Hi Folks.
Has anybody heard of the HoJo Motor?
The Howard Johnson Prepetual motor..
I just watched a video online and I was somewhat convinced that this existed until the end of the video when the sales pitch rolled in... :D
What do you guys think?
http://www.hojomotor.com/ (http://www.hojomotor.com/)
Nick-
Ridiculous
Fun to watch - but simply ridiculous.
By the way... energy companies can't force anyone to "take down" a web site.
But, magnets have been tried... millions of times.
Let me know how it works!
I watched part of it, but it was just to long. I think the narrator is a perpetual talking machine.
Pure BS
If there was any merit what so ever, it would sell itself.
Since it needs all that sensational hype to get your attention, it can't it on it's own merits.
The real stuff sells itself.
The fact that the website clings to you & doesn't want to let you leave makes it worse.
Engines that run on air, perpetual motion, flywheel-"powered" vehicles, etc etc. What I find far more interesting is the underlying reason that these scammers repeatedly try to hoodwink people, time after time after time. I can only surmise that there are enough ignorant gullible people out there that at least some of them fall for whatever claptrap is being touted. It's like telemarketing - it takes only a few "customers" to make the whole thing worthwhile to whoever is making the money. Is it because science is not given the recognition it deserves, and there are significant numbers of ostrich-people who won't acknowledge basic scientific realities (or even the laws of physics)?
On another bus conversion forum someone there suggested in all seriousness that diesel engines can run, and according to her did actually run, on water. Yes, water! When I and a few others questioned her credibility we were made to feel like heretics for daring to doubt her. This level of scientific ignorance is frightening, especially when it permeates an entire population.
John, still gobsmacked by it all
People want to believe in things, whether it's space aliens, gods, devils, conspiracy theories, mythical beings, magic, politicians or perpetual motion machines. Intelligence and education is part of it, but there's a much deeper psychological basis to it as well I'm sure. I have a girlfriend who is extremely intelligent but none-the-less has some beliefs in the power of alternative medicine which are, to me, completely irrational. At her insistence I'm reading a book on the subject at the moment - which happens to be a nice counterpoint to the Steve Jobs biography I read at Christmas - Steve Jobs, also a super-intelligent believer in alternative medicine, was sure that he could cure himself of his cancer, and as a result died much earlier than he would otherwise have done.
Jeremy
Quote from: Iceni John on February 18, 2012, 05:03:17 PM
John, still gobsmacked by it all
Is there a better word than
gobsmacked to describe these conditions??
I think not!
Well done!
happy coaching!
buswarrior
Guy's...
Yesterday I purchaced the Brooklyn Bridge at a steal.. $20,000
Now my wife says sell it or she's devorcing me!
First $5000 takes it home! ;D
LOL
;D LOL! Crap Nick! Just Got back from the city, I coulda looked it over before I left as I was looking to get the Ol' Lady a something from the city other this aweful cold I brought back with me. She woulda been pleased... Darn it all! ;) ;D ;D
V-Man
Quote from: Jeremy on February 18, 2012, 05:25:03 PMPeople want to believe in things, whether it's space aliens, gods, devils, conspiracy theories, mythical beings, magic, politicians or perpetual motion machines. (snip)
Yes, I was reading a news report on a guy who had built a trailer with a generator powered by a turbine to provide power to his Nissan Leaf electric "vehicle" when he needs to drive more than 30 miles from home. He'd spent about $30,000 on it and was terribly proud of himself. After all, electric vehicles are automatically just wonderful - cheap, non-polluting, quiet and "green", right? There were comments on the report that ranged from other electric "vehicle" true believers who were congratulating him for doing such a good thing -- especially since he could get the price down to nearly $20,000 if he got them into production. Other people said that he was stupid because for a very low cost, he could just add a generator to each of the non-driven wheels and as the driven wheels push the car down the road, those generators could charge his batteries and thus he'd never have to stop to charge it. In all these cases, I think that people were writing what they truly believed. It must be all those drug takers in the 60's who are now parents with children who are now old enough to be buying cars..
