Water instead of Gasoline

[TheEvilDetector]

If we can make civilian and military vehicles run on water or hydrogen (either from water or directly), why are we wasting lives and money in middle east?

Qualifier: When I say run on water, I mean use electrical energy obtained from a source such as solar panel, to break water down into H2 and O2 and then use H2 to either burn in Hydrogen ICE or recombine in a FUEL CELL with O2 and generate electricity that way or hybrids of either of the two with standard ICE systems.

Essentially free: Sun providing light free of charge. Water can be obtained free of charge. The only costs are some periodical costs which are applicable to regular ICE too (moving parts lubricants, worn parts etc) and install once-off charges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMBni0sDBww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9_VYn_CGtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt1uN38EcoQ
*Listen carefully to what the guy says roughly halfway through the third video in the list, starting at around the 6:20 mark.

--

Oil Companies don't want to become irrelevant and the government loves the oil tax.
Conflict of interest? I think so.

--

This is only half the story.

The point is that TECHNOLOGY EXISTS TODAY TO TAKE YOUR HOUSE AND YOUR CAR COMPLETELY OFF THE ENERGY GRID.

The only thing you would need is access to sun and/or wind and water (purity is a good thing).

--

Ask yourself would MSM, Oil, Govt, Coal and Nuclear Industries want every citizen to have such systems?

--

We already know that the war on terror a massive fraud (why hasn't Al-Qaeda been crushed? Why has it actually grown? Where are the WOMD? etc etc etc).
In fact the entire presence in middle east is completely unnecessary because we do not need their oil.

Domestic oil would be more than sufficient.

A much smaller amount of oil is needed to make plastics.

A lot of plastics can actually be made from organic sources thus reducing dependence on oil even further.

--

In basic terms, his house (guy in 3rd video) uses sun's energy (solar panels) to split water into hydrogen and oxygen (electrolysis). He keeps the hydrogen in tanks.

He then fills up his car hydrogen tank and uses that hydrogen to charge his car's battery by recombining the hydrogen with oxygen (fuel cell).

So, he basically just takes the light of the sun and uses it to power his house and car (using the hydrogen and oxygen from water in the process).

[Hook]

Uh, it takes energy to turn water into H2, which has to come ultimately from the Sun or from Nuclear. If you have electricity to perform electrolysis, it would be more efficient to charge a battery than to go through the wasteful process of cracking H2O and then combusting it in an engine.

[Hook]

Hydrogen is one of the worst energy storage mechanisms of all, as far as energy/volume is concerned.

[TheEvilDetector]

Hydrogen is one of the worst energy storage mechanisms of all, as far as energy/volume is concerned.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. The fact that it is free energy has obviously been lost on you. Continue to pay for petrol and grid electricity supply by all means.

You also probably did not quite catch him saying that he can get about 300 miles from 1 tank and the charge in the battery.

300 miles at a cost of $0.00. That's not good enough I suppose.

[TheEvilDetector]

Uh, it takes energy to turn water into H2, which has to come ultimately from the Sun or from Nuclear. If you have electricity to perform electrolysis, it would be more efficient to charge a battery than to go through the wasteful process of cracking H2O and then combusting it in an engine.

So you are more qualified than the man who has the know-how to build all of this in his house and his car? :)

Well, if so, I am sure you can do better.

[Mesogen]

I watched the third video. That's all fine and good. I'd love to have a solar house and a plug in car. Problem is, right now, it would cost a LOT to solar up your house, like 10s of thousands of dollars. You can buy a gasoline hybrid and rig it to be a plug in. The rigging can cost $2-4k.

In about 5 years the cost of solar is going to come WAY down. I'll wait until then to start pricing panels.

Also check out the movie "Who killed the electric car" In it there is a woman with solar panels on her house. She plugs in her car and drives it on solar. She parked it at a solar parking lot and charged it there. This is doable and should be done. But it costs $ and some people don't want you to do it because they would lose big $$.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Mpe7XfODk

[TheEvilDetector]

I watched the third video. That's all fine and good. I'd love to have a solar house and a plug in car. Problem is, right now, it would cost a LOT to solar up your house, like 10s of thousands of dollars. You can buy a gasoline hybrid and rig it to be a plug in. The rigging can cost $2-4k.

In about 5 years the cost of solar is going to come WAY down. I'll wait until then to start pricing panels.

Also check out the movie "Who killed the electric car" In it there is a woman with solar panels on her house. She plugs in her car and drives it on solar. She parked it at a solar parking lot and charged it there. This is doable and should be done. But it costs $ and some people don't want you to do it because they would lose big $$.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Mpe7XfODk

If the government officials and big oil were not a bunch of corrupt greedy psychotic bastard individuals, you would see this technology in mass production and at a tiny cost. There is nothing extraordinary there. It is just that it is NOT in the interest of the oil companies and the government to lose massive oil sales.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

All the government needs to do is leave it to the free market and not worry about it.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Hook]

So you are more qualified than the man who has the know-how to build all of this in his house and his car? :)

Well, if so, I am sure you can do better.

No, I can't do better because I can't break the laws of thermodynamics any more than he can. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this perpetual motion scam has been going on for hundreds of years. As much as people want a free lunch to be true, it ain't gonna happen. Read about Joe Newman and his "free" energy machine to get an idea about how far supposed inventors will go with self deception.
I know you won't belive any of this because you want to belive that our only problem is evil oil companies. That would make it poetic, but not true. I would suggest that you read some introduction to physics, esp. thermodynamics.
Again, hydrogen isn't a source of energy, it is a carrier. Ultimately, all energy we use has to come from the Sun or from nuclear.
Go ahead and start flaming away now. :)

[PennCustom4RP]

I watched the third video. That's all fine and good. I'd love to have a solar house and a plug in car. Problem is, right now, it would cost a LOT to solar up your house, like 10s of thousands of dollars. You can buy a gasoline hybrid and rig it to be a plug in. The rigging can cost $2-4k.

In about 5 years the cost of solar is going to come WAY down. I'll wait until then to start pricing panels.

.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7Mpe7XfODk

No lie here, as it is for most alternative energy sources. I have done extensive research on off-grid living, wind, water, solar power, and none of it cheap, not to mention local regs prohibiting such things from aesthetic or building code standpoint. All you need is one neighbor bitching that you're 'spoiling their view' and you have every permit/code enforcer knocking on your door. Municipalities want you to be 'green' but put up roadblocks preventing this. Another major issue is that houses built today in cities or suburban sub-developments are so entirely dependent on the grid, just by the way they are built, its nearly impossible to retrofit to an off grid system cost effectively. Much easier with an old house(still costly), or build that way from the start.
Move to the country, buy an old house and then maybe.
For now its conservation, efficiency, insulation, recycle, etc etc.

[Hook]

Nanosolar (www.nanosolar.com) is coming out with a process that will likely drastically lower prices of solar cells eventually. Of course that means we would get power from the Sun, like i said before. Once you get the energy though, it is much more efficent to store it in Lithium Ion or Nickel Metal Hydride batteries than to crack H2O into hydrogen. Just the electrolysis process wastes like 30% of the energy into heat. Batteries have a much better storage efficency, and are more energy dense.

[Revolution9]

For the naysayers.. Ths fellow has been driving a Cadillac with a 454 using a water cracking system since the early 80's.

found at
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/water.html

FUEL FOR FREE--Hydrogen Generator: (What TV Doesn't Tell You)

DUDE, First off, this ain't no bogus "gimme your money, fuck off' bullshit; this energy device actually works! I am the madman behind the heavy metal band "Rampage," but long before my musical success, I was mechanically inclined, and the possibility of feasibly running a car on fuel extracted from water intrigued me to no end. After reading all the information I could find on the subject of hydrogen generators, I built my first actual unit in 1983, mounting it in the trunk of a 1979 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. You don't have to worry about gas mileage, because gross vehicle weight is of no concern when the fuel you're using is free! I constructed my system from the best of all the other systems I read about, then went even further to also use the strongest materials, and cleanest layout possible within reason. All the titanium nuts and bolts were scored from an aircraft salvage supply; they're cheaper used, and since they'll never wear out, that's a way to save some big bucks. Certain head and exhaust system modifications have to be made to expect trouble-free extended use. For one, the combustion of hydrogen results in the rebonding of the previously-separated hydrogen and oxygen molecules, making the engine's exhaust water vapor steam, and nothing else, meaning absolutely no pollution at all! Most auto makers use cast-iron exhaust manifolds and steel valves. The combined effects of heat and moisture (moisture not being present in the combustion of petroleum based fuels) cause extremely rapid corrosion of the system. Part of the fix is to install stainless steel valves, and an exhaust system constructed entirely out of stainless steel. Racing shops sell stainless steel valves, stainless steel "turbo" mufflers that all work fine. Since hydrogen does not contain lead as some gasoline does, if you're not using a late-model, no-lead engine, the heads will have to be reworked to include valve seats not needing the lubrication lead provides. As for building this device to sell as a completed system, that's a dead issue. In 1983, I contacted the Department of Energy to show them my car actually worked; I was confronted by two very belligerent "agents of tyrannical oppression," who told me if I tried to sell prebuilt units, I'd have a lot of "problems." I asked why, demanding a fuckin' explanation, and was told very bluntly, and not in a very nice tone: "Do you have any idea what a device like this available to the public would do to the economy?" It all boils down to big money; oil company revenues, and gasoline taxes. The world oil supply is very regulated, and profitable to make as scarce as possible to keep prices high. How can they stop or control rain? "They" can't, and since water is free, "they" can't make any money off it. This technology is so simple, that anyone with over half a brain, and knowledgeable in auto mechanics can build one of these units. I've included comprehensive, no bullshit, drafted design layouts, parts lists, maintenance tips, and a whole lot of engine modification concepts to make construction, part fabrication, and implementation as easy as reasonably possible. The unit I built works as great as I claim it to, but I offer only the printed information on how to build your own, and I take no personal responsibility for damage of any kind caused to your vehicle, or self by your own stupidity if you just happen to be some kind of airhead that can't read plain fuckin' English, or comprehend technical instructions no matter how simple they are explained. I have only applied my unit to a carburetted engine; I have never attempted an application to a fuel injected engine, nor do I make any such claim that an application of that type is easily performed, if possible at all. EVERY CUBIC FOOT OF WATER CONTAINS ABOUT 1,376 CUBIC FEET OF HYDROGEN GAS AND 680 CUBIC FEET OF OXYGEN.

rest at link

[Hook]

Yes it is possible, but it is very inefficent. The best storage density currently is with liIon batteries.

[Revolution9]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6945732.stm

Paper batteries folks.. you stack the paper to get higher voltage. Can be formed for any shape.

Paper battery offers future power


Flexible paper batteries could meet the energy demands of the next generation of gadgets, says a team of researchers. They have produced a sample slightly larger than a postage stamp that can release about 2.3 volts, enough to illuminate a small light.

But the ambition is to produce reams of paper that could one day power a car.

Professor Robert Linhardt, of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said the paper battery was a glimpse into the future of power storage.

The team behind the versatile paper, which stores energy like a conventional battery, says it can also double as a capacitor capable of releasing sudden energy bursts for high-power applications.

While a conventional battery contains a number of separate components, the paper battery integrates all of the battery components in a single structure, making it more energy efficient.

more at link...

