EVE Search - Hydrogen / HHO fuel question

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Hydrogen / HHO fuel question

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zelian Rage Cooperative Freelance Navigators Association Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2010.11.18 22:44:00 - [1] How much hydrogen is required to actually turn over an engine? I was in a debate with a guy the other day he was arguing the point against hydrogen fuel cell vehicles being just inefficient and I came around to his point of view due to the fact that it requires electricity to produce the hydrogen through hydrolysis so why not just use the electricity to power the vehicle instead of using it to make the hydrogen to fuel the vehicle. I still think at the moment hydrogen would provide a longer distance due to the current status and affordability of battery technology. But i was wondering how much H2 is actually required?
Cat o'Ninetails Caldari Rancer Defence League	Posted - 2010.11.18 22:50:00 - [2] who cares, hydrogen is near infinite on this planet, whilst oil is not lol x EVE Garden
Caleidascope Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2010.11.18 23:42:00 - [3] The problem with hydrogen is that it takes a Lot of electricity. So right now it is more cost effective to use that electricity to drive the car, but if some day we find a better way to make hydrogen, electric cars will become obsolete.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.11.18 23:54:00 - [4] The "why" is simple: because we can't put a nuclear/hydroelectric/geothermal power plant in a car. Sure, it takes energy to make your hydrogen fuel, but that energy can come from efficient large power plants. Who cares if it's not 100% efficient when the goal is energy *density* (IOW, putting enough energy in a small and light enough package to drive 100+ miles). The main advantage of hydrogen is that current batteries are *heavy*, at least if you want to get useful range and speed from your car. As battery technology improves this may change, but right now it's a major drawback that has killed all attempts to make an electric car with mass appeal. -----------
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.11.18 23:55:00 - [5] Edited by: Akita T on 18/11/2010 23:56:48 Originally by: Zelian Rage it requires electricity to produce the hydrogen through hydrolysis so why not just use the electricity to power the vehicle instead of using it to make the hydrogen to fuel the vehicle Both charged batteries in electric cars and hydrogen in fuel cells are merely "energy storage" mediums, and right now, energy storage technology kind of sucks badly. Various collected thingies... all quotes from various sources mashed together to get something readable, and out of space so no source quoting (besides you only want the info not the proof, right?) Quote: The challenge with electric cars right now is the batteries. The batteries are both expensive and current models, like the Tesla Roadster, have a range of only 250 miles - great for commuting, but not so good for road trips. The other problem is the length of time these vehicles take to charge. It's not simply a matter stopping at your local power station and plugging in for five minutes and leaving. A typical charging cycle for current prototypes is 4-5 hours - again, fine if you're commuting, but impossible for a road trip. While technology is being developed to make charging your vehicle as quick as quick as filling up with gas, it has a ways to go before it's ready. The distribution of hydrogen fuel filling stations is one of the typical commercial issues with hydrogen cars. Los Angeles currently has 16 hydrogen filling stations, but the number required to service the entire city would be in the thousands. Logistically, compared to just finding a 3 point plug, thatÆs a problem. While gas stations could be outfitted with hydrogen fueling stations that would take years. Some stumbling blocks for hydrogen cars have been identified in terms of tank weight, durability on the road, power ratios, fuel cell life (currently averaging around 6 months) and end unit cost, which is considerably higher than electric cars. That hasnÆt stopped commercial development, however, and the cost of a new hydrogen car isnÆt really too different from new petrol engine cars. Hydrogen has a high energy density by weight. An Otto cycle internal combustion engine running on hydrogen is said to have a maximum efficiency of about 38%, 8% higher than gasoline internal combustion engine. The combination of the fuel cell and electric motor is 2-3 times more efficient than an internal combustion engine. However, the high capital cost of fuel cells, about $5,500/kW, are one of the major obstacles of its development, meaning that the fuel cell is only technically, but not economically, more efficient than an internal combustion engine. Other technical obstacles include hydrogen storage issues and the purity requirement of hydrogen used in fuel cells û with current technology, an operating fuel cell requires the purity of hydrogen to be as high as 99.999%. On the other hand, hydrogen engine conversion technology is more economical than fuel cells. Hydrogen production is a large and growing industry. Globally, some 50 million metric tons of hydrogen, equal to about 170 million tons of oil equivalent, were produced in 2004. The growth rate is around 10% per year. Within the United States, 2004 production was about 11 million metric tons (MMT), an average power flow of 48 gigawatts. (For comparison, the average electric production in 2003 was some 442 gigawatts.) As of 2005, the economic value of all hydrogen produced worldwide is about $135 billion per year. About half is used to produce ammonia (NH3) via the Haber process, which is then used directly or indirectly as fertilizer. The other half of current hydrogen production is used to convert heavy petroleum sources into lighter fractions suitable for use as fuels (hydrocracking). Currently, global hydrogen production is 48% from natural gas, 30% from oil, and 18% from coal; water electrolysis accounts for only 4%. ...allegedly. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Zelian Rage Cooperative Freelance Navigators Association Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2010.11.19 00:02:00 - [6] Well honestly my wondering was what about hydrogen displacement reactions instead of electrolysis. Was wondering how much hydrogen gas actually has to be made to be usable. ie: calcium + h20 will give off h2
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.11.19 00:07:00 - [7] Originally by: Zelian Rage Was wondering how much hydrogen gas actually has to be made to be usable. ie: calcium + h20 will give off h2 You're probably thinking of something else, namely this. That doesn't produce hydrogen from water and calcium, but produces acetylene from calcium carbide and water. Also it's wholly unsuitable for what you're proposing. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Zelian Rage Cooperative Freelance Navigators Association Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2010.11.19 00:10:00 - [8] Edited by: Zelian Rage on 19/11/2010 00:11:38 Edited by: Zelian Rage on 19/11/2010 00:10:39 Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Zelian Rage Was wondering how much hydrogen gas actually has to be made to be usable. ie: calcium + h20 will give off h2 You're probably thinking of something else, namely this. That doesn't produce hydrogen from water and calcium, but produces acetylene from calcium carbide and water. Also it's wholly unsuitable for what you're proposing. I'm thinking Ca ( s ) + 2H 2 O ( l ) -> Ca(OH) 2 ( aq ) + H 2 ( g ) the Ca being metal Ca. Doesn't have to be Ca, could be Li, K, or even Ba
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.11.19 00:12:00 - [9] Originally by: Zelian Rage the Ca being metal Ca. Storing metallic calcium for the direct reaction is also a bad idea (because you're left with a LOT of residue after the reaction, mass-wise), much worse than just storing hydrogen. Also, producing it in the first place is even costlier than producing hydrogen (you can't just find metallic calcium sitting around). _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Zelian Rage Cooperative Freelance Navigators Association Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2010.11.19 00:17:00 - [10] see i dont know these things
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.11.19 00:18:00 - [11] Distribution and production are the problems for H2 right now. However compressed or liquefied gas tanks are actually much much safer than gasoline tanks because they are much thicker.