Mostly right... only thing is the children of the people in the '60's are now stealing their parents drugs... ;D
Hey Van, i will sell you the Golden Gate bridge for only $10,000......much closer to home for you guys, you could visit it often! ;D Or if you want a Dam instead, i happen to have one right in your hometown.....call for pricing. :D
It's bad enough having a small accident at a gas or diesel pump where you spill some of the fuel on yourself. I'd hate to have that happen with an electrical vehicle and spill some electricity.
I"ve spilled electricity before - it was a shocking experience. :o
Quote from: kyle4501 on February 19, 2012, 12:33:53 PMI"ve spilled electricity before - it was a shocking experience. :o
I've occasionally become a rag mopping up spilled diesel (gasoline, not so much) but I've never become a welding electrode. I'm happy about that.
As P. T. used to say, there's one born every minute!!
My Mom taught me that nothing is impossible, that if it seems impossible, its just that we havnt figured out a way to do it. So I always hold out hope that some day some breakthrough in Science could lead to some of the more fascinating ideas that never seemed to work.
People did a lot of work on perpetual motion decades ago. Its not a new concept. In its simplest form, an electric motor drives a generator, then, when its up to speed, with the flip of a switch you connect the generator output to the motor, hoping the generator produces enough energy to drive the motor, which in turn would power the generator.
The best I ever heard they could do was get one to ever so slowly slow down. It could not make enough energy to even power itself, forget taking anything out of it as excess. The problem is energy loss and conversion losses. They tried putting it in a vacuum, air bearings, etc., nothing worked. Some of the best hope came with the discovery of superconductors at cryogenic temperatures, but to my knowledge it simply hasnt shown any fruit. And if it wont work in a laboratory with $$$$$$$ pumped into it, its a pretty sure bet none of us yo-yo's are going to make one work out in our garage built with parts from the hardware store.
If anyone truly got one to work, and showed it in public, it would be the biggest discovery of mankind since the invention of the wheel, and would likely surpass in importance, at least for the common man, of Science one day sustaining a Fusion reaction within a magnetic field.
There ain't no such a thing as a free lunch. Somebody had to pay for it.
I just found out that alchemy is real, but it takes a perpetual motion machine to begin the process... Rats!
mopping up? That's what the storm drains are for... ;D
Quote from: gus on February 19, 2012, 05:14:57 PM
As P. T. used to say, there's one born every minute!!
That was true in the 1930's. But the increased progeny, combined with period decay and the time shift due to the millenium falcon, its now down to 22.7 seconds
The biggest discovery of humankind is the microwave oven!!
That's a scam, Gus. Those things don't really work.
Quote from: Ed Hackenbruch on February 19, 2012, 03:13:53 AM
Hey Van, i will sell you the Golden Gate bridge for only $10,000......much closer to home for you guys, you could visit it often! ;D Or if you want a Dam instead, i happen to have one right in your hometown.....call for pricing. :D
SOLD! ;D ;D Anyone for a dam' Rally? ;)
too bad Steve Jobs passed on. If he had put his mind to it we would have some economic reliable engines
Alan Baker
84 Eagle 10
Quote from: Alan Baker on February 22, 2012, 11:45:44 AM
too bad Steve Jobs passed on. If he had put his mind to it we would have some economic reliable engines
We do. They're called diesels! Seriously though, when several European cars are getting 80 MPG (only 3 liters per 100 KM!), with real-world economy well over 60 MPG, it makes me wonder why hybrids are so popular here. Of course, the oil companies wouldn't have anything to do with it, oh no, silly me to even think that . . .
Do you remember Top Gear driving a big Audi A8 diesel from London to Edinburgh, and back, on one tank? That's 800 miles! Or a twin-turbo diesel big Jaguar from Switzerland to northern England, all the way through France, driven fast by lead-footed Clarkson who wasn't even attempting to drive economically, again on one tank? Or a diesel Land Rover going from London to Italy on one tank? That's what modern diesels can do. We don't need to come up with Walter Mitty flights of fancy - the technology's already out there.
John
Quote from: Iceni John on February 22, 2012, 12:51:34 PM
Quote from: Alan Baker on February 22, 2012, 11:45:44 AM
too bad Steve Jobs passed on. If he had put his mind to it we would have some economic reliable engines
We do. They're called diesels! Seriously though, when several European cars are getting 80 MPG (only 3 liters per 100 KM!), with real-world economy well over 60 MPG, it makes me wonder why hybrids are so popular here.