Best Regards
Randy

[Thom1776]

The amount of electrical energy that it takes to separate oxygen from hydrogen in a water molecule has nothing to do with the energy produced from combusting that same oxygen and hydrogen. It's apples and oranges, so thermodynamics doesn't apply here. An alternator and battery supply all the electricity you need to dissociate H from O and then power an internal combustion engine.

People have been and still are driving automobiles using water instead of gasoline.

Oil, or any other "pay as you go" energy source, is one of the biggest scams that the ruling elite uses to enslave us.

Anyone who tells you that there is no free lunch is either one of "them" or has been completely brainwashed to think that way. The best thing to do is to not even argue with them. Just ignore them and proceed with what you think is possible. These people are very narrow-minded and negative and just waste your time.

There are alternatives. They just don't want you to know about them.

I am very active in alternative energy research and experimentation. I am also an advocate of Freedom and Liberty. I am on this forum for the latter and to help Ron Paul become President.

Anyone interested in alternative and free energy should actively seek out that information from other sources on the internet.

[Hook]

I've got a sure-thing perpetual motion device. Within a year it will put all the big energy companies out of business! I'll sell you the plans so you can help the process for the low price of $1000.00!! You could make it back in just days with the energy you can sell. :)

[Hook]

BTW, thermodynamics do take part, because electrolysis wastes energy in the form of heat. Also the combustion of H and O in the engine has everything to do with thermodynamics because it is a heat engine. Auto engines get about 25% efficency at best. Electric motors get over 90% conversion efficency. You would be much better off just with batteries and electric motors

[Hook]

Hydrogen sucks in every way! It is nearly impossible to store because it is so small it leaks right through metal. It has piss-poor energy storage density. It takes huge amounts of wasted energy to crack H2O. Just stick with electric motors, batteries or supercapacitors, and solar cells.

[Mesogen]

One good thing about hydrogen fuel is that it can be used for high energy output. You could potentially run an airplane or rocket on hydrogen, but not on electricity. It would make sense to use electric power to extract hydrogen for high output applications.

He he, rockets have been running on hydrogen for a long time. That big red tank on the shuttle? Tank full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.:)

All that ice falling off the Saturn V rockets is because of the extremely cold liquid hydrogen in its tanks.

And to the people talking about the water splitting car. I wonder what you would get more power out of, the car running straight off the battery, or the car running off hydrogen after being split from water by the battery?

The ultimate power source for that kind of car (the coup de ville) is a battery. But does splitting the water and then burning the hydrogen give more power than just running the car off the battery? Maybe it's more efficient? {shrug}

[Mesogen]

Hydrogen sucks in every way! It is nearly impossible to store because it is so small it leaks right through metal. It has piss-poor energy storage density. It takes huge amounts of wasted energy to crack H2O. Just stick with electric motors, batteries or supercapacitors, and solar cells.

Oh, but it's a PERFECT replacement for gasoline. That's why our govt is spending billions funding research into the "hydrogen economy." Big energy companies need some commodity that is difficult to get but you need to buy day after day. It's no good to just sell you a set of solar panels or a windmill that will last a lifetime. It's no good to replace batteries once every five years. They must have something that they control and that they can keep flowing continuously. That's the WHOLE point with hydrogen as fuel.

But then they'd get screwed when people started buying their own water splitters and hydrogen compressors.

Anyway, hydrogen is an expensive waste of time.

[Hook]

No, the conversion is far less efficient. You loose 30% in electrolysis, 75% in engine combustion. 0.7 x 0.25 = 18% conversion efficiency. Terrible when you compare to ~90% electric motor conversion efficiency.
Rockets use Liquid hydrogen and oxygen because that combination has the highest energy per MASS of any combustion process. But since it is so light, it has some of the lowest energy per VOLUME. Getting into space requires as low of mass as possible, so that is the one case where it makes sense.

[Hook]

Government is spending money on hydrogen because government=moronic. Which is why we all support Paul to reduce it.

[Revolution9]

I've got a sure-thing perpetual motion device. Within a year it will put all the big energy companies out of business! I'll sell you the plans so you can help the process for the low price of $1000.00!! You could make it back in just days with the energy you can sell. :)

The guy in the article I posted has been driving for two decades on water using an internal combustion engine, a negative pressure carburateur and a cracking tank using one extra battery for initial charge and the alternator once going for continued cracking. Yer smart alec line above went out of business years and years ago. Get an update on your knowledge..google is there just awaiting your input.

Best Regards
Randy

[Hook]

I'll keep betting on the laws of Thermodynamics. Feel free to bet on whatever you want. :)

[Revolution9]

I'll keep betting on the laws of Thermodynamics. Feel free to bet on whatever you want. :)

That's fine in a closed system..but the logic breaks down totally when I have a lake full of fuel and an engine to combust it with. According to your logic gasoline engines should obey the damned law and not work. Got any better material you wanna try out?

Best Regards
Randy

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[WannaBfree]

Hook isn't being a naysayer. From what I've researched there isn't much "net energy gain" with hydrogen. It might be ok small scale using solar. But from what I've researched it's not "the answer" to our energy problems.

There has already been someone who has come up with free energy (from the ether) - Nikola Tesla. He was labeled a kook and was ruined. Free energy is bad business.

Stanley Meyer, who invented the engine that ran on tap water, died under mysterious circumstances (poisoning). Rudolf Diesel, who designed an engine to run on vegetable oils, was found face-down in a river. Big Oil doesn't like competition, baby. That's why they buy up all the alternative energy technology, to let it collect dust.

Personally, we drive a car that runs on used vegetable oil that I get free from restaurants :) I try my best not to feed the big corporations.

[Revolution9]

OK, I'm going into "you people" mode:

Some of you people really blow my mind. Why don't you get one of those new fangled free energy cars for yourself? Why is it always, "some guy on the Internet has been doing it for 20 years...? Why is it always "the guy on the Internet says the government threatened him" not to sell the technology?

If the Department of Energy told this guy that "if (he) tried to sell prebuilt units, (he'd) have a lot of "problems," then why doesn't he just forget about selling this technology as a car and build his own power plant? He would quickly become the richest man in the world.

Think about it, people! This guy says he's smarter than Issac Newton and everybody at NASA, but he can't figure out a way to make a buck on the worlds only free energy source?

If nothing else, he could just go give the plans to somebody like Castro, who would not only go on to lead The Peoples' Energy Revolution but who would also give the inventor a lifetime supply of banana daquaris.

Ther vuy from the metal band Rampage has been driving it. The LA Times did a story on it. There are people doing this right now. Here is a home generator.
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/other_hfsystems.html
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/Wfsys02.jpg

There is also a nitrogen hydride system being perfected in Australia. I will have a look around for t..

Best Regards
Randy

[WannaBfree]

cool pics of Nikola Tesla

http://www.born-today.com/Today/pix/tesla_n2.jpg

http://www.pef.uni-lj.si/gorani/slike_fizika9.r/NikolaTesla.jpg

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[WannaBfree]

And you're still alive?

actually, many have converted their old diesels to run on veggie oil. It's not that unusual anymore. In fact, there's a bit of competition now for the free oil.

[ShaneC]

Free fuel people, watch out for taxation!

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/illinois_man_fi.php

[WannaBfree]

Free fuel people, watch out for taxation!

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/illinois_man_fi.php

yep, as it gets more popular, they'll want their cut.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[WannaBfree]

Yes, I know -- Willie Nelson and all that.

I was trying to point out what appears to be a logical disconnect in your post, whereas you suggest that those using free energy are murdered by shadowy agents of the corp-gov conspiracy, and then you say that you use free energy.

Yet, you remain unscathed.

Is this a mere oversight by the DOE or evidence of a deeper plot...?

No logical disconnect. I'm just a user, and I'm not threatening the oil industry.

Sorry, I should point out that Tesla and Meyer were not users of but developers of "free" energy. Diesel was developing an alternative to oil.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[WannaBfree]

So, the anti-free energy conspiracy is so vast that there is not one person or institution in the entire world that has been able to openly exploit this wonderous technology?

Any such group of conspirators would create enemies. And these enemies of the conspiracy would, as a matter of course, have access to greater strength than the conspirators.

Why? Because anyone who can create unlimited power would have -- unlimited power! How can the conspiracy oppose an enemy who exercises unlimited power?

Sounds like you don't believe what I had posted. That's ok. You can research it yourself pretty easily on the web if you want. For me, it's not hard to imagine that they would off someone to protect their trillions.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[WannaBfree]

Help me understand by answering my question.

The conspiring murders with "trillions" are necessarily less powerful than those who can wield unlimited power and their allies. So how is it possible for the conspiracy to succeed?

it's the same people. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) and Rockefeller (CFR). hope I understood your question correctly.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Hook]

That's fine in a closed system..but the logic breaks down totally when I have a lake full of fuel and an engine to combust it with. According to your logic gasoline engines should obey the damned law and not work. Got any better material you wanna try out?

Best Regards
Randy

No, gasoline works because the energy it contains was provided by the Sun to plants and converted to chemical energy and then accumulated over millions of years. The process is very inefficient in terms of absolute energy conversion in the sense that far less than 1% of the energy of the sun is actually converted to chemical energy in hydrocarbons. But that doesn't matter to us because it happened without us having to put work into making it happen. We can just stick a hole in the ground and get the billions of years worth of energy very cheaply. Let me put it this way: All of the energy absorbed by all of the plants over the last 2 billion years will have been used up by us in the course of 300 years.

When we actually have to do stuff to get energy from the sun, such as put up solar panels, then the cost of the energy becomes very high. As such, we want to maximize the efficency, since it is so expensive. Since the conversion efficency of electrical energy to mechanical energy is above 90%, that would be the way to go. The energy you get out of burning hydrogen is EXACTLY the same you put in to crack the H20 in a perfectly efficent system. The problem is that just the electrolysis wastes 30% of the electrical energy you put in in the form of waste heat. So already the energy stored in your hydrogen is only 70% of the electrical energy you put in. Compound that with the fact that internal combustion engines only get about 25% efficency, and you can see that the end to end efficency is close to 18%.

So why bother with the hydrogen in the first place? You already have the raw electricity, and converting directly to motion with an electric motor will make the entire system over 90% efficient. The conversion of H20 to H2 then back to H2O just adds a completely unnessisary step that wastes most of the energy.

It will work, just as you have demonstrated, but it will be incredibly inefficent. It would be like you trying to get around by sking on pavement. Sure it works, but it is a huge waste of energy.

[Revolution9]

So, the anti-free energy conspiracy is so vast that there is not one person or institution in the entire world that has been able to openly exploit this wonderous technology?

Any such group of anti-free energy conspirators would create enemies. And these enemies of the conspiracy would, as a matter of course, have access to greater strength than the conspirators.

Why? Because anyone who can create unlimited power would have -- unlimited power! How can the conspiracy oppose an enemy who exercises unlimited power?

You proceed from a faulty premise. Your first statement couched as a rhetorical fact is an appeal to a fallacious belief system. Can you identify that which YOU speak of as an anit-free energy conspiracy? It looks to me like you set up a straw man and flailed at it. I offer links for your edification pertaining to part 2 of your first rhetorical question.

http://keelynet.com/mainnew.htm
"KeelyNet is a loose network of researchers, experimenters, interested people and groups who communicate freely and share information. We long ago realized the ONLY way we will ever see these advanced technologies used in our everyday lives is by freely sharing our ideas and discoveries.