Adunh Slavy	Posted - 2010.11.19 14:10:00 - [12] Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 19/11/2010 14:12:19 There are two kinds of hydrogen engines. Internal Combustion and Fuel Cells. Internal Combustion doesn't require much hydrogen to run. The first combusion engine that ran on hydrogen was made in 1807. We can guess from that, it is not rocket science. Here in the USA, some people are playing with hydrogen and running lawnmowers with it and it is working. Fuel cells are a different beast, they use membranes to seperate hydrogen from something else, causing electrons to get happy and do things for you, such as run an electric motor. I belive the most common laymen conversion right now is 1kg of Hydrogen delivers the same energy as four liters of gasoline. Lots of big media outlets are saying hydrogen is bad, but they also run "we're friendly" ads for Big Oil. You decide. Oh to add some points. ICE runs on pure hydrogen, fuel cells can run on a number of things, gasoline being one of them. Guess which the oil companies like. The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
Zirketch Kruug Minmatar Trust Doesn't Rust	Posted - 2010.11.20 13:50:00 - [13] If someone above has mentioned what I am about to type I apologise as I do not have the time currently to read all of the above, however, what I would like to add to this discussion is one singular point. A benefit of hydrogen fuel cells is that they provide a good source of storing energy produced by renewable devices such as wind turbines. As wind generated power is not constant, i.e. dependent on there being good wind in the first place (not a regular dependable source of energy), then converting the electrical power generated into fuel cells is a good way to store and transport it. Thus the argument for using hydrocarbons to produce electricity to produce fuel cells is greatly diminished. Hydrogen fuel cells is not THE answer to the global energy issues, however it does help, as do wind farms, tidal farms, wave energy farms etc etc. As to their efficiency, not sure, however I do believe many of Reykjavik's busses now run on Hydrogen. Certainly the technology requires further development, but given the time the pertol and diesel engines have had for development it not infeasible to assume that one day they will be the preferred choice. Zirk
Sergeant Spot Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.	Posted - 2010.11.20 22:29:00 - [14] I've been told (don't know if its true) that Natural Gas is current main source of Hydrogen (Cheapest source). So, anyone know what the source of most Hydrogen is these days? ANd if the cheapest source is not sea water, how much more expensive is sea water? Play nice while you butcher each other.
alittlebirdy	Posted - 2010.11.20 23:07:00 - [15] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker Distribution and production are the problems for H2 right now. However compressed or liquefied gas tanks are actually much much safer than gasoline tanks because they are much thicker. LOL ever think of the reason WHY they are thicker... besides the pressure (that alone would be a bad bad if the tank did rupture) You can not go far on hydrogen plain and simple you need a TON of it for a ICE... it is a PITA to make, transport... etc etc...
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar The Python Cartel. The Jerk Cartel	Posted - 2010.11.21 00:48:00 - [16] Originally by: Merin Ryskin The main advantage of hydrogen is that current batteries are *heavy, at least if you want to get useful range and speed from your car. As battery technology improves this may change, but right now it's a major drawback that has killed all attempts to make an electric car with mass appeal. The Tesla Roadster has mass appeal, but a massive pricetag too 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and 245 miles per charge Originally by:* Xen Gin Originally by: FOl2TY8 I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence. Yeah, I use that excuse too.
Tora Nevaal	Posted - 2010.11.21 01:56:00 - [17] In reality there is nothing stopping anyone from simply slapping a solar cell on their roof, placing a small electrolysis plant in their garage, filling it with tap water (or distilled water if you don't want to deal with the fumes from the chlorine and fluorine found in many public water systems), and making their own gas. Well, other than cost. Safety wise though it would be no more dangerous than having a tank of propane or LNG in your backyard. 100% renewable and carbon free. And since you wouldn't necessarily be needing a constant supply of power from the cells no need to hassle with batteries. If you live in an area with long periods of darkness, replace the solar cells with wind turbines. again, a large amount of power isn't necessary. However, as stated before, one of the largest drawbacks with most green energy vehicles today is still range. No problem for the daily driver, but unfortunately no road trips to Mexico.
