Hydrogen fuel cell car! HAHA!

We shall see. Just so we are clear.. I'm not a proponent of any alternative right now. All the alternatives out there have their champions. We have used fuel cells for decades. We have dreamed of H2 for decades. We know all kinds of ways... but regardless of what the champions say... they all have HUGE hurdles to overcome. Like it or not, it is just the truth.

If we all sat around a table and presented a blue print for a transportation energy supply... H2 might actually come out ahead. Oil might not actually win knowing what we know now. The abundance of H and the fact that it's byproduct is water either through a combustion enegine or a fuel cell make it leap to the front.

However... reality is that we already have a transportation energy source, and every alternative has to compete against it. That is a tough sell. I don't care squat about CO2, but I do care that that source is now or later going to come to an end. So people are begining to talk about change, but right now, there has to be a big enough reason to make it happen. It has been proven $4/gal is not a big enough reason.

You can say safety and energy density isn't a big deal.... it's a very big deal compared to what we have now. Like it or not, you are competing against what we have now. Everything looks great on paper... things change in the real world.

The other thing stopping change is right now even though oil sucks... we are still even with the rest of the world... it sucks for the rest of the world too. So for anybody to make the change... we have to invest HUGE amounts of money while we continue to pay for the old system.... then oil prices fall and we are still paying HUGE sums of money for the transfer.... meanwhile everyone else in the world enjoys cheap oil and our economy goes to crap. There is idealisim on paper... and then there is the real world. Making a change will cost dearly. Making a change gradualy while the rest of the world HAS to do the same keeps the playing field even. When the dust settles, we shall see which alternative wins out or if it will be a combination of a few.

Heck... no body has even mentioned bio deisel from algae... it's still as viable as the rest of them on the drawing board.

 

yes for natural plasma it is and there is very few sources just to name a few lightning, northern lights, stars and sun so heat is a minor issue ;D

 

Yes but in this case, low energy input and extremely hi output as in heat.

Picture this: A typical car with an AC/DC alternator (twin stage) and a very small hi output 92% efficient 2 stroke/bio diesel engine driving the AC/DC alternator (high voltage source), upon start up and at idle and initilizing the plasma energy field, which in turn creates motive force, this self charging system would require no additional fuel source for years, why?

Only, a car battery (or similar) is needed to start the engine, and can be-used as a reserve energy source- just like the cars we now have. This would make everyone but the big oil companies happy- and BTW, to my knowledge this is my Idea- and no one else's. I call it combination technologies.

Because the contained plasma will use "trash" as a fuel source (easy to do- see here- one of hundreds of links available) Plasma Gasification by Recovered Energy, Inc.

I cant find the link right now but there is a Russian Scientist that was living in Ariz. (now in Canada) that has developed a containment system to enable the use of Hi temperature Plasma- this is being funded by the Canadian Government- and it actually works.

 

Efficient at what?

 

Contrary to what you previously stated PM, the A typical modern gas engine is 77% efficient. There are a huge number of different types of combustion engine designs available for practical use that are above even my 92% efficientcy number/rating this is to say- their carbon foot print, be it bio diesel, water (yes a steam engine) or a simple 12v motor would suffice. Again, it's not that we can't do, it's that they (people in power) wont allow us to do.

 

So you are telling me that you can get 92% of the energy of the fuel input, out as mechanical energy? That is efficiency. Energy in equals energy out... but efficiency is how much of the energy in can you convert to the end energy you need. Turning a liquid into a gas and then exhausting that GAS will never give you a 92% efficiency.

 

No not to much heat- just a way to first contain this heat- then use the heat as a secondary energy source- one that creates, or, drives the motive force you desire. Plasma is not rare- it is every where- it's right in front of you- you cant see it.

 

Whom stated it had to be gas? It is just an example.

As defined:

This means nothing if your fuel source is limitless and creates no harm- such as a steam engine would be. However- to go even further; What is energy efficientcy? define it? explain your methodology of this determination- this way I can be more able to explain myself and where I am comming from.

 

Yes it is but what is it called I was under the assumption that natural plasma and the plasma thats around us is 2 different things? Im just trying to get educated thanks for informing me

 

In correct- natural gas is over 98% efficient.