To achieve that end, we collect and correlate information from many sources which provide insights and direction toward making these goals a reality. This information is then freely and openly shared with all in the form of files and through the discussion list. Our hope is to engender novel experiments which might yield phenomena and independently reproducible results.

We try to use the K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) approach (as in limited 'pop and flash' graphics), after all, this is a content based website intended to inspire, evoke thought and induce people to question what they are told about science, physics and the nature of our reality. Should you have a project, invention or device you might like to have independently duplicated, we suggest you read two documents that might be of use in your quest;

Proof of Principle http://www.keelynet.com/pop.htm
and Technology Shareware http://www.keelynet.com/share.htm

Only if you are willing to at least provide a basic experiment that others can use to prove your principle, will anyone take any claims of success seriously."" ...more at links above

The rest of your premise proceeds from a faulty start so I do not think it is worth speaking to. Do the research. It is there and has been done by thousands of skeptic prior to yourself. KeelyNet has been around since before inline graphics.

Best Regards
Randy

[WannaBfree]

No, apparently you didn't.

You posit the existence of a world-wide conspiracy which, to protect its oil wealth, kills people who discover so-called sources of free energy. You say that they use their oil wealth to commit these murders and achieve these ends.

But this premise ignores the fact that anyone who can create unlimited free energy and who would thus become a target of the conspiracy, would, in fact, possess the means to defeat the conspirators through the use of the unlimited power which their technology produces.

How do you explain this?

They get killed.

[Hook]

I forgot to add that storage efficencies for newer batteries is above 80%. And they can release far more sudden energy bursts than combustion engines. Anyone that has seen an electric race car can attest to the fact that it will leave any gas powered racecar in the dust off the line.

[WannaBfree]

No, apparently you didn't.

You posit the existence of a world-wide conspiracy which, to protect its oil wealth, kills people who discover so-called sources of free energy. You say that they use their oil wealth to commit these murders and achieve these ends.

But this premise ignores the fact that anyone who can create unlimited free energy and who would thus become a target of the conspiracy, would, in fact, possess the means to defeat the conspirators through the use of the unlimited power which their technology produces.

How do you explain this?

btw you're adding things I didn't say. If you don't believe what I believe, it's ok with me.

[Hook]

watch this video where an electic car spanks a Porsche and a Ferrari. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qDZOBQs60w
Notice he says that the electric car is about 3 times as efficient as a gas car. That is because of the ~25% combustion engine efficency I was talking about.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Hook]

You can argue economics. You can argue physics. You can even argue common sense, but you are never going to change the mind of a true beliver. :)

[Hook]

The seduction is understandable. It would be much more poetic if it were just a cartel of oil barons standing between us and unlimited infinite energy for everyone. And that if we could just take out the enemies of truth we could reach energy utopia. The first and second laws of thermodynamics presents a much more formidable foe. But we want to belive that somewhere there is still some magic than can make life all better.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[WannaBfree]

Wow, are you being intentionally obtuse?

If someone can make free energy like you claim, THEY ARE THE MOST POWERFUL ENTITY THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN!!!!!

Do you get me so far?

This is your opinion. I don't agree with it. If they build the equipment and infrastructure to use this free energy, if they replace rival technologies, and if they find a way to prevent anyone else from having this free energy, then they could be powerful.


How can the weaker entity (the oil barons) defeat those who can produce UNLIMITED POWER FOR FREE???

It's really a very simple question.

It's a question based on your opinion that THEY ARE THE MOST POWERFUL ENTITY THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN!!!!! which I disagree with.

[Hook]

I have often wondered if there is a positive correlation between people that belive in perpetual motion to those that believe in socialism. Both are based on the seductive idea that you can get something for nothing. One attempts to violate the laws of economics, the other the laws of thermodynamics.
It would be interesting to see if someone has done a study on this.

[WannaBfree]

I don't know if they would be considered perpetual motion but I have seen a device powered by magnets. If you can imagine a tire with magnets glued to the inside of it, with a (spinning) metal item in the center.

[TheEvilDetector]

There is no free lunch, nor is there a free ride to the lunch counter.

Even if one used solar or wind power to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, creating and maintaining the system costs more than nothing.

Anyone who could create "free energy" would quickly become the richest person on the planet. Think about it.

One good thing about hydrogen fuel is that it can be used for high energy output. You could potentially run an airplane or rocket on hydrogen, but not on electricity. It would make sense to use electric power to extract hydrogen for high output applications.

DUH!!! You have to pay to maintain ANY system. Free energy REFERS to the SUN providing it to you for FREE without charging you for it. Get it?

[TheEvilDetector]

No, I can't do better because I can't break the laws of thermodynamics any more than he can. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this perpetual motion scam has been going on for hundreds of years. As much as people want a free lunch to be true, it ain't gonna happen. Read about Joe Newman and his "free" energy machine to get an idea about how far supposed inventors will go with self deception.
I know you won't belive any of this because you want to belive that our only problem is evil oil companies. That would make it poetic, but not true. I would suggest that you read some introduction to physics, esp. thermodynamics.
Again, hydrogen isn't a source of energy, it is a carrier. Ultimately, all energy we use has to come from the Sun or from nuclear.
Go ahead and start flaming away now. :)

Perpetual Motion? Who suggested that?
You are trolling.

[WannaBfree]

I don't know if they would be considered perpetual motion but I have seen a device powered by magnets. If you can imagine a tire with magnets glued to the inside of it, with a (spinning) metal item in the center.

not exactly the same as what I mentioned but the same principle

Free energy using magnets
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720789262781098637

[TheEvilDetector]

I've got a sure-thing perpetual motion device. Within a year it will put all the big energy companies out of business! I'll sell you the plans so you can help the process for the low price of $1000.00!! You could make it back in just days with the energy you can sell. :)

What the hell is wrong with you?

This technology has been around for a while. It ultimately uses the sun's energy to power mechanical devices such as cars. This is science not science fiction. Your emotionally charged remarks do not help this discussion whatsoever.

If you can't get past the brainwashing that you have been subjected to all your life, DEAL WITH IT!

[TheEvilDetector]

Hydrogen sucks in every way! It is nearly impossible to store because it is so small it leaks right through metal. It has piss-poor energy storage density. It takes huge amounts of wasted energy to crack H2O. Just stick with electric motors, batteries or supercapacitors, and solar cells.

Ok Professor, your opinion is noted.

[Hook]

Others on the board were talking about completely free energy as in things like zero point energy.

[TheEvilDetector]

He he, rockets have been running on hydrogen for a long time. That big red tank on the shuttle? Tank full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.:)

All that ice falling off the Saturn V rockets is because of the extremely cold liquid hydrogen in its tanks.

And to the people talking about the water splitting car. I wonder what you would get more power out of, the car running straight off the battery, or the car running off hydrogen after being split from water by the battery?

The ultimate power source for that kind of car (the coup de ville) is a battery. But does splitting the water and then burning the hydrogen give more power than just running the car off the battery? Maybe it's more efficient? {shrug}

Either you burn hydrogen or your recombine hydrogen with the oxygen from air to form electricity (fuel cell technology).

[Hook]

They were implying that somehow you could get more energy from burning hydrogen than they put in electrically by cracking H2O

[TheEvilDetector]

No, the conversion is far less efficient. You loose 30% in electrolysis, 75% in engine combustion. 0.7 x 0.25 = 18% conversion efficiency. Terrible when you compare to ~90% electric motor conversion efficiency.
Rockets use Liquid hydrogen and oxygen because that combination has the highest energy per MASS of any combustion process. But since it is so light, it has some of the lowest energy per VOLUME. Getting into space requires as low of mass as possible, so that is the one case where it makes sense.

Even IF what you are saying is true? Who cares?

The sun is providing all this energy for free all the time.

Besides, you do not have to use hydrogen in an internal combustion engine, instead you can use fuel cell technology.

As technology improves, efficiency improves, and all this time you still paying $0.00 for energy (except the maintenance costs which apply to any form of energy usage).

The point is that it is possible to get energy without paying for it.

Liek Rev9 said earlier, govt and big oil dont want you to do that.

[Hook]

If you look at post #45 above you can see the free energy stuff, and post #44 I try to explain why the whole hydrogen cycle is an unnessisary step in the entire process. Then in post #49 I show the power available from batteries.

[TheEvilDetector]

OK, I'm going into "you people" mode:

Some of you people really blow my mind. Why don't you get one of those new fangled free energy cars for yourself? Why is it always, "some guy on the Internet has been doing it for 20 years...? Why is it always "the guy on the Internet says the government threatened him" not to sell the technology?

If the Department of Energy told this guy that "if (he) tried to sell prebuilt units, (he'd) have a lot of "problems," then why doesn't he just forget about selling this technology as a car and build his own power plant? He would quickly become the richest man in the world.

Think about it, people! This guy says he's smarter than Issac Newton and everybody at NASA, but he can't figure out a way to make a buck on the world's only free energy source?

If nothing else, he could just go give the plans to somebody like Castro, who would not only go on to lead The Peoples' Energy Revolution, but would also give the inventor a lifetime supply of banana daquaris.

Do you have any idea how much money Govt and Big Oil would lose if we switched to water rather than gas? Do you have any idea how powerful and well connected these people at the top are? That is why, this is going to be supressed as long as possible.

[TheEvilDetector]

Hook isn't being a naysayer. From what I've researched there isn't much "net energy gain" with hydrogen. It might be ok small scale using solar. But from what I've researched it's not "the answer" to our energy problems.

There has already been someone who has come up with free energy (from the ether) - Nikola Tesla. He was labeled a kook and was ruined. Free energy is bad business.

Stanley Meyer, who invented the engine that ran on tap water, died under mysterious circumstances (poisoning). Rudolf Diesel, who designed an engine to run on vegetable oils, was found face-down in a river. Big Oil doesn't like competition, baby. That's why they buy up all the alternative energy technology, to let it collect dust.

Personally, we drive a car that runs on used vegetable oil that I get free from restaurants :) I try my best not to feed the big corporations.

The energy ultimately comes from the sun, it is free because last time I checked, sun wasn't charging you for daylight.

[Hook]

There are two seperate problems brought up by different people:

1- For the people that understand the energy comes from the sun:
The hydrogen cycle is a huge waste of energy because it cannot compete with battery technology as far a storage efficency and storage/volume. Converting water to hydrogen does NOT give you more energy burning the hydrogen than you put in with electricity. In fact you get much less out than you put in. Solar power doesn't have zero cost because of capital and opportunity costs of buying the equipment. That is why we haven't converted 100% to solar cells yet.

2- For the people that belive in perpetual motion:
There is no such thing as getting something for nothing. Hydrogen is simply a storage of energy, not a producer of it. You have to get the original energy either from the Sun or from nuclear. There is no free lunch.

[Hook]

You can't get energy from tap water any more than you can get energy from an unwound spring. The spring can store energy if you wind it up with some external source. So the "tap water car" is just a pipe dream. (Pardon the pun)

[TheEvilDetector]

If you look at post #45 above you can see the free energy stuff, and post #44 I try to explain why the whole hydrogen cycle is an unnessisary step in the entire process. Then in post #49 I show the power available from batteries.

