He was probably loving the filtered H2O rather than that lake crap he usually drinks.

According to my calculations, kitties + H2O=1/0

He should just use the PVC to make a continuous water sprinkler along the top of the wall.

H20???? H2O!

so "respiration" is just in reference to combustion (X + 02(g) --> CO2(g) + H2O(g))

This is an awesome display of how much energy can be produced by the foods we eat.

If only it were that simple. Water is not the best source of hydrogen since it only has a measly 2 hydrogen atoms per molecule, so the source of hydrogen will more than likely still come from sources that will pollute.

"best" source really depends on what your criteria are. H2O is plentiful, and you basically get out the same amount of energy you put in when you de/re-construct water. H2 is a good energy storage system, not a good fuel. While it may be expedient to externalize the energy cost by using hydrocarbons it is not "better" or "cheaper" in a full cycle sense.

My solar cell comment was not pulled out of thin air(or water), a H2 fuel cell prototype car was built more then a decade ago by a professor in California. The car had a body made of molded solar cells (we have better/cheaper tech now) and was able to do about 300mi/day in sunny California, with the only material in/output being tap/pure water. I know I don't average 300mi/day, I would never even need to plug it in.

I think the obsfucation of where the H2 comes from is really the issue, and the fact that much of what is currently used comes from natural-gas (as opposed to super-natural gas?) means that this is not really a significant technological step.

The only thing electric cars need is better energy storage, everything else already blows internal combustion out of the water. H2 from hydrocarbons just allows that technology to be ignored while politicians can still claim they made the auto industry make "zero emission" vehicles.

dupe?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Pool-full-of-non-newtonian-goodness-aka-cornstarch-and-H2O

""It astounds me that people believe things without doing an ounce of research. Do you know the correlation between CO2 emissions and global average temperature? It happens to be 0.000%"

What "research" is it that led you to believe this? Your extremely simplistic conclusions drawn from your graphs betray the fact that you have no idea how the planet's temperature regulation works. You really need not be a climatologist to see where you go wrong; you just need to understand the very basic physical properties of carbon dioxide.

Here is a simple abstract of how the wonders of the carbon cycle work to keep our planet habitable...

CO2 gets dissolved in the oceans, forming carbonic acid (H2CO3), which reacts with wollastonite (CaSiO3) contained in the sediments, forming carbonates and oxides (CaCO3 and SiO2). This binding of CO2 is what keeps nitrogen the primary gas in our atmosphere and stops a runaway greenhouse effect from happening on Earth:

2CO2 + H2O + CaSiO3 -> Ca + 2HCO3 + SiO2
CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 -> Ca + 2HCO3
2HCO3 + Ca -> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O
CO2 + CaSiO3 -> CaCO3 + SiO2

Without this we would prompty end up like Venus.

(of course, what makes it a cycle is that vulcanic activity returns the CO2 into the atmosphere)

Now, if the correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere and Earth's temperature "happened to be 0.000%" I regret to inforn you that there would be no life on Earth, because the place would be frozen over. The very ability of CO2 to heat up the atmosphere is what saved us from the major ice ages in the planet's history (you can present me with an alternative theory if you like). When the ground and the oceans freeze over, the albedo (ie the reflective power) of the planet increases, and up to 90% of sun's radiation gets reflected right back so it doesn't heat the Earth. The -only- way to get out of a situation like that is via the CO2 pumped out by volcanic activity. No CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans in this situation, them having a layer of ice of half a mile or so, but vulcanic activity does not stop, which unbalances the CO2 cycle. The atmosphere starts warming up slowly, the first band of thawed ground appears on the equator, this adds vater vapor into the atmosphere which speeds up the heating, and also lowers the albedo, which increases it even more. This goes on until the CO2 cycle kicks in again and the atmosphere stabilizes.

The greenhouse effect is crucial to our existence, but it's a fine balance, and while no one really knows what happens when you disturb the balance like we have, I'm afraid at this point we're just going to have to find out. I doubt our kids will thank us for it.

I invite you to show me a graph disproving that, nibiyabi."

I am talking about emissions created by people, which accounts for roughly, what, 2-5% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere? Negligible. And as we (hopefully) make the slow transition to nuclear power, this will go down anyway.

"It astounds me that people believe things without doing an ounce of research. Do you know the correlation between CO2 emissions and global average temperature? It happens to be 0.000%"

What "research" is it that led you to believe this? Your extremely simplistic conclusions drawn from your graphs betray the fact that you have no idea how the planet's temperature regulation works. You really need not be a climatologist to see where you go wrong; you just need to understand the very basic physical properties of carbon dioxide.

Here is a simple abstract of how the wonders of the carbon cycle work to keep our planet habitable...

CO2 gets dissolved in the oceans, forming carbonic acid (H2CO3), which reacts with wollastonite (CaSiO3) contained in the sediments, forming carbonates and oxides (CaCO3 and SiO2). This binding of CO2 is what keeps nitrogen the primary gas in our atmosphere and stops a runaway greenhouse effect from happening on Earth:

2CO2 + H2O + CaSiO3 -> Ca + 2HCO3 + SiO2
CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 -> Ca + 2HCO3
2HCO3 + Ca -> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O
CO2 + CaSiO3 -> CaCO3 + SiO2

Without this we would prompty end up like Venus.

(of course, what makes it a cycle is that vulcanic activity returns the CO2 into the atmosphere)

Now, if the correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere and Earth's temperature "happened to be 0.000%" I regret to inforn you that there would be no life on Earth, because the place would be frozen over. The very ability of CO2 to heat up the atmosphere is what saved us from the major ice ages in the planet's history (you can present me with an alternative theory if you like). When the ground and the oceans freeze over, the albedo (ie the reflective power) of the planet increases, and up to 90% of sun's radiation gets reflected right back so it doesn't heat the Earth. The -only- way to get out of a situation like that is via the CO2 pumped out by volcanic activity. No CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans in this situation, them having a layer of ice of half a mile or so, but vulcanic activity does not stop, which unbalances the CO2 cycle. The atmosphere starts warming up slowly, the first band of thawed ground appears on the equator, this adds vater vapor into the atmosphere which speeds up the heating, and also lowers the albedo, which increases it even more. This goes on until the CO2 cycle kicks in again and the atmosphere stabilizes.

The greenhouse effect is crucial to our existence, but it's a fine balance, and while no one really knows what happens when you disturb the balance like we have, I'm afraid at this point we're just going to have to find out. I doubt our kids will thank us for it.

I invite you to show me a graph disproving that, nibiyabi.

Very similar to:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Alka-Seltzer-and-H2O-in-zero-gravityBubble-Art

Physics rules.

The Fusion they are describing here is done with deuterium-tritium. (1)

Deuterium is a stable Hydrogen form that can be found in "abundance" in ocean water. (2)
".... approximately one atom in 6500 of hydrogen (~154 PPM). Deuterium thus accounts for approximately 0.015% (on a weight basis, 0.030%) of all naturally occurring hydrogen in the oceans on Earth" (2)

Tritium is an unstable hydrogen Isotope, also found naturally though not as often. It is found in abundance on the moon. (3)

In other words, of that bathtub, only 0,015% of the hydrogen is actually used. 2 hydrogens are still a lot lighter then 1 oxygen (H2O ;-), so in total only a fraction of 0,015% of all the water is used. After that, we will have to use other materials. Since all of the materials you find on earth are made in the sun through Fusion, well, you can see how endless our fuel supply is. If technology can find ways to harvest the energy without blowing us all up.

One thing though: Fusion also creates radioactive materials. It is less of a problem then with Fission, but they are still there. Dont know why they mention it does not.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

Tecnically the car actually runs on electricity since that is the power output stage of the process? The point is that it generates electricity from a process of building and storing energy from H2O. Your correct it doesn't "RUN" on water. I suppose we should just say it runs on electricity. This way we can ignore the whole H2O being converted to hydrogen part even though that is where the "power" comes from.

I had no idea this would be so controversial.. The main point is that the technology exists - Clean energy. Global warming aside, I have asthma and believe me, I would soooo love to see these types of cars hit the market.. if only to breathe a little easier for all of us.

This car DOES NOT run on water. it runs on H which is used as an energy STORAGE system, not a fuel. More energy from some source (can be a clean source like wind/solar) must be put into making the H then can be recovered by rebuilding H2O.

The benifit of this tech is the fungibility of electricity, you can't generate petrol with kWhrs, but you can generate H from H2O using kWhrs.

Tags changed from "sodium,h20,reaction,torchlight" to "sodium, h2o, reaction, torchlight" by gold star member pho3n1x.

therealblankman: Did you edit and change the tags back to "h20" instead of "h2o"? Siftbot says Dag changed it to h2o but right now it's h20, so I'm not sure if Siftbot made a mistake or you changed it back.

Tags changed from "scanline, flowline, vfx, cg, h20, liquid" to "scanline, flowline, vfx, cg, h2o, liquid" by gold star member dag.