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar The Python Cartel. The Jerk Cartel	Posted - 2010.11.21 01:57:00 - [18] Originally by: Tora Nevaal In reality there is nothing stopping anyone from simply slapping a solar cell on their roof, placing a small electrolysis plant in their garage, filling it with tap water (or distilled water if you don't want to deal with the fumes from the chlorine and fluorine found in many public water systems), and making their own gas. Well, other than cost. Safety wise though it would be no more dangerous than having a tank of propane or LNG in your backyard. 100% renewable and carbon free. And since you wouldn't necessarily be needing a constant supply of power from the cells no need to hassle with batteries. If you live in an area with long periods of darkness, replace the solar cells with wind turbines. again, a large amount of power isn't necessary. However, as stated before, one of the largest drawbacks with most green energy vehicles today is still range. No problem for the daily driver, but unfortunately no road trips to Mexico. Genius! Then I would just have to go to the garage to remove my nosehairs Originally by: Xen Gin Originally by: FOl2TY8 I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence. Yeah, I use that excuse too.
Herzog Wolfhammer Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2010.11.21 02:37:00 - [19] Time versus energy. I could move a heavy object over time, but the amount of energy put into it determines that length of time. If it takes a lot of energy to move the load, then it takes more time. Then there is also heat. There is a lot of heat being produced in the world that is dissipated because the heat comes from places where heat is not wanted. Heat can be converted to energy. I find it a particularly western and "in the box" attitude that if we can't get something new that is exactly 100 percent like the old, and takes any minor change in anything, it is therefore not enough. So far the hydrogen systems I have seen only augment existing hydrocarbon systems. But if you can only take something with 20MPG highway and make it 30MPG highway, that's still something. Also, there is no harvesting of the heat from the hydrocarbon reaction into electricity to create more hydrogen. This attitude is the reason why the east, or any country that is not stuck in this poor mindset, will deploy new technologies sooner and have them much improved by the time we catch on in a generation or are forced to by the consequences of our folly. I see this every day, in many forms. For those that are not afraid to use tool, use this link and see what the latest stage is. It's quite simple and I might just try this myself with a 40 year old car I have that gets some rather poor mileage (having a 5.7 Liter engine and all).
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.11.21 03:33:00 - [20] Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer Time versus energy. I could move a heavy object over time, but the amount of energy put into it determines that length of time. If it takes a lot of energy to move the load, then it takes more time. Then there is also heat. There is a lot of heat being produced in the world that is dissipated because the heat comes from places where heat is not wanted. Heat can be converted to energy. I find it a particularly western and "in the box" attitude that if we can't get something new that is exactly 100 percent like the old, and takes any minor change in anything, it is therefore not enough. So far the hydrogen systems I have seen only augment existing hydrocarbon systems. But if you can only take something with 20MPG highway and make it 30MPG highway, that's still something. Also, there is no harvesting of the heat from the hydrocarbon reaction into electricity to create more hydrogen. This attitude is the reason why the east, or any country that is not stuck in this poor mindset, will deploy new technologies sooner and have them much improved by the time we catch on in a generation or are forced to by the consequences of our folly. I see this every day, in many forms. For those that are not afraid to use tool, use this link and see what the latest stage is. It's quite simple and I might just try this myself with a 40 year old car I have that gets some rather poor mileage (having a 5.7 Liter engine and all). a 5.7? V8 or V12? either way why not converting it into a 6-stroke engine? --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Herzog Wolfhammer Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2010.11.21 05:36:00 - [21] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer Time versus energy. I could move a heavy object over time, but the amount of energy put into it determines that length of time. If it takes a lot of energy to move the load, then it takes more time. Then there is also heat. There is a lot of heat being produced in the world that is dissipated because the heat comes from places where heat is not wanted. Heat can be converted to energy. I find it a particularly western and "in the box" attitude that if we can't get something new that is exactly 100 percent like the old, and takes any minor change in anything, it is therefore not enough. So far the hydrogen systems I have seen only augment existing hydrocarbon systems. But if you can only take something with 20MPG highway and make it 30MPG highway, that's still something. Also, there is no harvesting of the heat from the hydrocarbon reaction into electricity to create more hydrogen. This attitude is the reason why the east, or any country that is not stuck in this poor mindset, will deploy new technologies sooner and have them much improved by the time we catch on in a generation or are forced to by the consequences of our folly. I see this every day, in many forms. For those that are not afraid to use tool, use this link and see what the latest stage is. It's quite simple and I might just try this myself with a 40 year old car I have that gets some rather poor mileage (having a 5.7 Liter engine and all). a 5.7? V8 or V12? either way why not converting it into a 6-stroke engine? 6 stroke? Tell me more.
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2010.11.21 05:44:00 - [22] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny The Tesla Roadster has mass appeal, but a massive pricetag too 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and 245 miles per charge The Volt is due out shortly. Have little hope that Chevy will do it well right out of the gate, but at least it opens the door for more of the same in the market. Not quite the range, and i wonder why they didn't just ditch the 4 cylinder backup engine for more capacitor room, but it's a start. My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Caleidascope Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2010.11.21 06:51:00 - [23] Originally by: Professor Tarantula Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny The Tesla Roadster has mass appeal, but a massive pricetag too 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and 245 miles per charge The Volt is due out shortly. Have little hope that Chevy will do it well right out of the gate, but at least it opens the door for more of the same in the market. Not quite the range, and i wonder why they didn't just ditch the 4 cylinder backup engine for more capacitor room, but it's a start. Prius is cheaper. And let us not forget the pioneer: GM EV1
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.11.21 09:54:00 - [24] Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer Time versus energy. I could move a heavy object over time, but the amount of energy put into it determines that length of time. If it takes a lot of energy to move the load, then it takes more time. Then there is also heat. There is a lot of heat being produced in the world that is dissipated because the heat comes from places where heat is not wanted. Heat can be converted to energy. I find it a particularly western and "in the box" attitude that if we can't get something new that is exactly 100 percent like the old, and takes any minor change in anything, it is therefore not enough. So far the hydrogen systems I have seen only augment existing hydrocarbon systems. But if you can only take something with 20MPG highway and make it 30MPG highway, that's still something. Also, there is no harvesting of the heat from the hydrocarbon reaction into electricity to create more hydrogen. This attitude is the reason why the east, or any country that is not stuck in this poor mindset, will deploy new technologies sooner and have them much improved by the time we catch on in a generation or are forced to by the consequences of our folly. I see this every day, in many forms. For those that are not afraid to use tool, use this link and see what the latest stage is. It's quite simple and I might just try this myself with a 40 year old car I have that gets some rather poor mileage (having a 5.7 Liter engine and all). a 5.7? V8 or V12? either way why not converting it into a 6-stroke engine? 6 stroke? Tell me more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine there are many methods of assembling a 6-stroke engine, but the easiest way to convert a regular 4-stroke into a 6-stroke is usually going the piston charger way, where you convert a number of cylinders of the engine into what could be called a compressor. some companies managed to convert some old flat-6 ones from porsche into a 6-stroke engine and they work quite well. Bonus features, such engine doesn't need camshafts nor timing belts. here's some info http://www.eco-engine.eu/EN/infos.html --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
RubenX No Limit Productions	Posted - 2010.11.21 14:05:00 - [25] Hydrogen, as an energy storage media, sucks. Efficiency is not good at all. I have many pro-HHO friends who claim that efficiency is not an issue because the HHO can be made from "free" solar. But reality is that solar is NOT free. Solar panels cost a ton of money. Lets say you have some energy requirements of X thingamajigs. And to get those X thingamajigs you need $50k worth of solar panels. But now you want to store those X thingamajigs. If your storage media is 50% efficient, now you need $100k worth of solar panels. Solar is NOT free. Some might try to argue that once you make the initial investment on the solar panels, you are set for life. Wrong too. Like everything else man made, Solar panels will brake. You will need to replace them. They are not eternal. /me 2 cents
Tora Nevaal	Posted - 2010.11.21 15:58:00 - [26] Originally by: RubenX Hydrogen, as an energy storage media, sucks. Efficiency is not good at all. I have many pro-HHO friends who claim that efficiency is not an issue because the HHO can be made from "free" solar. But reality is that solar is NOT free. Solar panels cost a ton of money. Of course Hydrogen isn't "free". No energy source is. The point is that past the start up costs- which are admittedly steep compared to existing resources- there is almost no overhead, other than the water itself and maintenance, combined with zero environmental impact. By that line of reasoning you should just never buy a vehicle to begin with because some day it may need repairs. It is very feasible to create a completely renewable form of energy. As with any emerging technology there is a "chicken or the egg" type roadblock. Customers don't want to risk their money on technology that is still being developed and rapidly changing, and manufacturers can't invest large amounts of capitol into R&D and mass production lines until there is a guaranteed customer base to justify it. The entire point of developing these technologies are for long term solutions to rapidly emerging global energy demands.