Whether or not hydrogen is "unnecessary". The fundamental point is this:

YOU CAN GET ENERGY FOR FREE FROM THE SUN.

I am sure there are valid reasons why hydrogen used in the process. Hydrogen can make electricity directly, it doesn't have to be burned (fuel cell). Maybe its simpler to replace hydrogen tank in the car, than batteries, who knows? Maybe there are more complex reasons for it.

This guy (3rd guy in video) gets 300 miles out of his car on a full tank of hydrogen and battery and he doesn't pay big oil or government anything. That is the point also.

PS. Maintenance costs apply to any form of energy

[Hook]

You and I both agree that we can get energy from the sun. Others have been arguing that Hydrogen provides more energy by splitting water than you put in (A form of perpetual motion). And other people in this thread have been arguing that you don't even need the Sun to get "free" energy. I think you may have missed some of the posts I am talking about.

[Hook]

Now, if you could find a way to use solar power to attach hydrogen atoms to carbons into a long chain to make gasoline, then you would have something that would be much better than batteries because the energy density of gasoline is at least an order of magnitude better than the latest battery technology.

[TheEvilDetector]

You and I both agree that we can get energy from the sun. Others have been arguing that Hydrogen provides more energy by splitting water than you put in (A form of perpetual motion). And other people in this thread have been arguing that you don't even need the Sun to get "free" energy. I think you may have missed some of the posts I am talking about.

Whether or not it is true I never made the claim that you can get more energy out of hydrogen than the energy required when you split water nor have I made the claim that you do not need the sun.

All I am saying is this:

1) Use sun to power your home, use excess electricity to split water to store hydrogen (you could store the excess electricity in batteries also).

2) Use stored electricity in batteries or hydrogen tanks in the car.

3) If you use hydrogen you can either burn it or you can recombine it with oxygen (which I think is a preferred mechanism) to generate electricity.

4) I am not 100% sure about this, but I think the guy used hydrogen for heating and cooking possibly in his home.

That's all I am saying.

I am sure that there were good reasons why the guy in the 3rd video chose to replace hydrogen tanks in his car, rather than replacing batteries. Maybe he even replaced both, who knows.

So, when you are doing all of this, you pay for initial technology and maintenance yes, but you do not pay for the energy itself.

Since the costs would come down (if govt and big oil weren't in collusion to prevent this) this would be available to everyone.

The days of having to fight wars over oil would come to an end and also pollution would be drastically reduced because the end product is water.

[WannaBfree]

The energy ultimately comes from the sun, it is free because last time I checked, sun wasn't charging you for daylight.

Yes, I completely agree with you. But i do agree with Hook regarding the net energy gain/loss. And also that it is not a source of energy but storage of it.

You guys should look up Steven Harris. Lotsa good info. I got his books and DVDs. He has free online survival lectures and lotsa good info. Check him out!

http://www.stevenharris.net/

http://www.knowledgepublications.com/

[Hook]

We are in violent agreement :) Most of my posts were directed at others in this thread.

[WannaBfree]

Yes, I completely agree with you. But i do agree with Hook regarding the net energy gain/loss. And also that it is not a source of energy but storage of it.

You guys should look up Steven Harris. Lotsa good info. I got his books and DVDs. He has free online survival lectures and lotsa good info. Check him out!

http://www.stevenharris.net/

http://www.knowledgepublications.com/

oh, someone had mentioned here on the forum about meeting Steve Harris at a RP rally and from the sound of it, it was the same guy. So he is probably a RP supporter.

[Hook]

So go to www.nanosolar.com when they get their process down to ~$0.25/Watt (Right now solar is about $3.50 to $4.00/Watt), you can cover your roof with panels and get off the grid. Just don't waste your energy with H2O cracking. Use batteries because they are far more efficent and energy dense.
I think we are all just saying the same thing in different ways.

[WannaBfree]

So go to www.nanosolar.com when they get their process down to ~$0.25/Watt (Right now solar is about $3.50 to $4.00/Watt), you can cover your roof with panels and get off the grid. Just don't waste your energy with H2O cracking. Use batteries because they are far more efficent and energy dense.
I think we are all just saying the same thing in different ways.

and then recharge the battery with solar?

EDIT
never mind I went to the link

[Hook]

Exactly!

[Hook]

The folks at Google just invested $100 million into nanosolar. They supposedly have a way of inkjet printing solar panels which should bring the price down to almost zero. Of course they will charge what the going rate is, so the prices won't really come down until they dominate the entire market. They just moved into a huge new manufacturing facility a few months ago.

[WannaBfree]

The folks at Google just invested $100 million into nanosolar. They supposedly have a way of inkjet printing solar panels which should bring the price down to almost zero. Of course they will charge what the going rate is, so the prices won't really come down until they dominate the entire market. They just moved into a huge new manufacturing facility a few months ago.

any idea of a timeframe on this stuff?

will this work on cloudy days?

also, what is the best type of battery available now that can be recharged?

[WannaBfree]

I think I just thought of one negative point in the battery vs. hydrogen debate. Won't the batteries eventually die? Or not? On a desert island, would one rather have a battery system or a hydrogen system?

[Hook]

Well, the nanosolar site says they are already ramping up, but that they are still doing environmental tests to make sure their products can last in weather, etc. I don't have any other info other than their web site.
Solar power works on cloudy days, but usually only at like 50% of a clear day (depending on how dark the clouds are. They won't work at all in a blizzard).
The ideal battery depends on application. For cars, you want the highest energy density, so Lithium Ion Polymers would probably be what you want. Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_polymer_battery.
If you want to keep your house running overnight, you probably don't care about energy density as much as you do about cost per unit of energy storage. In that case I would think that Nickel metal hydrides would be better. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NiMH
There are other technologies like supercapacitors that I think will ultimately be the winner, but they are still more expensive.

[Hook]

Batteries eventually die, hydrogen eventually leaks out or you use either one up. They are both simply different storage mechanisms. Batteries are more energy dense.

[WannaBfree]

Well, the nanosolar site says they are already ramping up, but that they are still doing environmental tests to make sure their products can last in weather, etc. I don't have any other info other than their web site.
Solar power works on cloudy days, but usually only at like 50% of a clear day (depending on how dark the clouds are. They won't work at all in a blizzard).
The ideal battery depends on application. For cars, you want the highest energy density, so Lithium Ion Polymers would probably be what you want. Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_polymer_battery.
If you want to keep your house running overnight, you probably don't care about energy density as much as you do about cost per unit of energy storage. In that case I would think that Nickel metal hydrides would be better. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NiMH
There are other technologies like supercapacitors that I think will ultimately be the winner, but they are still more expensive.


thank you for this good info!

These things work on cloudy days for generating heat anyway. I've seen it demonstrated a year ago when they were quite new over here. They're common I understand in Europe/Australia.

Evacuated Tube
http://www.discountpv.com/solaratticfans/ASW52-B

[Hook]

In fact the Lithium Ion Polymers are almost as energy dense as gasoline if you consider the 25% combustion efficency of gasolline engines. I would guess that they will come down in price over the next few years where almost all laptops use them as well as hybrid and electric cars.

[Hook]

In fact, if batteries get about twice as energy dense as they are now, airplanes will probably start using them with electric motors to run the propeller. You can get a lot more power per volume from an electric motor than a gas engine. Although I don't think they can compete with jet engines.

[WannaBfree]

Unfortunately this great stuff is always a few years away. I fear that energy prices will skyrocket before that. I've been reading about $100/barrell oil in the news lately. China and India modernizing while major oil fields are in decline. I'm sure you understand the effect that will have on prices, considering that everything is either made of, made using, or transported using oil, and also considering that food is grown using petroleum based fertilizers, worked using petroleum based machinery, and transported by truck (to stores also suffering from higher costs). It could be quite a disaster. Most people just think of higher oil prices in terms of the price at the pump.

I'm signing off. Thanks again for the great info (I copy/pasted it to a personal file). Don't forget to check out Steven Harris - he's a Ron Paul supporter :)

[PennCustom4RP]

You guys should look up Steven Harris.


Ah Steve Harris, excellent bassist for Iron Maiden...

I got parched catching up reading all this...need another beer....Cya:D

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[TheEvilDetector]

Do you have any idea how much money Govt and The Ag Industry would lose if people realized that used toliet paper is not only edible, but also delicious? Do you have any idea how powerful and well connected these people at the top are? That is why, this is going to be supressed as long as possible.

ok... you win.. ha... ha...........................*cough* ha

[TheEvilDetector]

DUH!!! Then OIL is FREE ENERGY, TOO!!!

Because you have to pay to maintain ANY system. Free oil REFERS to ANCIENT ORGANIC MATERIALS providing it to you for FREE without charging you for it. Get it?

Sun provides energy for free, you use it directly, you do not have to pay any company or government any money once the system to catch solar energy is in place.

With oil on the other hand you have to pay for it at the gas station. The money you pay covers costs in digging it up, transporting it, separating it into various components, profits and government taxes.

Another way to look at it, is to say, there is no middle men in solar. There is just you and your solar panels.

I fail to see the point of your post, except as perhaps being an oversimplification of my argument to make yourself look like an arrogant fool.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[TheEvilDetector]

I'll take you at your word, as the logic presented regarding used TP is identical to the logic you use to "prove" your point about the anti-free energy conspiracy.

You know, in all likelihood it never occurred to you, that there are times, when intelligence is not about proving your powers at dismantling something verbatim, rather being able to infer "common sense" around the post.

You fail at life because you cannot reason from circumstance.

PS. The example you gave about toilet paper? Does it not strike you as odd in that it is factually incorrect, completely irrelevant, wholly unequivalent and overwhelmingly bogus?

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[TheEvilDetector]

Take a look at the solar and wind power maps of Western Pennsylvania where I live. You will see that this region receives less sunlight than anywhere else in the Continental US and that our hilly terrain makes it difficult to position windmills to capture a sustained amount of wind.

However, oil and gas wells are common around here, even on residential properties. Just check some of the real estate listings. I can also easily pick up several pounds of coal simply by taking a walk in the woods.

I fail to see how opening the eyes God gave me as I travel around my world make me an arrogant fool.

Not all areas receive the same amount of solar energy and wind. Does this remove middle man argument? No.

Is massive scale implementation of solar and wind something that government and big oil do not want to deal with? Yes

You took my post and made fun of it. Arrogant? Yes. You then twisted my post out of context of this entire thread and made it look like it had no merit, even though it did. Fool? Yes.

PS. Let me guess, you are trying to make it look like private individuals can just as easily use oil, gas and coal in their natural state to provide them with energy? In other words, you imply that if private individuals run private oil/gas/coal extraction operations it is exactly like solar panels on the roof of one's house in terms of costs and dare I add pollution.

[TheEvilDetector]

There you go again, theorizing about things which you know nothing about.

I'll say it one more time: there is no car that runs for free on water. There are no perpetual motion machines. No one is being murdered by Big Oil/Government except a few thousand US troops, a half million Iraqis and probably some Africans who no one cares enough to put on the evening news.

Water refers to that which contains hydrogen. Granted, I did not include solar in the title. What I had in mind was the use of solar to extract hydrogen out of water. Then use hydrogen either in Hydrogen ICE or in FUEL CELL. Free Energy? Yes (if you do not count initial and maintenance costs, which are applicable to all forms of energy anyway).

