Home » Video » ...

Hydrogen cars science Videos

Physical Science 4/24/15: Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars

Please watch and take notes.

The Science of Hydrogen Fuel

Fuel cell cars combine the hydrogen gas with oxygen from the air to produce electricity, which powers the vehicle.

Birmingham Science City's BIG Hydrogen Challenge

11 July 2011: Birmingham Science City has launched its BIG Hydrogen Challenge to encourage budding young scientists and engineers of the future to design ...

Hydrogen Storage - Backstage Science

A team from the University of Bath use the neutrons at ISIS to make a breakthrough. Special thanks to Valeska Ting and Tim Mays. Extra interview footage with ...

User Comments

bob bobby commented on 07 Mar 2013

Im assuming the comment below meant to say all the fossil fuel available in the world. But what he doesn't realise is that anything that burns is effectively a fuel, what determines what we burn and keep is based on importance, value and cost effectiveness. Readily available fuel is becoming scarcer by the second and in return the cost of finding more, drilling and getting it to the consumer is becoming ridiculously expensive, further more price of fuel effects everything from the cost of an...

Surma Sampo commented on 07 Mar 2013

But it takes more energy to split the strong molecular bonds than you get from the recombination, so you would be better off using that energy to drive the vehicle then to split the water. You would be wasting energy for no good reason when it would be more efficient to just run direct from electric. Hell, the only real reason we use liquid fuel in cars now is because in terms of storage mass, the fuel has better energy density than electrolytic cells and is faster to refill. Efficiency is key.

Matthew Linn commented on 07 Mar 2013

This is good science but you can store Hydrogen as water then electrochemically split it to Oxygen and Hydrogen If you dont want to burn the Oxygen with the Hydrogen you can just dump it out with the exhaust It is safer then storing it in its pure form If for some reason it catches on fire and explodes only a very small amount will burn and the rest is stored as water You might ask how do you keep the water from freezing If you use Potassium Hydroxide as the electrolyte it will freeze at -33 C

oldirtycyot commented on 16 Jun 2013

Even if they don't rest against themselves, how is adding more "space taking" objects going to allow more molecules in a now, even more limited space? That's like saying your car will absolutely not hold more than 6 people but if you put a paper between each person you can now get 10 people in the same space!.? And on the other note, labeling people "conspiracy theorists" is just a way for you to not think about it. There are some wackos out there but there are also conspiracies everywhere.

L00NGB00W commented on 09 Mar 2013

I don't know where you're getting your information from. That's simply not the case. Some plants respond poorly to excessive amounts of CO2, some respond well. CO2 absorbs and radiates infrared light and warms our atmosphere. Fact. If you look at the instrumental temperature record of the past three yrs in the northern hemisphere, You'll find that each was the hottest year in recorded history. You'll also find that roughly 80% of the record breaking highs have been within the past five yrs.

luckyluke193 commented on 07 Mar 2013

I think, neutrons scatter quite strongly off of hydrogen atoms, and they probably don't interact strongly on the atoms of their storage medium (it really depends on the elements in that compound though). So, if the hydrogen forms a superlattice on that compound, you would get a new Bragg peak in the neutron diffraction spectrum, at a wavelength related to the spacing between hydrogen molecules. Muon scattering? I only know muSR, where you muons as magnetic probes, but this is not a magnet.

666Tomato666 commented on 07 Mar 2013

while there are hydrocarbons out there, I don't think we: 1: want to put more carbon than there ever was or could have been in the Earth's atmosphere (while I'm sceptical about AGW, I'm quite sure that putting more carbon will cause global warming never seen before) 2: can get them to Earth economically (as in cheaper than making hydrocarbons with solar energy using syngas) 3: we will run out of hydrocarbons in at most 70 years, if you're around 20 you're bound to see it happen

akashashen commented on 07 Mar 2013

We would die before using up any fossil fuel. The amount of carbon trapped on this planet in gas, liquid and solid form, once burned, if there were enough oxygen in the atmosphere, would displace our entire atmosphere several times. We're not going to run out of fossil fuel. Show me how you figure we would run out? Furthermore, Earth is not the only place in the Universe that has hydrocarbons, THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! There's an exoplanet with a core of diamond! That's SuperCoal!

subh1 commented on 07 Mar 2013

While this indeed is an excellent discovery, unfortunately enough, hydrogen production either requires more energy than can be retrieved from the gas as a fuel (e.g. produced using electrolysis), or when create by reforming of hydrocarbons produces the same by-products (CO and CO2) as burning of fossil fuels. So to make it practical as a "green" fuel, the main breakthrough needs to come in the technology for producing it at an industrial scale.

akashashen commented on 08 Mar 2013

I haven't been to NewScientist since it was free, until yesterday, ironically on an unrelated link. It's an odd choice in references, especially as ScienceDaily remains freely available. Both sites primarily republish press releases, and if you doubt those press releases, the referring information is often at the bottom of the article, in case you're unsuccessful doing search based on the names, institute and field at arxiv, pubphys or pubsci.

piprod01 commented on 06 Mar 2013

The problem I can see with that is even if that were true, CO2 doesn't just stay fixed in Carbon Compounds in plants forever. The CO2 is recycled back out again during decomposition/after it's eaten/by it's own cellular respiration. So while plants may try to sponge up some amount of CO2, at the same time CO2 output is also increased. There may be some small buffering effect by simply having more biomass, but that's limited.

akashashen commented on 08 Mar 2013

Look at the back in forth before your comment: actual points, no insults, explicit references. Now your comment starts off with an insult and specifies nothing. Which ever point you think I'm wrong about, you would likely find a lecture from UCTV, University House or the old Research Channel which can cover the point in detail. Or perhaps you think that's some sort of popularization for idiots, in which case, try arxiv.

Link for boards:

Link for your site:

Current link: