who will develop safe car engines who run only on hydrogen \n***hydrogen is around 5 times cheaper than gas and 8 times more powerfull** \nand it does not do any pollution only emission is water (h2o)
212425
Should they? Yes. Will they? Probably not.
471374
First, the non-simple words.  This is one example of a principle of thermodynamics.  The state of a system will be that with the lowest Gibbs Energy.\n\nIf you mix 2 parts hydrogen gas and one part oxygen gas and trigger the reaction with a spark, they will combust to form water, releasing energy in the process.  That's because the water molecule has a lower energy level than the isolated atoms.\n\nIn classical mechanics, it started out as an empirical observation that nature is lazy.  Light travelling from one point to another takes a specific path because any other path would be a longer one.  Deducing the path this way is a minimization problem.  You write a system of equations for all the ways the path could vary.  Then you solve that system for a minimum of its energy function.  The Hamilton and Lagrangian formulations are ways of specifying laws of physics (mechanics) so that these mathematical methods can be used for finding solutions.
451438
No, but hydrogen is not free roaming in the Earth, it's tied to oxygen (water)
179570
I assume you mean electrolysis?  I don't know the exact ratio of energy out to energy in, but I do know that it's not very efficient.  There will be a lot of lost energy.  What kind of H2 on demand system?  Are you trying to run an automobile?  If so, you'd need more than about 10 kilowatts of electricity.  Might as well just build an electric car if you have that much electricity to waste.
316121
How about a friggin car you can run on food waste?  I'm tired of paying rich bastards who play price fixing games making money off me.  Ethanol or Methanol sound like a better alternative if we can all start making our own fuel without blowing up a few city blocks.\n\nSaw a news bit about a water-fueled motor the other day...\n\nJust read that answer above.  170 miles on a cell?!?  Are you freakin' kidding me?!?  My 113hp/69ft. lb motorcycle with a 4.5 gal tank does over 200 miles!  AND, it does wheelies!
51253
Hydrogen is not in a group with other families. It actually is in group 1 of the periodic table. It is a diatomic atom when it combines with other elements.
644690
yes its possible. yes a few people have already done it.\n\nit takes 24 volts DC (2 car batteries) passed across a pair of platinum electrodes within a vessel of deionized water. you must exclude all air from the vessel prior to starting the process. also there must be a divider within the vessel so that when the hydrogen and oxygen separate (one gas type bubbles up from each electrode)\n\nnow you can compress the hydrogen and use it as fuel. (it takes 5 psi to run in a standard carberated engine)\n\nOR\n\nyou can store hydrogen in beryllium as it absorbs H2 readily at high pressures and releases H2 at low pressures for use with a fuel cell and because it is trapped in a block of metal no O2 can get to it to cause it to burn in storage.\n\nnow here is the problem with using this as a wide spread fuel.\nit takes more energy to create it than it puts out. unless you want to build a big solar array to convert a little water, it just doesn't fly.\n\nnow some people are working with collecting H2 emissions from some varieties of algae. now that looks promising.
622355
Why are you asking the same question over and over again? I checked your profile for recently asked questions, and your latest 1 has been asked 5 times in a row. I understand you excitement about fuel from water, because quite frankly I feel the same way, given that we are so close to no longer needing to rely on fossil and nuclear and living fuels. We are so close to being able to reverse the damage we have done to this beautiful planet. We are so close to eliminating poverty, malnutrition and disease. We are so close to world peace, harmony and unity. Our job now is to first apply it to our own lives, demonstrating by example that it works and it's safe and cheap, and then help others to do the same. Telling people that it is available will not be nearly as effective as showing them by driving down the street in a car that everyone can see is running on water. spread the word BY acting as an example. In the words of Gandhi, "Be the change you wish to see in the world!" Blessed Be.
23941
Yes you could. Free hydrogen (H2) is rare in the atmosphere though, so you would have to buy industrially obtained hydrogen (which mostly comes from natural gas) which is expensive so its always cheaper to drill a water well or something. But yes, if you want to combine oxygen and hydrogen, and light it with a match, you will get water. Good luck trying to contain it after it goes from gas to the combustion product of hydrogen and oxygen, which will be water vapor (steam).
165177
Consider hydrogen as more of a battery than a fuel source.  Just like all batteries, it takes more energy to produce and charge it than you can get out of it later.  The same is true for coal and oil, except the energy was input millions of years ago, so it's virtually free today...\n\nCurrently some of the cheapest methods of producing hydrogen actually require the use of fossil fuels.  Since the whole point (for many) is to reduce fossil fuel usage, this isn't a very viable option except for helping to cheaply transition to hydrogen.\n\nYou could use a renewable energy source like wind turbines to produce the electricity for electrolysis (splitting water into hydrogen/oxygen), but again there is a lot of waste.  It's far more efficient to just hook the wind turbines to the power grid.  Even that is more expensive than fossil fuels for the time being.\n\nHydrogen fuel cells do seem like a very good idea for vehicles.  It would result in electric cars that can be filled up anywhere without charging for hours between trips.\n\nSo all in all, hydrogen has potential but it is not a solution.  Some other extremely cheap source of energy has to be developed before hydrogen can fill any real-world needs.\n\nEDIT:\n\nI also want to address a couple things in the other answers:\n\n1. Storage of hydrogen has basically been solved.  You don't just compress the gas and put it in a tank.  Instead, it can be chemically bound with lithium nitride, which will store more hydrogen per unit volume than even pure compressed gas.  It is a very weak bond, so it doesn't take much to re-extract the hydrogen.  Undoubtedly there are even better storage mediums to be discovered.\n\n2. Boiling water doesn't produce hydrogen.\n\n3. There is no risk of accidentally creating a hydrogen bomb.  And they have nothing to do with splitting a hydrogen atom.  Hydrogen bombs fuse two or more hydrogen atoms together, which requires temperatures of millions of degrees.  Figure out how to do it at cooler temperatures and win a Nobel Prize. :)
591203
Its best to think of hydrogen as a 'battery' rather than a power source.  Because we don't have incredibly abundant supplies of free hydrogen on earth, it is not practical for use as an initial energy source.  You are also right in your assertion that it will always take at least as much energy to create hydrogen as we can get by using it, in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.  \n\nHydrogen is, however, viable as an environmentally friendly fuel to operate vehicles.  This is because the conversion of hydrogen into energy is essentially pollution free and is of high efficiency.  Thus if we use an environmentally friendly power source, such as solar power, to produce the hydrogen, we can run vehicles in an essentially pollution free manner.  As a result, a switch to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would allow reductions in the overall emissions of our national power production to be reflected in reduced total energy cycle emissions of our vehicles.
332249
I think you are talking about Roger Billings. http://www.roger.billings.name/\n\nIt seems that he is using hydrogen fuel cells to try to provide power to cars. Hydrogen fuel cells need hydrogen and oxygen to operate.  Billings is working on electrolyzing water to generate hydrogen and oxygen.  Electrolyzing means he applies a large voltage to the water in order to split up the hydrogen and oxygen that naturally form water (H2O).  \n\nI don't know about the involvement of the government or the military.  I think cars that run on hydrogen fuel cells today have to carry a tank of hydrogen in the car, which can be very dangerous.
286354
are  you doing some kind of project on fuel cells?I did a project on hydrogen 3 years ago and had the same problem .What i did at the end was made the design look like a fuel cell(the pem and catalysts) kept some normal cells underneath it and connected it to a bulb.Believe me , everyone thought it was a real fuel cell
145605
Depends on what you mean by "new". There are lots of new sources in development, but nothing that is practical or economical yet. Hydrogen fuel cells are clean, efficient and non-polluting. But they are still very expensive and you still need a source of elemental hydrogen to make them work. \n\nOur best bet is hydrogen fusion - thais is what powers the sun. But we are still decades away from a successful commercial power plant. Until then, we are dependant on oil and natural gas.