Frankly, you could technically refuel the car with water, if you had decent solar panels on the outward surfaces. The car would be constantly recharging whether moving or not.
The car would be constantly generating H2 whether moving or not and storing energy in battery whether moving or not.

There was a dude on this thread, talking about inefficiency of the H2 and water in the cycle, he may have some merit. H2 use is optional I suppose. You could have solar charging battery directly.

In 3rd video in OP, the guy uses Solar Panels on the roof of his house. He explains the whole concept very well.

PS. With a car using solar to create H2 out of water, and FUEL CELL to recombine it with O2 to make water maybe one day it will be possible to create a car that needs only the very minimal refuelling (water).

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[TheEvilDetector]

I gave you an example where I have personally witnessed thousands of people procuring gas and oil without the intervention of middle men. But you ignore this as readily as you ignore the laws of physics.

And while it is certainly true that petro-energy companies have a vested interest in blocking other forms of energy production from reaching maturity, this is a million miles away from the "perpetual motion machine" mentality displayed in this thread.

1. You have personally witnessed thousands of people procuring gas and oil without the intervention of middle men? Perhaps you care to provide more detail?

1b. Even if it was true that a man could legally, safely and individually get the crude oil out of the ground, refine it to be usable in his vehicle etc. This would most certainly end up being very expensive, it would be cheaper one would think, to just buy the gas at the station. Same applies to gas and coal.

2. I do not talk about perpetual motion machines. I made it clear that the energy in the system comes from solar, H2 is just a carrier and is not always necessary.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[pyrazole2]

He's right. I'm in WV, and I bought mineral rights along with the land that my house is on. I have free natural gas, and the gas company pays me for what the outgoing meter reads. I run a nat gas truck, but still use gasoline for the 'nice' car.

I recall General Electric actually produced a home fuel cell about 10 years ago. Apparently the purchase and maintenance of the unit was about $60,000/yr on average.

Solar can work, it still requires a lot of cost in the replacement of batteries, but the upfront costs have come down considerably (about 10k for a 3000 kWh system).

[Hook]

The reason solar is so expensive is that it uses the same process as silicon chips to manufacture, at least with polycrystaline cells. It has been steadily coming down in price over the last 30 years and volume has consistently grown by about 30% a year over the last 20 years.
It's not so much of a huge conspiracy of oil companies as much as an economic problem of ROI. In fact BP has invested heavily into photovoltaics and is one of the largest manufacturer of PV cell, along with Siemens. Solar costs about $4/watt whereas coal plants cost about $1.00/watt initial startup costs. The ROI of solar cells still isn't worth it, but probably will be within 5-10 years. Check out the www.nanosolar.com site I was talking about earlier for big news in this area.

The perpeutal motion stuff was coming from other posters on this thread, so don't take every argument as being directed to you directly. Esp. read about the guy saying that someone invented a tapwater car (No solar or any other energy) and ended up dead from the big oil mafia.

[Hook]

Unfortunately this great stuff is always a few years away. I fear that energy prices will skyrocket before that. I've been reading about $100/barrell oil in the news lately. China and India modernizing while major oil fields are in decline. I'm sure you understand the effect that will have on prices, considering that everything is either made of, made using, or transported using oil, and also considering that food is grown using petroleum based fertilizers, worked using petroleum based machinery, and transported by truck (to stores also suffering from higher costs). It could be quite a disaster. Most people just think of higher oil prices in terms of the price at the pump.

I'm signing off. Thanks again for the great info (I copy/pasted it to a personal file). Don't forget to check out Steven Harris - he's a Ron Paul supporter :)

If energy costs go way up, then people will start investing massive amounts of resources into alt energy because it will then become economically viable. I wouldn't worry about the people saying the end of the world is around the corner. The free market will provide solutions because someone can make a fortune providing it.
I'll check out the Steve Harris site though. Thanks much.

[TheEvilDetector]

Ah, there's the problem -- you don't actually bother to read what's given to you. As I said:

"Oil and gas wells are common around here, even on residential properties. Just check some of the real estate listings."

Here's a link for you:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pennsylvania+real+estate+%22free+gas%22&btnG=Google+Search

Ok. If the private individual has an oil extraction operation going on and an oil refinery operation going on producing usable gas for the car, than that's quite an achievement!

I am fairly certain though it is expensive to physically extract and then refine oil.

Much more so, than having passive solar panels just laying there generating electricity for you, without you or any machinery having to any heavy physical and chemical processing.

Furthermore, I wonder if all the citizens in USA could do that? Let me save you answering that. NO, oil/gas/coal hasn't managed to get under every household just yet.

PS. So if there are natural buried resources under your household then it makes alot of sense to just sell it to someone who does this for a living, like big oil and collect the profits. This is however, not the point of the discussion because we are not talking about making money from resources, but instead not spending money unnecessarily. Although, come to think of it, excess solar electricity somehow dumped into the grid or stored in batteries to be sold could potentially be a source of revenue. Solar and wind are free energy forms to me because of the virtually zero cost of acquisition. Also they will always be around, as long as earth is around. The sun and wind aren't going anywhere soon, but oil, gas and coal will run out eventually. Also, there is the whole pollution angle where coal, gas and coal pollute and solar and wind do not. We will have to switch inevitably, the sooner the better, for the average citizen, for the environment and for peace.

PPS. Technology is going to bring in a lot of decentralisation. Internet has decentralised information = Death to Old Media. Alternatives such as solar are going to decentralise energy supply = Death to Old Energy. Sometimes when people about to die they go into violent spasms. It seems to me that the oil wars we have now are like those violent spasms before old energy dies. Early 21st century is an age of revolutions: revolution of the media, revolution of energy, revolution of politics and other revolutions so these are interesting times.

Hopefully we won't nuke ourselves out of existence before these revolutions run their course.

PPPS. Free market is all well and good, but it is my opinion, that alt. energy has been suppressed despite the free market.

[Revolution9]

There you go again, theorizing about things which you know nothing about.

I'll say it one more time: there is no car that runs for free on water. .

here ya go sticking claims in others mouths and then hacking and flailng at it. The water used to drive the car can be had for nothing. Ther battery used during operation costs money to replace every six months or a year. It costs for the oil to lubricate the engine. So..no..it ain't free but costs loess than a penny per mile. You need to update your knowledge base and arguments about three decades.

Regards
Randy

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[TheEvilDetector]

OK Guys,

The magic pixie that lives under my garden wall told me that you are right and I am wrong.

In fact, he drove by in his magic pixie car that runs on dew drops and the scent of clover. What fun we had, tra la la, all day long.

You are being immature.

I added a qualifying statement near the top of OP, to make things clearer for some.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[TheEvilDetector]

The reason solar is so expensive is that it uses the same process as silicon chips to manufacture, at least with polycrystaline cells. It has been steadily coming down in price over the last 30 years and volume has consistently grown by about 30% a year over the last 20 years.
It's not so much of a huge conspiracy of oil companies as much as an economic problem of ROI. In fact BP has invested heavily into photovoltaics and is one of the largest manufacturer of PV cell, along with Siemens. Solar costs about $4/watt whereas coal plants cost about $1.00/watt initial startup costs. The ROI of solar cells still isn't worth it, but probably will be within 5-10 years. Check out the www.nanosolar.com site I was talking about earlier for big news in this area.

The perpeutal motion stuff was coming from other posters on this thread, so don't take every argument as being directed to you directly. Esp. read about the guy saying that someone invented a tapwater car (No solar or any other energy) and ended up dead from the big oil mafia.

"ROI of solar cells still isnt worth it" ??

This is a sweeping statement and it cannot possibly be accurate in all instances.

I am sure that many people would welcome solar panel installation on top of their owned homes, provided there was more activity in this area ie. more advertising, more incentives, more of a market, more awareness etc etc etc.

It is not something that the government and big oil would be happy about since it would directly eat into their revenues. One house off the grid, one less customer to rip off.

Judging from the information I have seen solar can pay itself off in 3 years or so. So if you own a home or if you are in a long term mortgage, it makes all the sense in the world to go solar.

[TheEvilDetector]

But if you don't TRULY believe in fairies, then Tinkerbell will DIE!

Clap, everybody, clap your hands! Clap for Tinkerbell and the car that runs on tap water!

WTF Darren? Too much coffee?

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[TheEvilDetector]

Not enough, actually. Gotta go get a cup now.

In the meantime, maybe one of the moderators could move this thread to "Not So Hot Topics."

LOL

[Mesogen]

Either you burn hydrogen or your recombine hydrogen with the oxygen from air to form electricity (fuel cell technology).

I don't know exactly what you are replying to.

yeah, I know how hydrogen as a fuel works, but you have to produce the hydrogen chemically to use it as a fuel. Then you have to compress it so you can store it and transport it. Producing it alone requires more energy than you get out of the hydrogen. Compressing it requires even more energy on top of that. This is dumb for powering cars. It's great for rockets, because for now, we're not worried about energy efficiency for rockets. We just want a lot of power all at once.

For cars, you might as well just charge batteries and run the car on that.

Right now, hydrogen fuel cells are not totally viable for commercial markets. It's a technology that hasn't been fully worked out yet. For info on the problems with hydrogen fuel cells, look at the Wikipedia page under "Fuel cell design issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_cell

Also they require a pretty fair amount of platinum (until a cheaper yet comparably good catalyst can be found) which is a rare metal. Is there enough platinum in the world to power everyone's cars? I guess we can raid all the old catalytic converters in the junkyards for some of it.


Now, if you could find a way to use solar power to attach hydrogen atoms to carbons into a long chain to make gasoline, then you would have something that would be much better than batteries because the energy density of gasoline is at least an order of magnitude better than the latest battery technology.

If you use focus solar heat onto a Fisher-Tropsch process then you've got it made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher-Tropsch_process

He he, well you have to make the sygas first (CO + H2) from methane or from coal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas


But these are energy intensive processes. Why not just use the original coal to produce electricity and store it in a car battery, or run the car on methane, like some buses already do?

The ONE advantage hydrogen (or any fluid fuel) has over batteries is charge time. You can charge a canister of H2 (or gasoline or whatever) in a convenient amount of time, while it takes much longer to charge a battery.

[TheEvilDetector]

I don't know exactly what you are replying to.

yeah, I know how hydrogen as a fuel works, but you have to produce the hydrogen chemically to use it as a fuel. Then you have to compress it so you can store it and transport it. Producing it alone requires more energy than you get out of the hydrogen. Compressing it requires even more energy on top of that. This is dumb for powering cars. It's great for rockets, because for now, we're not worried about energy efficiency for rockets. We just want a lot of power all at once.

For cars, you might as well just charge batteries and run the car on that.

Right now, hydrogen fuel cells are not totally viable for commercial markets. It's a technology that hasn't been fully worked out yet. For info on the problems with hydrogen fuel cells, look at the Wikipedia page under "Fuel cell design issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_cell

Also they require a pretty fair amount of platinum (until a cheaper yet comparably good catalyst can be found) which is a rare metal. Is there enough platinum in the world to power everyone's cars? I guess we can raid all the old catalytic converters in the junkyards for some of it.



If you use focus solar heat onto a Fisher-Tropsch process then you've got it made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher-Tropsch_process

He he, well you have to make the sygas first (CO + H2) from methane or from coal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas


But these are energy intensive processes. Why not just use the original coal to produce electricity and store it in a car battery, or run the car on methane, like some buses already do?

