lot farther off than most people think they are. I think they'll get there eventually, but for now, electric and electric/hybrid are a better first-step.
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 12:56pm
| Whale, I can't stop staring at your sig and hearing "doop, doop doop...etc" |
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 2:38pm
This. Sure, we can (and do) build safe hydrogen containers, but they are too bulky and/or expensive to be functional with consumer vehicles. We can use a $20 tin can for a gas tank because gasoline isn't all that volatile. Hydrogen requires extraordinary containment measures. But more to the point, why bother with hydrogen? It's just a battery, and not a particularly good one. -------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 2:39pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 2:41pm
This time with picture goodness. -------------
|
Posted By: Donald Blake
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 2:41pm
|
... or not. I suck. Just imagine a picture of a Chevy Volt. -------------
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 2:47pm
| If/when they go to hydrogen, they won't be using tanks of compressed gas, technology is being worked on to bind it with metals in a solid state that can be "recharged". A tank of compressed gas isn't going to provide enough range, plus the "go boom" factor. Turbo-diesel plug-in hybrids and lightweight composites are what will improve fuel economy. |