I think that a lot of us drive MD diesels and VW TDI's. I recently rolled over 250K miles in 9 years on my TDI; my overall fuel economy average was very close to 55 MPG; I regularly get around 60 MPG on highway trips and have a number of trip over 60. Diesels are heavily discriminated against by California and EPA emissions requirements.
My brother had a 1980 VW Rabbit Pickup that got 50 mpg. It didn't have AC and it topped out about 60 MPH, but it was a money saver and it could haul stuff. I wouldn't mind having one today.
I learned to drive in a '78 Datsun B210 4 speed. Would get 40 mpg with a/c on. That car sure took a lickin with 4 of us learning to drive on it. & I taught a bunch of friends how to drive a stick in it too.
I doubt it would pass today's emissions tho . . .
Quote from: RnMAdventures on February 22, 2012, 03:26:59 PM
My brother had a 1980 VW Rabbit Pickup that got 50 mpg. It didn't have AC and it topped out about 60 MPH, but it was a money saver and it could haul stuff. I wouldn't mind having one today.
Those things were only for short people. I test-drove one of those at an auto auction way back then, and I felt shoe-horned into the drivers seat. And I'm only 5'11". I ended up with a Datsun Pickup that I drove for years. One of my cousins still has it sitting in his barn.
Lin,
Mine works fine because it was designed by by aliens in spacecraft and is secretly sapping my body juices each time I operate it!
Quote from: Nusa on February 22, 2012, 07:56:21 PM
Quote from: RnMAdventures on February 22, 2012, 03:26:59 PM
My brother had a 1980 VW Rabbit Pickup that got 50 mpg. It didn't have AC and it topped out about 60 MPH, but it was a money saver and it could haul stuff. I wouldn't mind having one today.
Those things were only for short people. I test-drove one of those at an auto auction way back then, and I felt shoe-horned into the drivers seat.
Rabbits were prone to rust, and one of the the first likely places was the seat track. You oil one up and it will slide back so far Wilt Chamberlain could drive it. I'm 6-1 and had to pull the seat forward in the few I had.
Mine could approach 50 MPG too, but what a POS car. Not much different than a Geo Metro, nothing you want to be inside of for more than 15 minutes. I traded it for 25 mpg in a MB diesel.
try ebay has the plans for $15
Quote from: Alan Baker on February 22, 2012, 11:45:44 AM
too bad Steve Jobs passed on. If he had put his mind to it we would have some economic reliable engines
Alan Baker
84 Eagle 10
??? ???
Good Grief, Alan! :o i read his "authorized" biography book. His Apple car would be in pastel colors, wouldn't go over 45 in order to be safe and economical, would slow down a mile in advance of stop signs and lights, to save brakes, wouldn't let you drive down steep hills or visit unsafe areas. On top of that, only pure eco fuel from the apple gas station, no matter what else was developed. No radio, just music from Itunes.
Next, someone's gonna say TSA makes flying better. ::)
i'm waiting for the mini-nuke engine. 1 fuel pill, 10,000 miles. ;D
Quote from: artvonne on February 22, 2012, 08:39:07 PM
Quote from: Nusa on February 22, 2012, 07:56:21 PM
Quote from: RnMAdventures on February 22, 2012, 03:26:59 PM
My brother had a 1980 VW Rabbit Pickup that got 50 mpg. It didn't have AC and it topped out about 60 MPH, but it was a money saver and it could haul stuff. I wouldn't mind having one today.
Those things were only for short people. I test-drove one of those at an auto auction way back then, and I felt shoe-horned into the drivers seat.
Rabbits were prone to rust, and one of the the first likely places was the seat track. You oil one up and it will slide back so far Wilt Chamberlain could drive it. I'm 6-1 and had to pull the seat forward in the few I had.
Mine could approach 50 MPG too, but what a POS car. Not much different than a Geo Metro, nothing you want to be inside of for more than 15 minutes. I traded it for 25 mpg in a MB diesel.
You're talking about either the 2-door hatchback or the 4-door sedan. In the pickup model, there wasn't any room to slide the seat back; it was already against the bulkhead.