The ONE advantage hydrogen (or any fluid fuel) has over batteries is charge time. You can charge a canister of H2 (or gasoline or whatever) in a convenient amount of time, while it takes much longer to charge a battery.

From: http://www.bullnet.co.uk/shops/test/hydrogen.htm

"Hydrogen fuel cells

What Is A Fuel Cell?

In principle, a fuel cell operates like a battery. Unlike a battery, a fuel cell does not run down or require recharging. It will produce energy in the form of electricity and heat as long as fuel is supplied.

A fuel cell consists of two electrodes sandwiched around an electrolyte. Oxygen passes over one electrode and hydrogen over the other, generating electricity, water and heat.

A fuel cell produces electricity.

The fuel cell is similar to a battery. It produces electricity using chemicals. The chemicals are usually very simple, often just hydrogen and oxygen. In this case the hydrogen is the "fuel" that the fuel cell uses to make electricity.

Another very important difference is that fuel cells do not run down like batteries. As long as the fuel and oxygen is supplied to the cell it will keep producing electricty for ever.

The oxygen needed by a fuel cell is usually simply obtained from air.

Although the majority of fuel cells use hydrogen as the fuel, some fuel cells work off methane, and a few use liquid fuels such as methanol.

Fuel cells that use hydrogen can be thought of as devices that do the reverse of the well known experiment where passing an electric current through water splits it up into hydrogen and oxygen. In the fuel cell hydrogen and oxygen are joined together to produce water and electricty.

Fuel cells can be made in a huge range of sizes. They can be used to produce quite small amounts of electric power, for devices such as portable computers or radio transmitters, right up to very high powers for electric power stations.

Hydrogen fuel is fed into the "anode" of the fuel cell. Oxygen (or air) enters the fuel cell through the cathode. Encouraged by a catalyst, the hydrogen atom splits into a proton and an electron, which take different paths to the cathode. The proton passes through the electrolyte. The electrons create a separate current that can be utilized before they return to the cathode, to be reunited with the hydrogen and oxygen in a molecule of water.

A fuel cell system which includes a "fuel reformer" can utilize the hydrogen from any hydrocarbon fuel - from natural gas to methanol, and even gasoline. Since the fuel cell relies on chemistry and not combustion, emissions from this type of a system would still be much smaller than emissions from the cleanest fuel combustion processes.


BENEFITS OF FUEL CELLS

New Markets. Fuel cell power system markets could exceed $3 billion worldwide by 2000, according to a recent Arthur D. Little, Inc., study.

* A mere one percent of the global vehicle market, 450,000 vehicles, would mean an another $2 billion or more.
* Another recent study projected global demand for transportation fuel cells in 2007 at $9 billion.

Energy Security. U.S. energy dependence is higher today than it was during the "oil shock" of the 1970's, and oil imports are projected to increase. Passenger vehicles alone consume 6 million barrels of oil every single day, equivalent to 85% of oil imports.

* If just 20 percent of cars used fuel cells, we could cut oil imports by 1.5 million barrels every day.
* If every new vehicle sold in the U.S. next year was equipped with a 60kw fuel cell, we would double the amount of the country's available electricity supply.
* 10,000 fuel cell vehicles running on non-petroleum fuel would reduce oil consumption by 6.98 million gallons per year.

Clean and Efficient. Fuel cells could dramatically reduce urban air pollution, decrease oil imports, reduce the trade deficit and produce American jobs.

The U.S. Department of Energy projects that if a mere 10% of automobiles nationwide were powered by fuel cells, regulated air pollutants would be cut by one million tons per year and 60 million tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide would be eliminated. DOE projects that the same number of fuel cell cars would cut oil imports by 800,000 barrels a day -- about 13 percent of total imports.
Fuel Cell Emissions

Fuel cells running on hydrogen derived from a renewable source will be nothing but water vapor. In fact, the following chart shows a comparison of the water vapor and carbon monoxide emissions from fuel cells, running on a variety of fuels, as compared to an internal combustion engine.
Engine Type Water Vapor/mile Carbon Dioxide/mile
Gasoline Combustion 0.39 lb. 0.85 lb.
Fuel Cell Running on Hydrogen from Gasoline 0.32 lb. 0.70 lb.
Fuel Cell Running on Hydrogen from Methane 0.25 lb. 0.15 lb.
Fuel Cell Running on Renewable Hydrogen 0.25 lb. 0.00 lb.

Courtesy of Jeremy Snyder, Desert Research Institute



Economic Growth: Fuel cells could create new markets for steel, electronics, electrical and control industries and other equipment suppliers. They could provide tens of thousands of high-quality jobs and reduce trade deficits. The consulting firm Arthur D. Little projects that fuel cell sales could reach $3 billion by the year 2000, with a market of 1,500-2,000 MW per year. The consultants estimate that each 1,000 MW will create 5,000 jobs. If just 20 percent of cars used fuel cells, 800,000 jobs would be created.


Frequently Asked Questions about Fuel Cells

Where did fuel cells come from?

The first fuel cell was built in 1839 by Sir William Grove, a Welsh judge and gentleman scientist. Serious interest in the fuel cell as a practical generator did not begin until the 1960's, when the U.S. space program chose fuel cells over riskier nuclear power and more expensive solar energy. Fuel cells furnished power for the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, and still provide electricity and water for the space shuttle.

What sort of fuels can be used in a fuel cell?

Fuel cells can promote energy diversity and a transition to renewable energy sources. Hydrogen -- the most abundant element on Earth -- can be used directly. Fuel cells can also utilize fuel containing hydrogen, including methanol, ethanol, natural gas, and even gasoline or diesel fuel. Fuels containing hydrgoen generally require a "fuel reformer" that extracts the hydrogen. Energy also could be supplied by biomass, wind, solar power or other renewable sources. Fuel cells today are running on many different fuels, even gas from landfills and wastewater treatment plants.

How would a fuel cell-powered car compare to one powered by a battery?

Fuel cell automobiles are an attractive advance from battery-powered cars. They offer the advantages of battery-powered vehicles but can also be refueled quickly and could go longer between refuelings.

Fuel cells utilizing hydrogen as a fuel would be zero emission vehicles, and those using other fuels would produce near-zero emissions. They are also more efficient than "grid"-powered battery vehicles. In addition, fuel cell cars could produce fewer "system-wide" releases of greenhouse gases -- taking into account all emissions associated with resource recovery, fuel processing and use.

Studies by General Motors and Ford noted that fuel cell car engines could be built for about the same price as an internal combustion engine.

How much do fuel cells cost?

One company commercially offers fuel cell power plants for about $3,000 pwer kilowatt. At that price, the units are competitive in high value, "niche" markets, and in areas where electricity prices are high and natural gas prices low.

A study by Arthur D. Little, Inc., predicted that when fuel cell costs drop below $1,500 per kilowatt, they will achieve market penetration nationwide. Several Companies are selling small units for research purposes. Prices vary.

Fuel cells will have to be much cheaper to become commercial in vehicles. Conventional car engines cost about $3,000 to manufacture. More research is needed to bring the cost of fuel cells down to that level, but officials at DaimlerChrysler have pledged to have a viable, commercial fuel cell vehicle available in 2004.

What's holding back use of fuel cells?

Fuel cells are still a young technology. Many technical and engineering challenges remain; scientists and developers are hard at work on them. The biggest problem is that fuel cells are still too expensive. One key reason is that not enough are being made to allow economies of scale. When the Model T Ford was introduced, it, too, was very expensive. Eventually, mass production made the Model T affordable."

[pyrazole2]

Solar and wind are free energy forms to me because of the virtually zero cost of acquisition.

Solar: 10k+ startup and about $1500/yr for batteries. Conservative estimate and assuming your $8k solar panels don't blow off the house.

Wind: Not as familiar because it's pretty useless where I live...but you still have to buy the thing.



Right now, hydrogen fuel cells are not totally viable for commercial markets. It's a technology that hasn't been fully worked out yet. For info on the problems with hydrogen fuel cells, look at the Wikipedia page under "Fuel cell design issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_cell

You're right about that! GE was selling a 'home fuel cell' about 8-10 years ago. I knew someone who jumped on that bandwagon. His 1st year maintenance costs alone were $18,000 (not to mention the $25k he paid for it). You have to replace membranes and electrodes all the time.

[Revolution9]

OK Guys,

The magic pixie that lives under my garden wall told me that you are right and I am wrong.

In fact, he drove by in his magic pixie car that runs on dew drops and the scent of clover. What fun we had, tra la la, all day long.

Troll. Contribute to the debate and stick to the topic or fuck off. Weren't you a Kerry supporter in 04?? What are you doing here?

Best Of Regards
Randy

[TheEvilDetector]

Solar: 10k+ startup and about $1500/yr for batteries. Conservative estimate and assuming your $8k solar panels don't blow off the house.

Wind: Not as familiar because it's pretty useless where I live...but you still have to buy the thing.



You're right about that! GE was selling a 'home fuel cell' about 8-10 years ago. I knew someone who jumped on that bandwagon. His 1st year maintenance costs alone were $18,000 (not to mention the $25k he paid for it). You have to replace membranes and electrodes all the time.

Ok, lets hope the panels don't blow off.

Let's talk about running costs, you mentioned $1500/yr on batteries? Can you provide some support for that number?

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Mesogen]

From: http://www.bullnet.co.uk/shops/test/hydrogen.htm

"Hydrogen fuel cells

What Is A Fuel Cell?

In principle, a fuel cell operates like a battery. Unlike a battery, a fuel cell does not run down or require recharging. It will produce energy in the form of electricity and heat as long as fuel is supplied.

A fuel cell consists of two electrodes sandwiched around an electrolyte. Oxygen passes over one electrode and hydrogen over the other, generating electricity, water and heat.

A fuel cell produces electricity.

The fuel cell is similar to a battery. It produces electricity using chemicals. The chemicals are usually very simple, often just hydrogen and oxygen. In this case the hydrogen is the "fuel" that the fuel cell uses to make electricity.

Another very important difference is that fuel cells do not run down like batteries. As long as the fuel and oxygen is supplied to the cell it will keep producing electricty for ever.

The oxygen needed by a fuel cell is usually simply obtained from air.

Although the majority of fuel cells use hydrogen as the fuel, some fuel cells work off methane, and a few use liquid fuels such as methanol.

Fuel cells that use hydrogen can be thought of as devices that do the reverse of the well known experiment where passing an electric current through water splits it up into hydrogen and oxygen. In the fuel cell hydrogen and oxygen are joined together to produce water and electricty.

Fuel cells can be made in a huge range of sizes. They can be used to produce quite small amounts of electric power, for devices such as portable computers or radio transmitters, right up to very high powers for electric power stations.

Hydrogen fuel is fed into the "anode" of the fuel cell. Oxygen (or air) enters the fuel cell through the cathode. Encouraged by a catalyst, the hydrogen atom splits into a proton and an electron, which take different paths to the cathode. The proton passes through the electrolyte. The electrons create a separate current that can be utilized before they return to the cathode, to be reunited with the hydrogen and oxygen in a molecule of water.

A fuel cell system which includes a "fuel reformer" can utilize the hydrogen from any hydrocarbon fuel - from natural gas to methanol, and even gasoline. Since the fuel cell relies on chemistry and not combustion, emissions from this type of a system would still be much smaller than emissions from the cleanest fuel combustion processes.