120080
Oil does rule all politics unfortunately. But can I suggest a simple alternative that we could all see as common sense? Use wind or wave power to generate electricity. Use this energy to split water into its prime components. Let oxygen into the air. Burn the Hydrogen in our cars and have water as the resulting by product. You could almost make this work in your back garden! We would only need lubricating oils then which could probably be created from vegetable sources!
324057
I would like to Change the Clinton/Gore EPA-OBD II Law. This applies to all Gasoline Powered Vehicles in the USA from 1996 to the Present, like Yours. This Law requires that all Vehicles remain Factory Stock, in order to Pass Inspection. Specifically, the Engine Fuel System must Run at 14.7 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel. I've found a way to Convert Gasoline into Propane, 100 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel. My Unit is Safe, Compact, and uses Low Pressure Air to do it's thing. 50 + MPG with even the Largest SUV, and a 10 X Reduction of Emissions. And, thanks to the EPA-OBD II Law, it's Illegal! When that Gestapo-Inspired Vehicle Inspection Device is Connected, any Change at all, even for the Better, and the Vhicle will Fail, and will be Illegal to Drive! Because it's not Putting out enough Pollution to meet [O]riginal [E]quipment [M]anufacturer's Specifications! This is Insane! I'm not the First, only the Latest. I've been to the US Patent Office to Check out the "Wild Stories" about Fuel Vaporizers that have been kept off the Market. Guess What? It's True! Case in Point, the Pogue Carburetor, with a Patented Claim of 100 MPG, with a Flathead Ford Engine Powered Vehicle that was 15 MPG!This was before WW II. So, as far as Getting a Patent, forget it! See, Greed and Money have Stopped it Every Single Time! And Now the EPA-OBD II Law....... Here's what I'd really Like to do to Expose the Hypocricy of this Law. I'd like to Restore and Convert a whole Fleet of Vehicles and Donate them to Charity Starting with the Local Meals-On-Wheels Program, then, Volunteer Disabled Veterans' Services.And so Many Others. There is no Shortage of Good People that want to Volunteer to Help the less Fortunate. But with the High Cost of Fuel, it's becoming Increasingly Difficult. Even if I did manage to get the Funds to do this, someone Connected with "Big Oil" would find a way to make One of the Converted Vehicles Explode, to Discredit it. Remember the TV News Show where the Chevy Truck with the "Side-Saddle" Fuel Tank was Rigged to Explode to Discredit It? See, all Petroleum is essentially the Same, on a Molecular Level. Only the Dispersal is Altered. If That's Wrong, then how is it that Engines DO Run on Propane? To do so by Conventional Means is such a Hassle that it's just not worth it! Hybirds? At Highway Speeds, the Gas [14.7 to1] Engine Kicks-In, Plus, the Heavy, Expensive Batteries have to be Hauled. To Sum Up, I'd like to change the EPA-OBD II Law that requires Vehicles to Emit Enough Pollution to Pass Inspection, with any reduction resulting in Failure. But, "IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN" as long as "Big Oil" is in Control! Watch Closely the Next Time Your Car is Inspected, and ask how many have Failed,and Why! 14.7 to 1. It's the Law that must Change! For even more Insight, check out this Website. It's a Couple of Years Old, but lots of Good Info.http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html
514736
Compared to the formation of CO2 and H2O, these other products are formed in minute quantities, usually in the part per million level.  \n\n1. Reactions represent what happens under controlled conditions (pure single compound gasoline, pure oxygen).  The burning of gasoline in a car is far from controlled conditions.  The reaction in the car also does not occur to 100% as in the written reaction (formation of CO as a product for example).\n\n2. Another reason is that most of the pollutants form due to impurities in the gasoline.  Again, minor reactants are not shown in the equation since it implies pure starting materials.  These would include sulfur compounds and other organics.  \n\n3. Another reactant not shown for the car reaction is nitrogen.  We normally write "+ O2", but in a car it is "+O2 + N2 + all the other air components".  This is where the nitrogen oxide pollutants arise.\n\nBottom line, unless you are studying them specifically, minor reactants and products are not normally shown.