I want a stick shift diesel rabbit pickup. I think it would be the ultimate toad except for my motorcycle. Unfortunately the wife has a stick shift Jeep Wrangler, which is also a good toad, that she's wanted her whole life, and we're making payments on it, so it stays. At least I got a bus, so there is that.
Quote from: Uglydog56 on February 23, 2012, 06:51:29 PMI want a stick shift diesel rabbit pickup. I think it would be the ultimate toad except for my motorcycle. (snip)
Yessir!
Quote from: Uglydog56 on February 23, 2012, 06:51:29 PM
I want a stick shift diesel rabbit pickup. I think it would be the ultimate toad except for my motorcycle.
I saw an older mid 80's Mitsubishi 4x4 turbo diesel pickup on CL recently, nice looking lil truck in the pictures. $700 said it would crank but not light. I was too late, sold within hours of posting. Well Duh!
I recall when those were new, a guy I knew bought the Dodge version, darn cute little truck. Factory warrantee was, IIRC, 5 years unlimited mileage. He was going to use it for delivery work, said he intended to put 150K per year on it. Never heard how it worked out, but those were tough little trucks if you could stay out of salt. I've tried being a VW fan, but they always left me with the feeling you were expected to hope it was a superior vehicle, when they really were not. Mercedes always left me with the impression of understated quality. They seem like an old simple clunker, but they run like the energizer bunny. 126 body 300SD, man, that is a car. Hard to make a towed with but, shore wood B purdy behind a Bus.
"HOT AIR ABOUT HOT AIR ENGINES"
(Previous Articles: "What's in the Wind?", "Let the Sun Shine In", Hydrogen – Power of the Future?", "Batteries Power For Your Kiddy Car".)
The popular press, and anti-business government have done their best to make the point that the public is "forced by big, bad private industry" to see smog, smell exhaust, and waste fuel money when there are Stirling Engines, Erickson Engines, Joule Engines, Brayton Engines, and other "advanced cycles" which are clear air, sweet smelling, costless to run and silent. These "heavenly engines" are kept from us people by the "bad guys" in private industry, while the "good guys" in government want to GIVE us these "new" engines. (Sometimes these engines are called "Thermodynamic Cycles", abbreviated to "Diesel Cycle", "Stirling Cycle" etc.)
Now, let's set the record straight. The only reason we today use the Otto Engine (the common gasoline engine) and the Diesel Engine (the common compression ignition engine called the Diesel Engine) is because these other engines are simply NO GOOD in comparison. By "NO GOOD" I mean you would not buy a car which was powered by the best of these even in the finest form existing today!!! By "NO GOOD" I mean that since automobiles have been using gasoline engines all these "advanced engines" have been continuously innovated upon the "THE ENGINE" has been continuously 10 years in the future. The prediction is still 10 years! GM has said that in the beginning they had a Stirling Engine on a test stand now many years later they have a much better engine on a test stand which really is no nearer your auto than their first!!!
10 years is long time. 10 years ago there was no government caused energy crisis. 10 years ago there was no government maintained energy crisis. Much can happen in 10 years, but it isn't likely to give us any engine that will displace the Otto and Diesel unless someone invents a new thermodynamic cycle like Dr. Diesel did which IS REALLY BETTER than any present cycle. Invention is not development and isn't usually the result of squandering funds on "beating dead horses". Invention can occur any time and can't be waited for because you don't know what to wait for. (It ain't been invented yet, so how could you know to wait for it?)
Why isn't it likely that these other engines will be developed to beat the Otto or Diesel? Let's look at a current popular engine, the one based on a Scottish preacher's 1829 invention, the Stirling Engine. (Yes that is 1829 not 1929 or 2029.) This is often called a "Hot Air" engine because it can be made to run on hot air, and indeed they did well over 100 years.
The nature of the beast is that is needs at least twice as many pistons and cylinders as a gasoline engine. An 8-cylinder, gasoline engine must be compared o a 16-cylinder Stirling engine. The best of the Stirlings need also a "reciprocating regenerator" for each pair of cylinders. The 8-cylinder gasoline, with 8 reciprocating pistons, engine must be compared to a Stirling with 24 reciprocating big things. (Reciprocating means they fly up and down each time the engine turns.)
The Diesel and Otto engines are "Internal Combustion Engines". These are all heat engines, that is they run on heat. Heat makes gases expand and that pushes on the piston, turbine blades, or rotors. In the Otto or Diesel the fire is in the gas so it heats instantly. The fire blasts right on the piston.
The Stirling is an "External Combustion Engine". The fire is outside and heats an enclosed gas (air or as is modern, hydrogen). This enclosed gas never burns, only changes temperature as it goes by the heater, regenerator, and cooler.
Heat engines run more efficiently the hotter the "hot end" can be made and the colder the "cold end" can be made. The "hot end" in a Diesel or Otto is able to instantly reach nearly the absolute maximum temperature obtainable by burning a fuel and can instantly be exhausted to the cold "outside" (the end of your tail pipe). The middle of the fire in the cylinder is literally "HOT AS HELL". The cylinder walls and valves can be kept much cooler where steel and cheap cast iron don't melt because they aren't in the "middle of the fire" when it is hottest and "doing its thing".
Now the Stirling is different. The hottest heat and all the heat must pass while "HOT AS HADES" through some strong, high pressure container into the enclosed hot air or hydrogen. This "strong ,high pressure container"
must be able to pass this heat while "HOT AS HADES" and be strong, not reduce the temperature, and "stay with us for the life of the car". We now see "Secret #1, of why we ain't got Stirling Engines in our autos". There is no material that can do such a job, and when it is found it will also be applied to the cylinder walls and valves of the Diesel and Otto engines, enabling them to be that much better than the Stirling!!! There are Diesel and Otto engines being tested with ceramic cylinders, pistons, valves. These have no cooling at all. Don't wait for them to be in your new car next month. Using the same materials the Diesel and Otto will always be ahead of the Stirling.
We come now to "Secret #2, of why Stirlings ain't in our cars". The piston/cylinder of Diesel or Otto is much like a gun barrel, ideally suited to stand extremely high pressure. These thousands of pounds per square inch are held back by iron and steel working in the best shapes to not bust. The cylinders can be small. HP = Force x Speed, thus a small engine needs high pressures. The Diesel and Otto engines really aren't limited by materials to any desired pressure. The Stirling is different much different. Since the "working fluid" (the gas that pushes the pistons) is enclosed in a complicated system of heaters, coolers, reciprocating regenerators, pistons and cylinders. All this junk must stand these high pressures. Worse yet, this working fluid can't go from explosion pressure to "Tailpipe pressure" as in a Diesel or Otto. It can only go from a high pressure to a slightly lower pressure (it's enclosed and never exhausts). Thus, for the same Pressure Change the gas in the Stirling must reach a higher pressure than needed in a comparable Diesel or Otto. WOW!
Only Buck Rogers in the 25th Century has material that might allow a Stirling engine to be as small as today's diesel and not explode. And when these materials are found some "bad guy" will apply them to a Diesel or Otto and use higher pressures yet and still be as far ahead of the Stirling as he is today.
HP= Force x Speed. Ah, ha! We see Secret #3 of why we ain't up to our eyeballs in Stirling engines. "Speed" : The "explosions" in a Diesel or Otto allow the heat to be applied and used in millionths of a second. The heat does not have to be "soaked up" by a regenerator each cycle and "unsoaked" in to a glob of gas. The heat does not have to pass through a fire heated container into the glob of gas each cycle and then from the glob of gas through an air-cooled container each cycle. (Cycle means each revolution of the engine crankshaft.) The Stirling engine is just slow, SLOW, S-L-O-W, SS LL OO WW, compared to a similar HP Deisel or Otto. HP = Force x Speed. The Stirling must be gigantic compared to a Diesel or Otto because it is a low pressure, slow engine.
The Stirling engine, Erickson engine, Carnot engine, Joule engine all are much more efficient theoretically and on paper than the Diesel or Otto. Now we see Secret #4. You can't ride to work in a theory of EVEN IF IT'S WRITTEN ON PAPER!!! Inside the same "Thermodynamic Parameters" the Stirling engine beats a Diesel or Otto all hollow. Unfortunately, the practical engine that can pull your car, truck, bus, train, generator must be must be made to work way outside the "Thermodynamic Parameters" and "Mechanical Parameters" which can be played with in theory on paper.