BENEFITS OF FUEL CELLS

New Markets. Fuel cell power system markets could exceed $3 billion worldwide by 2000, according to a recent Arthur D. Little, Inc., study.

* A mere one percent of the global vehicle market, 450,000 vehicles, would mean an another $2 billion or more.
* Another recent study projected global demand for transportation fuel cells in 2007 at $9 billion.

Energy Security. U.S. energy dependence is higher today than it was during the "oil shock" of the 1970's, and oil imports are projected to increase. Passenger vehicles alone consume 6 million barrels of oil every single day, equivalent to 85% of oil imports.

* If just 20 percent of cars used fuel cells, we could cut oil imports by 1.5 million barrels every day.
* If every new vehicle sold in the U.S. next year was equipped with a 60kw fuel cell, we would double the amount of the country's available electricity supply.
* 10,000 fuel cell vehicles running on non-petroleum fuel would reduce oil consumption by 6.98 million gallons per year.

Clean and Efficient. Fuel cells could dramatically reduce urban air pollution, decrease oil imports, reduce the trade deficit and produce American jobs.

The U.S. Department of Energy projects that if a mere 10% of automobiles nationwide were powered by fuel cells, regulated air pollutants would be cut by one million tons per year and 60 million tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide would be eliminated. DOE projects that the same number of fuel cell cars would cut oil imports by 800,000 barrels a day -- about 13 percent of total imports.
Fuel Cell Emissions

Fuel cells running on hydrogen derived from a renewable source will be nothing but water vapor. In fact, the following chart shows a comparison of the water vapor and carbon monoxide emissions from fuel cells, running on a variety of fuels, as compared to an internal combustion engine.
Engine Type Water Vapor/mile Carbon Dioxide/mile
Gasoline Combustion 0.39 lb. 0.85 lb.
Fuel Cell Running on Hydrogen from Gasoline 0.32 lb. 0.70 lb.
Fuel Cell Running on Hydrogen from Methane 0.25 lb. 0.15 lb.
Fuel Cell Running on Renewable Hydrogen 0.25 lb. 0.00 lb.

Courtesy of Jeremy Snyder, Desert Research Institute



Economic Growth: Fuel cells could create new markets for steel, electronics, electrical and control industries and other equipment suppliers. They could provide tens of thousands of high-quality jobs and reduce trade deficits. The consulting firm Arthur D. Little projects that fuel cell sales could reach $3 billion by the year 2000, with a market of 1,500-2,000 MW per year. The consultants estimate that each 1,000 MW will create 5,000 jobs. If just 20 percent of cars used fuel cells, 800,000 jobs would be created.


Frequently Asked Questions about Fuel Cells

Where did fuel cells come from?

The first fuel cell was built in 1839 by Sir William Grove, a Welsh judge and gentleman scientist. Serious interest in the fuel cell as a practical generator did not begin until the 1960's, when the U.S. space program chose fuel cells over riskier nuclear power and more expensive solar energy. Fuel cells furnished power for the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, and still provide electricity and water for the space shuttle.

What sort of fuels can be used in a fuel cell?

Fuel cells can promote energy diversity and a transition to renewable energy sources. Hydrogen -- the most abundant element on Earth -- can be used directly. Fuel cells can also utilize fuel containing hydrogen, including methanol, ethanol, natural gas, and even gasoline or diesel fuel. Fuels containing hydrgoen generally require a "fuel reformer" that extracts the hydrogen. Energy also could be supplied by biomass, wind, solar power or other renewable sources. Fuel cells today are running on many different fuels, even gas from landfills and wastewater treatment plants.

How would a fuel cell-powered car compare to one powered by a battery?

Fuel cell automobiles are an attractive advance from battery-powered cars. They offer the advantages of battery-powered vehicles but can also be refueled quickly and could go longer between refuelings.

Fuel cells utilizing hydrogen as a fuel would be zero emission vehicles, and those using other fuels would produce near-zero emissions. They are also more efficient than "grid"-powered battery vehicles. In addition, fuel cell cars could produce fewer "system-wide" releases of greenhouse gases -- taking into account all emissions associated with resource recovery, fuel processing and use.

Studies by General Motors and Ford noted that fuel cell car engines could be built for about the same price as an internal combustion engine.

How much do fuel cells cost?

One company commercially offers fuel cell power plants for about $3,000 pwer kilowatt. At that price, the units are competitive in high value, "niche" markets, and in areas where electricity prices are high and natural gas prices low.

A study by Arthur D. Little, Inc., predicted that when fuel cell costs drop below $1,500 per kilowatt, they will achieve market penetration nationwide. Several Companies are selling small units for research purposes. Prices vary.

Fuel cells will have to be much cheaper to become commercial in vehicles. Conventional car engines cost about $3,000 to manufacture. More research is needed to bring the cost of fuel cells down to that level, but officials at DaimlerChrysler have pledged to have a viable, commercial fuel cell vehicle available in 2004.

What's holding back use of fuel cells?

Fuel cells are still a young technology. Many technical and engineering challenges remain; scientists and developers are hard at work on them. The biggest problem is that fuel cells are still too expensive. One key reason is that not enough are being made to allow economies of scale. When the Model T Ford was introduced, it, too, was very expensive. Eventually, mass production made the Model T affordable."

No matter how you mass produce it, platinum is $$$$.

You could create all these jobs, I guess, if you could find people to actually buy these pricey things. Or would you simply displace current auto jobs into fuel cell jobs?

And would you believe me if I told you that know how fuel cells work and many of the problems associated with them since I did research on fuel cell catalysts for my PhD?



Another very important difference is that fuel cells do not run down like batteries. As long as the fuel and oxygen is supplied to the cell it will keep producing electricty for ever.Unfortunately, that's not true. They do indeed wear out over time. Also, there are all sorts of things that will permanently poison a Pt catalyst. CO is a nasty one. Over time, these poisons will build up and kill the catalyst. Performance will be very poor indeed. Yeah, you just have to make sure you've got really pure H2 and a well protected fuel cell, but if it's air-breathing, then it has to be exposed to air at the cathode, for which the catalyst is again platinum.

This is one of the major hurdles too. At the cathode, where oxygen is being reduced (The ORR = oxygen reduction reaction) there is a large overpotential. This limits the overall current that can be achieved. Once someone solves that problem (which I did not, btw) and others, we can use much less platinum. OR some nice engineer out there might want to make a process where the whole assembly is made so cheaply that the fuel cells can be easily recycled once they die. People can just drop off their burnt out fuel cell stack, recover the core charge, and buy a refurbished stack made with recycled Pt. But the polymer electrolyte membrane is also kinda pricey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafion

But maybe that could be recycled too. Or replaced by something cheaper.

So far H2 fuel cells are cool, but they are just not economically viable right now.

Here's something from your link that should give you an idea:

Dont ever handle, scratch or damage the membrane. Even a tiny pinprick will destroy it!

[pyrazole2]

Ok, lets hope the panels don't blow off.

Let's talk about running costs, you mentioned $1500/yr on batteries? Can you provide some support for that number?

http://www.apexbattery.com/solar-batteries.html

They were a little cheaper than I had seen in the past, and of course the type and cost of the battery depends on what you keep running at night nad how many sunny/cloudy days in the area. I'd amend the $1500/yr to maybe $1000/yr. Typical house needs about 50-60 amp hours of juice per day. Consider the fact that it might be cloudy, you'd better have about 200 amp hours...less in FL, CA, etc. That's about $450-$600, according to the link above.

The fact that you're using the battery deep into it's charge (deep cycle), means that the battery generally doesn't last as long as say, a car battery, which gets used just a tiny bit to start the car, and then gets charged pretty quick as the engine runs. Replacement of a solar battery would have to be done on a 4-8 month schedule. Again, a LOT of factors here. Typically people will pay out for 3-4 (series) of those $450-650 batteries to get the most life out of them plus lots of reserve.

I grew up in a solar powered household, and although the tech wasn't there at all for the panels (they were enormous), the battery tech hasn't changed a bit. It's all about the capacity...sure NiMH or Lithium would be better, but nobody's made one with the kind of capacity you need.

[TheEvilDetector]

http://www.apexbattery.com/solar-batteries.html

They were a little cheaper than I had seen in the past, and of course the type and cost of the battery depends on what you keep running at night nad how many sunny/cloudy days in the area. I'd amend the $1500/yr to maybe $1000/yr. Typical house needs about 50-60 amp hours of juice per day. Consider the fact that it might be cloudy, you'd better have about 200 amp hours...less in FL, CA, etc. That's about $450-$600, according to the link above.

The fact that you're using the battery deep into it's charge (deep cycle), means that the battery generally doesn't last as long as say, a car battery, which gets used just a tiny bit to start the car, and then gets charged pretty quick as the engine runs. Replacement of a solar battery would have to be done on a 4-8 month schedule. Again, a LOT of factors here. Typically people will pay out for 3-4 (series) of those $450-650 batteries to get the most life out of them plus lots of reserve.

I grew up in a solar powered household, and although the tech wasn't there at all for the panels (they were enormous), the battery tech hasn't changed a bit. It's all about the capacity...sure NiMH or Lithium would be better, but nobody's made one with the kind of capacity you need.

Interesting Information.

What this information has convinced me of is that more research should be done in this area to bring prices down. Even at current price levels (assuming your costs and mean time between replacement are representative of the industry as a whole), it can still be economical to go solar, which may pay itself off in 3 - 10 years depending on the specific situation. Perhaps it is not applicable to all households (ie. those that use very little electricity). I think households that use around $100 or more worth of grid electricity per month would be wise to consider switching to solar.

PS.
http://www.solco.com.au/products/solco_case_studies/east_timor_solar_home_lighting
I have just come across a site that talks about solar battery replacement 18months to 3 years after installation, so perhaps, it is not always necessary to perform multiple swaps within one year. Perhaps in order to minimize costs of battery swaps, the guy in 3rd video in OP used solar to extract H2 from water, because, even if less efficient, there would be nothing to replace, when storing H2, other than water, which is free to obtain (unless the electrolysis machine needed regular replacement). With H2 stored, you could either use it directly for cooking or heating or use a fuel cell to produce electricity again.

[TheEvilDetector]

No matter how you mass produce it, platinum is $$$$.

You could create all these jobs, I guess, if you could find people to actually buy these pricey things. Or would you simply displace current auto jobs into fuel cell jobs?

And would you believe me if I told you that know how fuel cells work and many of the problems associated with them since I did research on fuel cell catalysts for my PhD?

Unfortunately, that's not true. They do indeed wear out over time. Also, there are all sorts of things that will permanently poison a Pt catalyst. CO is a nasty one. Over time, these poisons will build up and kill the catalyst. Performance will be very poor indeed. Yeah, you just have to make sure you've got really pure H2 and a well protected fuel cell, but if it's air-breathing, then it has to be exposed to air at the cathode, for which the catalyst is again platinum.

This is one of the major hurdles too. At the cathode, where oxygen is being reduced (The ORR = oxygen reduction reaction) there is a large overpotential. This limits the overall current that can be achieved. Once someone solves that problem (which I did not, btw) and others, we can use much less platinum. OR some nice engineer out there might want to make a process where the whole assembly is made so cheaply that the fuel cells can be easily recycled once they die. People can just drop off their burnt out fuel cell stack, recover the core charge, and buy a refurbished stack made with recycled Pt. But the polymer electrolyte membrane is also kinda pricey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafion

But maybe that could be recycled too. Or replaced by something cheaper.

