3 ms·

The article didn't touch on this at all, so has anyone heard updates on attempts at doing in-vehicle hydrogen production from water and some sort of reactant? I

by goda90 6y ago

The article didn't touch on this at all, so has anyone heard updates on attempts at doing in-vehicle hydrogen production from water and some sort of reactant? It's been years since I saw something on it, but if I recall, it used some pellets made of certain metals that react with the water to produce hydrogen. You'd fill the tank with water, and after some number of fill ups you'd also need to replenish the pellets which could be sent off for recycling. Edit: I found an article about this. It appears to have been developed by the military and has been licensed out for more development: https://techxplore.com/news/2019-07-h2-power-hydrogen-fuel-startup.html https://techxplore.com/news/2019-07-h2-power-hydrogen-fuel-s...

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
A theory like that ignores most of known basic physics. What would the energy source be? It does not matter what chemical or electrochemical reactions are possible in general, what matters is where does the energy come from. Water does not contain any energy. (Not any chemical energy that can easily be extracted. Of course it contains energy in the sense that E=MC^2, but in that sense we have about the same chance to run a car on sand, or rocks or oreos.) On the other hand, if you do have an energy source, then why would you need water at all?? You would just use the energy to drive the car (like EVs do), you wouldn't waste half of it to hydrolysis of water into hydrogen first to use that hydrogen... A theory about a "car running on water" (which, at least in my experience is often followed by conversations about how Nicola Tesla could transfer energy through the air, or about how government has all the technology for infinite energy, but they block it from being used because they are evil) - is a pipe dream which is heavily based on ignorance about physics and gross underestimation of the difficulty of real engineering problems.
- goda90 6y ago
  I found the Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_based_nanogalvanic_alloys https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_based_nanogalvanic_... Saying this ignores basic physics is like saying gasoline engines ignore basic physics. No one is saying that it's free energy. The question is, what is the energy to produce/recycle the alloy? How many miles can you get out of a reasonable supply of the alloy before replacing it? If those numbers are good enough, maybe they'll perform better than battery vehicles. And so I'm asking what's the state of that research.
threatripper 6y ago
In that case you'd be better of using methanol which can also be used in fuel cells.

by goda90 6y ago

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

A theory like that ignores most of known basic physics. What would the energy source be? It does not matter what chemical or electrochemical reactions are possible in general, what matters is where does the energy come from. Water does not contain any energy. (Not any chemical energy that can easily be extracted. Of course it contains energy in the sense that E=MC^2, but in that sense we have about the same chance to run a car on sand, or rocks or oreos.) On the other hand, if you do have an energy source, then why would you need water at all?? You would just use the energy to drive the car (like EVs do), you wouldn't waste half of it to hydrolysis of water into hydrogen first to use that hydrogen... A theory about a "car running on water" (which, at least in my experience is often followed by conversations about how Nicola Tesla could transfer energy through the air, or about how government has all the technology for infinite energy, but they block it from being used because they are evil) - is a pipe dream which is heavily based on ignorance about physics and gross underestimation of the difficulty of real engineering problems.

goda90 6y ago
I found the Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_based_nanogalvanic_alloys https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_based_nanogalvanic_... Saying this ignores basic physics is like saying gasoline engines ignore basic physics. No one is saying that it's free energy. The question is, what is the energy to produce/recycle the alloy? How many miles can you get out of a reasonable supply of the alloy before replacing it? If those numbers are good enough, maybe they'll perform better than battery vehicles. And so I'm asking what's the state of that research.

threatripper 6y ago

In that case you'd be better of using methanol which can also be used in fuel cells.