Water fuel cell follow up
@Claus P. Nielsen
"So the water is NOT a carrier of energy in that scenario - the batteries that provide the electricity are. The water is simply adding to the weight of the car."
But surely the water is acting as a battery rather than a fuel source? Electrolysis is merely releasing the potential energy of the water. If the electrolysis process (and burning of the byproducts) uses less electricity than running the car directly on electric motors then it is worth doing right? This does not break laws of thermodynamics as burning hydrogen+oxygen could be more efficient than electric motors.
"Hydrogen fusion powered cars are not really realistic yet - and they would probably run on deuterium or tritium anyway. Mixing them up in an argument about the energy density of burning hydrogen is highly misleading - at least as long as you are making your argument to very small children or certain world leaders who don't know any better."
I was merely irate at the suggestion that hydrogen wasn't a good fuel carrier, and used two (admittedly unrelated) examples to show why this was not the case, i.e. fusion and rocket fuel.
"Uhm, just stating hydrogen is NOT a piss-poor energy carrier doesn't make it true, and you back it up with wikipedia and youtube references? Seriously?"
I was trying to give a lighthearted introduction to the subject. Let me guess, when you learn something new you go straight for the 'Advanced' textbooks, right?
As for the rest of your post, I would agree that pure electric cars are a better solution than waiting for the 'hydrogen revolution' that is always 10-20 years away. However your faith in conventional batteries is misplaced. 85-95% efficiency, where do you get that figure from?
Also that article you linked to with the "25% efficiency" for hydrogen production actually gave a figure of "75% efficiency", and that's using commercial electrolysis rather than Meyer's method. Also, what happens when hydrogen is created by using algae and the energy of the sun. Where's the environmental impact there?
Supercapacitors have some benefits over conventional batteries, but how long before we see these in cars? Water fuel cells, building on Meyer's work, can be built now and will run on a relatively low current input. Don't get me wrong, I would rather drive an electric car than a petrol car, but let's consider all our options.
"Do a bit of checking www.randi.org is a good starting point, and there are several descriptions of Kleins presentations, where anybody who asks any intellegent question is ignored, then bullied then simply removed."
Looked at randi.org, here's the first page I found about this matter...
Of course there were exaggerations made by Fox News and by Denny Klein (HHO is H2O!). However, the high temperature of the heat tip is not disputed.
As for your comment on Meyer's fraud conviction, let's look a little further into this...
"That dream was shattered as Meyer was found guilty of fraud when his Water Fuel Cell failed to impress three "expert witnesses" who decided there was nothing revolutionary about it, rather that it was simply using conventional electrolysis.
The Sunday Times article also stated that when one of the court experts went to examine the Water Fuel Cell driven car, it was impossible to evaluate because it was not working."
If you read between the lines you see that Meyer was convicted of fraud because his invention wasn't working when it was assessed and three expert witnesses, who were probably experts in conventional electrolysis, saw the similarities and concluded there wasn't anything special about it. That doesn't mean his discovery doesn't have merit.
The fact is that the electrolysis technique Meyer discovered had already been demonstrated to work. He had to perform a demonstration to get his patents. More info here: