[quote=“CosmicKobal, post:18, topic:8561”]The concept of water as a fuel source has existed for decades at least. My lack of knowledge in anything beyond basic physics doesn’t change that, therefore, I figured that there had to be SOME merit to the idea. As for using chewing gum instead?.. come on man, that’s just a waste of good chewing gum…[/quote]Hah! Just because the idea has been around for a while doesn’t mean it’s right!
Your argument would be the same applied to fraking freaking cold fusion (believed abd looked for for a few years, ultimately disproven) and the philosopher’s stone (a fantasy item desired by alchemists)
The fact of the matter is that your lack of physics knowledge makes you blind to the fact that water as a fuel source is not viable in the manner your propose. Check other statements in the thread.
Bit off-topic, but I imagine that given sufficient time, you can end up miniturizing fusion technology to such an degree it for all intents and purposes functions as cold fusion.
Just not for the unlucky sod that decides to pry one open when it’s operational of course.
[quote=“iceball3, post:21, topic:8561”][quote=“CosmicKobal, post:18, topic:8561”]The concept of water as a fuel source has existed for decades at least. My lack of knowledge in anything beyond basic physics doesn’t change that, therefore, I figured that there had to be SOME merit to the idea. As for using chewing gum instead?.. come on man, that’s just a waste of good chewing gum…[/quote]Hah! Just because the idea has been around for a while doesn’t mean it’s right!
Your argument would be the same applied to fraking freaking cold fusion (believed abd looked for for a few years, ultimately disproven) and the philosopher’s stone (a fantasy item desired by alchemists)
The fact of the matter is that your lack of physics knowledge makes you blind to the fact that water as a fuel source is not viable in the manner your propose.[/quote]
I was merely stating that the idea has been around for SOOOO long, and we’re talking about a game set in the future. I come back to the earlier point about chicken walkers and rayguns. I’m not trying to argue in favor of it. just trying to point out that nothing is impossible if approached from the correct angle.
For a while, everyone KNEW that the earth was flat, then they KNEW that the earth was the center of the universe. As soon as someone starts stating that ‘so and so’ is ABSOLUTELY not possible, they become like the rest of the sheeple.
When research into cloning first started it was predicted to be centuries before it would be anything beyond science-fiction. less than half a century later if I remember right, and we had the clone sheep Dolly I believe her name was?
Anything is possible.
Especially that there are now connections to other planes of existance that have totaly different laws of physics etc. 
Especially that there are now connections to other planes of existance that have totaly different laws of physics etc. :D[/quote]The thing is that the game is supposed to behave in an internally consistent manner. The sci-fi aspect hinges on this.
Building a perpetual motion machine is only viable using esoteric or otherwise components (mutation caused by The Blob, teleporters using materials that fell through an interdimensional tear, etc).
A perpetual motion machine (which is exactly what your clean water device is chalked up to being) is impossible in any mundane approach, and thus would not be commonplace pre-cataclysm era.
I would like to elaborate that the robotics ingame is not particularly far from our current ability in real life, and just as well laser weapons do also exist.
If “anything is possible” then you might as well craft a device that kills all zombies in the world instantly using only rocks and sand. Would that add anything to gameplay or be internally consistent? Of course not.
Ultimately, OP, you’re asking for a way to turn electrical energy into fuel for a vehicle…which we have. You can run an electric car. Using that electricity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen and then blowing that up is just so much less efficient than directly powering the gears and axles of the vehicles with an electrical motor that, while you certainly CAN do it, you wouldn’t.
So rather than providing us with arguments as to why it is possible…show us why it is desirable? Consider of course that in your scenario you also have to drive around with two extremely reactive compounds stored in tanks, instead of stable and non-explosive storage batteries. By all means, add it…but if someone does, make it so the slightest damage to either the oxygen or hydrogen tanks results in a huge explosion. That could be fun. I could build small vehicles front loaded with hydrogen tanks and send them careening into hordes. That would be a more sensible use of the technology you are suggesting.
Electrolysis can have uses, yeah. Hydrogen-oxygen IEDs anyone?
If we’re going to have hydrogen fueled cars, it should involve a long, energy intensive, process of creating fuel cells. It shouldn’t be “just add water.” Even then, is a survivor reasonably going to be able to craft that at all in the first place?
I think bio-fuels is a much better option for renewable gasoline. I’d love to see that included.
Hm fuel cells have been brought up before.
Theyd be what you need to power the ingame weaponry.
About producing these:
I first thought that might be doable for a survivor … however the lack of abillity to pressurize hydrogen to the point where one could then liquify it pretty much makes hydrogen fuell cells uncraftable or the pc.
- I dunno wherein you would store liquid hydrogen. Probably not within anything the player could build… therefor the hydrogen tanks we build on cars which we then fill with fuel cells are pretty unrealistic imo.
I am not against implementing something that is possible. Like perhaps using hydrogen in low pressured state.
But that seem rather unefficient and therefor i question the need to implement it… (I want the devs to focus on other stuff :S)
Not a bad idea actually. Artifact ‘engines’ that do not require fuel but do standard artifact Bad Things.[/quote]
I’m surprisingly not opposed to this. Thanks for rescuing an otherwise pointless thread
You win, I laughed so hard at this.