Press releases justifying government squandering "predict" goals of 30% better economy from Stirling auto engines than present Diesel or Otto engines based on "present test". The test engine is, however, to big, too heavy, too expensive, too short lived, and too inflexible in performance for use in president auto's. Now, if you fund from taxes and allow a diesel maker to build a diesel that is too big, too heavy, too expensive, too short lived and too inflexible in performance for use in present auto's it will easily beat the efficiency of that "NO GOOD" Stirling. It can be the basis for even more remarkable "predictions"!
These people simply come up smelling like roses when they compare "predicted" performance to "real today stuff that runs". The Stirling engine and its look a likes HAD THEIR DAY. Their day was before Otto and Diesel. About from the time of the Civil War to 1900 the steam engine was king. Each little machine shop had its own little boiler and engine, and ignorant, lazy fireman. Each little machine shop had its own BIG BANG every few years. What was needed was a non-explosive power plant that didn't need intelligent supervision. The "Hot Air" engine filled the bill. It ran on free air at low pressures, no boilers to blow up. If neglected, it either stopped nicely or ran at a self-limiting harmless speed. (The air couldn't be heated or cooled any faster.) Unlike the steam engine which could run away throw parts all over, the hot air engine just "pooped out" if let run free. Size was no concern.
Along came Otto and Dr. Diesel and engines far more economical were possible. A hot air engine with cylinders 14 feet in diameter was easily
beaten out by a diesel with cylinders 10 inches in diameter. The simple truth is that since the invention of Dr. Diesel and the Otto engine, the application of available high technology to various thermodynamic theoretical engine cycles results in Otto and Diesel engines that are far better than Stirling engines, Erickson engines, Joule engines, and Carnot engines. The practical engines are the Otto, and Diesel for land vehicle; Diesel, Brayton (gas turbine), and Rankine (steam turbine) for ships; and, Otto and Brayton for aircraft (the diesel may find use in aircraft but not for years).
If you want an engine for your new auto that is too big, too heavy, too expensive, too short lived, too inflexible, and too fuel hoggy, look to the government. They are turning the hands of time back 100 years. At one time ALL disease was treated by shaking rattles, yelling, jumping, and ugly masks. Think of the possibilities for new research in such "treatment". One can see the press release, "Government researchers predict that in 10 years all disease can be treated (who said cured?) by new rattles, screams, dances and hideous masks". The research in these out dated engines will be as productive.
All joking and kidding aside the Stirling Erickson and others of the "Hot Air Engines" installed in Washington or Juneau could well solve our energy crisis.
The next article will be "No Engine, No Brakes, Only Flywheels".
Conrad R. Hilpert, Ph.D., P.E.
Quote from: Lee Bradley on February 24, 2012, 04:07:48 PM(snip) The only reason we today use the Otto Engine (the common gasoline engine) and the Diesel Engine (the common compression ignition engine called the Diesel Engine) is because these other engines are simply NO GOOD in comparison. (snip)
Is it really that simple???? (Yes, it is, IMO).
A very interesting article, however, it loses most of it's credibility by wandering into politics which is not relevant at all. I know of no government or other agencies calling for heat engines for transportation. They may well have a place in solar powered water pumps for instance.
The only alternative fuel source being seriously considered for transportation is the hydrogen fuel cell. The technology is there and workable. There are production and cost issues to deal with.
Quote from: Len Silva on February 25, 2012, 07:16:06 AM
The only alternative fuel source being seriously considered for transportation is the hydrogen fuel cell. The technology is there and workable. There are production and cost issues to deal with.
Hydrogen is stored at a pressure of 5000 to 10,000 psi. Pumping one of the smallest atoms to that pressure ain't gonna happen cheaply.
Propane is stored at roughly 350 psi & there is enough concern over propane leaks that many won't have it in their home or coach.
Safely storing hydrogen in a car at 5000+ psi should be simple, after all, look how easy it is to keep our buses from leaking air at less than 120 psi. ::)
I have done more than a little research on alternative technology for powering motor vehicles and I am quite sure this is a hype designed for someone to make money from gulable people. This sort of things comes around all to often, where as real advanced technology that works is immediately squashed one way or another by the oil industry!!! So it goes!
"HYDROGEN, THE POWER OF THE FUTURE?"
Recently at a DOE sponsored lecture an "Authority" on hydrogen made some very attention getting statements. He pointed out that hydrogen was a far better fuel in every way for automobiles, cooking, heating, power generation and nearly every other use now occupied by fossil fuel. He pointed out that pure hydrogen could be made by the simplest of means from water, any water, even polluted. He pointed out that absorbed in hydrides, which absorb hydrogen like sponge does water. Hydrogen is a far safer and better fuel for autos, busses, trucks, etc. He pointed out that since hydrogen has 60,958 BTU per pound and gasoline only 21,000 BTU per pound, coal only 15,230 BTU per pound, less hydrogen is needed than any other fuel. He pointed out that when hydrogen is burned only the purest of water is formed; hence, it is non-polluting.
He pointed out and reiterated that the only reason hydrogen wasn't the fuel of today for nearly everything was the "greedy, self serving, profiteering oil companies" who prevent us from realizing the benefits of hydrogen as a fuel. He got two very boisterous ovations for those statements for which he was not censored or questioned by any DOE official. Nearly everything he said was what could be termed a "truthful lie". It is true the oil companies are self-serving. They like everyone who works, are doing it for profit. Even the government bureaucrats who continually slur, destructively criticize, penalize and obstruct private industry wouldn't show up in the morning at their desks to cause all this trouble if there was no profit in it for them! Some discouraging facts about Hydrogen as "Tomorrow's Fuel." What is absolutely true of Hydrogen that might make it a "better fuel" than the fossil fuels we now use? One pound of Hydrogen contains 60,958 BTUs of energy; one cubic ft (cuft) contains 325 BTUs. I use the BTU "British Thermal Unit" because it is easily visualized. One BTU can raise one pound (~ one pint) of water one degree Fahrenheit or about the heat obtained by burning one kitchen match. One pound of gasoline contains only 21,000 BTUs; one pound of diesel fuel about 19,000 BTUs; anthracite coal 15,230 BTUs/pound; natural gas 1100 BTU per cuft. Obviously Hydrogen is the clear winner and it is absolutely nonpolluting only the purest of water is the "exhaust" when Hydrogen is burned. From the above facts a pound of Hydrogen if used in an internal combustion engine like that in your auto, Hydrogen should propel you 3 times as far as gasoline and if used in a fuel cell might propel you 6 times as far. You couldn't commit suicide by running your Hydrogen engine with the garage doors closed as people do running their gasoline engine. Now I must state very "nonpolitical" physical facts and many boring numbers. If your gasoline tank holds 20 gallons of gasoline it contains about 112 pounds of gasoline which contain 2,352,000 BTUs and might propel you 500 miles. This tank is about 1.86 cuft in volume. If filled with Hydrogen it could hold only 604 BTUs. This might propel your auto about 1/3 of a mile! Of course storing Hydrogen at atmospheric pressure is ridiculous. Naturally you would use a "bottle" (go look at one) of highly compressed Hydrogen like you can buy from General Distributing Company here in Butte. Their "bottle" is charged to 2,000 psi and holds 200 cuft of Hydrogen, a recharge costs $41.94. Using the physical facts above this would propel your auto about 67 miles. You would need about 7 such "bottles" to propel your auto as far as your present tank. Just where in your auto would 7 such "bottles" fit? Now Hydrogen enthusiasts might propose using Liquid Hydrogen. Liquid Hydrogen is very light, only 4.37 lb/cuft. If your 1.86 cuft tank could hold Liquid Hydrogen (it absolutely can't) it would hold 8.1 lbs of Liquid Hydrogen or ~ 496,000 BTUs not the 2,352.000BTUs in your present gasoline tank. I'll let the Hydrogen enthusiasts calculate how far a "tank full" of Liquid Hydrogen would propel your auto. Liquid Hydrogen must be held at ~ 400 degrees Fahrenheit BELOW ZERO to stay liquid. In the tankers that transport Liquid Hydrogen it is allowed to "boil off" to maintain this temperature and the tank is covered with feet of insulation. The Hydrogen boiling off from your idle auto in the garage might make the garage go BOOM when you turned on the light, remember the Hindenburg. Now someone will point out that "hydrides" absorb Hydrogen like a sponge does water and they are absolutely correct. You could haul about 2,500 pounds of hydrides in your auto to contain Hydrogen equal to your 112 pounds of gasoline. Hydrogen enthusiasts assume that Hydrogen is about to inundate us if we don't use it. Hydrogen is one of the most common elements. The hydrosphere contains about 330,000 cubic miles of water. (A cubic mile is so big that if the ENTIRE POPULATION of the earth were to jump into a box a cubic mile in volume it would be over 90% EMPTY!!!) Water is H2 0, wow twice as much Hydrogen as oxygen. Unfortunately water is the "ashes" you get from burning Hydrogen. As the Hydrogen burns it produces water and energy. Because of physical fact to "disassociate" water into oxygen and Hydrogen you must use more energy than you can get from the Hydrogen you "disassociate." You can't get a herd of cattle from 200 tons of scorched hamburger. Yes a jar of even polluted water and two wires from your auto battery stuck in it you can watch Hydrogen bubble up from the negative wire and oxygen bubble up from the positive wire. Unfortunately the physical fact is that the electrical energy creating the bubbling is more than you can get from burning the Hydrogen back to water. Yes, Hydrogen is produced commercially (as efficiently and cheaply as possible) from "electrolytic cells" which use 3,412 BTUs of electricity to produce 1,950 BTU of Hydrogen.
Suppose we use "free wind" generated electricity? You should directly use the electricity generated and not waste almost half of it getting Hydrogen. I haven't mentioned cost. Hydrogen "from the store" in 2,000 psi bottles is $41.94/charge. This is about $0.065 per BTU. At $2.00/gallon your gasoline is about $0.0017 per BTU. Hydrogen energy is about 38 times as expensive as gasoline!!!!!
Hydrogen is not the "fuel of the future" for the same reasons that it is not "the fuel of today." We should be developing the energy source that can produce energy for a small fraction of the cost of any other source.
Hydrogen is one of the oldest known elements. That it burns HOT is no news. Hydrogen technology isn't "hidden", by mythical "Bad Guys", hydrogen technology isn't new, it isn't untaught, isn't misunderstood, isn't confusing. Hydrogen technology has been taught in every engineering school since such schools have been in existence. The schools of chemistry and physics have taught all that is known about hydrogen for longer than nearly any other element. The news is that hydrogen as a fuel can be so blatantly misrepresented to the public who should be told the truth by our DOE's and political leaders.
The U.S. taxpayer and workingmen need cheaper, energy, not lies, half truths, misrepresentations and stories of pie in the sky energy equivalents of the "free lunch" which "ain't".
Conrad R. Hilpert, Ph.D., P.E.
I'm generally very much in favour of alternative-energy research, but it does often seem that (probably for ideological reasons) far too much of the effort of that research goes into looking at alternative ways of fueling road vehicles - those evil machines that environmentalists love to hate. Ultimately there's nothing particularly wrong with conventional liquid-fuel - the fuel can be manufactured (so it won't run out), and emissions issues for instance can be dealt with. Small quantities of liquid-fuels such as petrol and diesel contain an enormous amount of energy, and where high power outputs and long range are required (ie. trucks for instance) it's likely to remain the only viable option for a long time to come.
Vehicles requiring smaller amounts of power (ie. cars) will no-doubt continue to shift towards electric power, with consequent fairly minor adjustments to the life-styles and expectations of all of us. Deciding how the electricity is to generated is probably where alternative-energy research should be focused. Nuclear fission, and eventually fusion, will no-doubt be the main source, but it's right to explore any other potential clean sources of static power generation too - which might include the hot air engines mentioned in the article, although I notice nothing was said about where the heat was to come from. Either way, low-pressure hot-air engines of the type described can't, by definition, produce high power-outputs without being physically large - so having stationary examples producing electricity is as close as they're ever likely to get to powering a car.
Jeremy