Vogue Skynet Nexus	Posted - 2010.11.21 16:05:00 - [27] Edited by: Vogue on 21/11/2010 16:05:32 I had an old Peugout 405 turbo diesel that I once tried with vegetable oil. Which is not that different from diesel - still a bio mass fuel. Problem is that it the car smelled like a fish & chip shop lol. Also anything that you put in your fuel tank you have to pay fuel duty on it. So I did'nt do it a second time. This led me to the idea of helping poor agricultural based countries by them growing crops for vegetable oil. But the problem with this is western food subsidies for farmers. The EU and the USA does this. It's protectionism for their farmers. If agricultural protectionism was abolished many poor countries around the world could become the food basket of the world. And also provide oil substitutes. But this will not happen. ..................................................
Adunh Slavy	Posted - 2010.11.21 16:38:00 - [28] Originally by: RubenX Hydrogen, as an energy storage media, sucks. Efficiency is not good at all. It's not efficent yet. Much of current costs are due to the fact that there are no huge assembly lines for many of these products. Look what ford did for the Car. As another poster remarked, it's a bit of chicken and egg now, but that will change over time. The horse and buggy didn't just vanish as soon as the first car appeared on the road. Reading a history book, and covering 30 years in 15 mnutes, is rather different than living it. The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2010.11.21 17:04:00 - [29] Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 21/11/2010 17:13:40 Originally by: Vogue Edited by: Vogue on 21/11/2010 16:05:32 I had an old Peugout 405 turbo diesel that I once tried with vegetable oil. Which is not that different from diesel - still a bio mass fuel. Problem is that it the car smelled like a fish & chip shop lol. Also anything that you put in your fuel tank you have to pay fuel duty on it. So I did'nt do it a second time. This led me to the idea of helping poor agricultural based countries by them growing crops for vegetable oil. But the problem with this is western food subsidies for farmers. The EU and the USA does this. It's protectionism for their farmers. If agricultural protectionism was abolished many poor countries around the world could become the food basket of the world. And also provide oil substitutes. But this will not happen. It's a little known fact that Rudolf Diesel, the inventor of the Diesel engine, actually intended for vegetable oil to be used in it, and talked about how it would empower farmers by making their crops more valuable. Then he died under mysterious circumstances one day and crude oil has been forced on us ever since. Treated as the only possible fuel. My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Tora Nevaal	Posted - 2010.11.21 19:03:00 - [30] Despite the recent popularity of biofuels, in reality they are at best a temporary stop gap to our global dependency on fossil fuels, and at worst are even more detrimental environmentally. One study indicated that it requires 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol. Add that to the massive impact of deforestation required to plant the crops, replacing trees that are far more efficient at removing CO2 from the atmosphere than the crops themselves. Then there is the added impact from massive amounts of chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and anti-fungicides used on the crops and the impact from their production. The net environmental benefit is negligible and will never be a realistically viable option for decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels. "A comparison of conversion efficiency from solar to usable energy (taking into account the whole energy budgets) shows that photovoltaics are 100 times more efficient than corn ethanol and 10 times more efficient than the best biofuel"

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.