So far H2 fuel cells are cool, but they are just not economically viable right now.

Here's something from your link that should give you an idea:

You keep referring to platinum. Is that the only material that can do the job? I am sure research has uncovered other materials.

I am sure all the other practical problems you outlined are being or have been addressed.

No reason to abandon this technology and in fact it is already in use.

Perhaps, costs need to come down somewhat, although I have already heard of automotive mass manufacturers making a few models with this technology.

Every reason in the world exists to pursue this with even more determination ie. unnecessary wars for oil, loss of live, limb and money and pollution.

[pyrazole2]

You keep referring to platinum. Is that the only material that can do the job? I am sure research has uncovered other materials.

I am sure all the other practical problems you outlined are being or have been addressed.

No reason to abandon this technology and in fact it is already in use.

Perhaps, costs need to come down somewhat, although I have already heard of mass car manufacturers making a few models with this technlogy.

Every reason in the world exists to pursue this with even more determination ie. unnecessary wars for oil, loss of live, limb and money and pollution.

Platinum is the cheap alternative! They used Palladium and Rhodium in the past.

I'm an inorganic chemist...metals are very unique in character, so it's not common to find an alternative. It's like asking for an alternative metal other than copper or gold that has color. No amount of research will ever uncover another one.


It's still very common to replace solar batteries every 6 months...I don't know where you were looking, but everything independent that I've seen says 6. Is it a manufacturer's website? Someone trying to sell systems....I'd be a little skeptical of them.

[Revolution9]

Well, Randy, I had planned to "fuck off" from this thread.

Good..go troll somewhere else. Have you tried zinjanthropianforums.net? They are about your speed and might find your brand of assinine bodewash and simpleminded borborygmia a mindboggling mix of nature spirits and incomprehensible incoherence.

Yer Pal
Randy

[TheEvilDetector]

Platinum is the cheap alternative! They used Palladium and Rhodium in the past.

I'm an inorganic chemist...metals are very unique in character, so it's not common to find an alternative. It's like asking for an alternative metal other than copper or gold that has color. No amount of research will ever uncover another one.


It's still very common to replace solar batteries every 6 months...I don't know where you were looking, but everything independent that I've seen says 6. Is it a manufacturer's website? Someone trying to sell systems....I'd be a little skeptical of them.

I found news that a company developed nanonickel which is 25% of the cost of platinum:

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8351
http://www.qsinano.com/products/qsi_profile_ni.pdf

Well, maybe 6 months is the norm, maybe its not, there is no reason why longer life-cycle cycle batteries can't come around.

It would be good if government put half a trillion into fuel cell and solar rather than sending soldiers to their deaths in iraq.

[Hook]

I would be even better if the government didn't put money into either and let the market decide... Remember government=moronic.

[Hook]

The government didn't fund nanosolar, the free market did. The government didn't fund the invention of transistors or silicon chips, the market did. Government doesn't work.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Hook]

Yeah, I think everything that can be said has been said. Probably nobody else is gonna change their mind.

[pyrazole2]

I found news that a company developed nanonickel which is 25% of the cost of platinum:

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8351
http://www.qsinano.com/products/qsi_profile_ni.pdf


I knew that would come up...I should have just predicted it. I interviewed with QuantumSphere about 5 years ago. There's like 10 people working there then, and still about 10 employees.

They say they can make it for 25% of the cost, but try to get a hold of some. They have never actually sold it...and from what I saw of the patent, the production cost would be 8x.

It's a patent mill...they think of things, patent them and hope someone else discovers it so they can sue them for infringement.

I certainly can't back any of this up because it's first-hand of course...so take it how you will.

Now, I'm not skeptical to the fact that there may be an alternative and that we should look for one....but this example is bunk.

[pyrazole2]

Anyway, we're just arguing semantics.

I think we should not tax corporations so that they can use the money for R&D or capital improvement. Our industrial base was very crucial to putting us where we as a nation are today. It still is, but we're letting jobs go overseas, we're losing manufacturing to China, etc. Bring it back.

But I agree with a few here, no way the government should fund alternative energy. I'm not really having a personal energy crisis, so why do they take my money to find alternatives for someone else?

[TheEvilDetector]

I knew that would come up...I should have just predicted it. I interviewed with QuantumSphere about 5 years ago. There's like 10 people working there then, and still about 10 employees.

They say they can make it for 25% of the cost, but try to get a hold of some. They have never actually sold it...and from what I saw of the patent, the production cost would be 8x.

It's a patent mill...they think of things, patent them and hope someone else discovers it so they can sue them for infringement.

I certainly can't back any of this up because it's first-hand of course...so take it how you will.

Now, I'm not skeptical to the fact that there may be an alternative and that we should look for one....but this example is bunk.

Perhaps, out of curiosity do you have any proof, other than your say so?

At any rate, there needs to be more investment into fuel cell and solar. If we move away from unhealthy dependancy on oil we can reduce costs and pollution. This technology is already ready for use, now it is time to mass produce it and reduce costs due to innovation.

To my mind, the only thing that is slowing down the whole process down is big oil and government interference both of which justifiably fear massive loss of revenue if this gets implemented on a mass scale, unless the government intends to tax the sun, which is a ridiculous idea, but you never know.

[Hook]

Solar = yes
H2 = Just say no :)

[Man from La Mancha]

The government energy funding fusion is real joke and huge waste of money

I'm using free energy right now. My magnets are doing work as they hold up my Ron Paul signs on my car. And all the atoms of my body are working as something is powering all the electrons to spin. Gee I wonder what that is??

.

[TheEvilDetector]

The government energy funding fusion is real joke and huge waste of money

I'm using free energy right now. My magnets are doing work as they hold up my Ron Paul signs on my car. And all the atoms of my body are working as something is powering all the electrons to spin. Gee I wonder what that is??

.

Funny.

[pyrazole2]

fusion?

http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/alcator/index.html

[TheEvilDetector]

Solar = yes
H2 = Just say no :)

I think H2 has its uses. Maybe it is not as efficient in storing energy as some batteries.
However, it may be useful in recharging batteries in a car. Perhaps it is more practical to replace a tank of H2, generated at home from solar and water, than to replace the batteries. Perhaps there are other reasons. The guy in 3rd video, used H2 tank in his car and I am sure he had good reasons for doing so.

[TheEvilDetector]

http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html

Nice, but it has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

[pyrazole2]

Perhaps, out of curiosity do you have any proof, other than your say so?


Nope...go to contacts and contact them to purchase a pound of the stuff. See how far you get. You'll have to check it out, I have no proof to give you.

[TheEvilDetector]

Nope...go to contacts and contact them to purchase a pound of the stuff. See how far you get. You'll have to check it out, I have no proof to give you.

I'll leave it thanks.

[pyrazole2]

Nice, but it has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

Um, yes it does...fusion...this is what the sun does. Why use panels when you can create a little sun all your own?

Remember, there's a difference between fusion and fission...fusion doesn't produce waste (it produces some nasty particles, but they are very short lived).

[TheEvilDetector]

Anyway, we're just arguing semantics.

I think we should not tax corporations so that they can use the money for R&D or capital improvement. Our industrial base was very crucial to putting us where we as a nation are today. It still is, but we're letting jobs go overseas, we're losing manufacturing to China, etc. Bring it back.

But I agree with a few here, no way the government should fund alternative energy. I'm not really having a personal energy crisis, so why do they take my money to find alternatives for someone else?

Federal government should definitely just stick with protection of life, liberty, borders and defence (and a few other constitutional duties) and leave the socialist crap with the CFR scum, who would in an ideal world, be sent to a remote island to conduct their experiments with communism.

However, given that the current administration is hell-bent on wasting trillions in the middle east we might as well redirect those trillions to some useful research at home, such as fuel cell and solar, which would directly reduce dependence on oil.

[TheEvilDetector]

Um, yes it does...fusion...this is what the sun does. Why use panels when you can create a little sun all your own?

Remember, there's a difference between fusion and fission...fusion doesn't produce waste (it produces some nasty particles, but they are very short lived).

Well, ok, but in terms of practical use, I think solar panels are a little closer to mass implementation, than creating little suns for us all.

Besides its not like every man can create his own little sun now is it?

Since the answer is obviously no, then this amounts to changing the name on the cheque you pay out from Big Oil Pty Ltd to Little Sun Pty Ltd.

See, the point is decentralising energy generation, only then, imho, can prices of implementation and maintenance of the technology really come down.

[Hook]

Fusion is the energy source of the future and always will be :) Why not use the fusion reactor that comes up every day? Because we can't waste billions of tax money on the sun.

[Hook]

gotta give it to the fusion reactor interests.

[pyrazole2]

Well, ok, but in terms of practical use, I think solar panels are a little closer to mass implementation, than creating little suns for us all.

Besides its not like every man can create his own little sun now is it?

Since the answer is obviously no, then this amounts to changing the name on the cheque you pay out from Big Oil Pty Ltd to Little Sun Pty Ltd.

See, the point is decentralising energy generation, only then, imho, can prices of implementation and maintenance of the technology really come down.

ok, you're very dedicated to decentralizing...I get it. I didn't say anything about decentralizing

Fusion power (not decentralized of course) would cost us a pittance, because you're basically working with E=mc2 energy here. That little research reactor I linked to could power 3000 homes...a real tokamak would and could do the eastern seaboard, if not everything east of the mississippi.

I think corporations need to centralize energy generation. The lowest cost/power prices are the ones that require huge capital investment. Solar panels will never be the cure, you'll always run into material costs, because they are disposable, sure they'll last 25 years, but they ARE disposable.

Anyway, have to go. last points 1) the government should never give anything to research on alternative energy. My energy bills are about $120/month, including gasoline...because I've chosen to live in an area where I get free gas, cheap electricity, and I don't live an hour away from work. If everyone was being so supressed by the energy crisis, then I'd have a million neighbors...but the population is actually declining here.

2)We are all entitled to our own path. Do your research on solar and get that thing on top of your house. I'm going to sit tight and act like I don't care, because I really don't. $120/month...why should I care? Just don't make me pay to make your energy cheaper and greener...YOU should pay for that, not me or anyone else on this board unless they choose to.

Later!

[Man from La Mancha]

An OUTSTANDING source of every conventional new products for energy production and researching articles on "free energy" . If you love this stuff like me you will get hooked on this site. Also sign up for their email updates. Very many reasonable energy projects

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

latest updates
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Latest


sign up for email weekly or daily updates. Includes conventional productions of energy
http://www.freeenergynews.com/newsletters/

.

[TheEvilDetector]

ok, you're very dedicated to decentralizing...I get it. I didn't say anything about decentralizing

Fusion power (not decentralized of course) would cost us a pittance, because you're basically working with E=mc2 energy here. That little research reactor I linked to could power 3000 homes...a real tokamak would and could do the eastern seaboard, if not everything east of the mississippi.

I think corporations need to centralize energy generation. The lowest cost/power prices are the ones that require huge capital investment. Solar panels will never be the cure, you'll always run into material costs, because they are disposable, sure they'll last 25 years, but they ARE disposable.

Anyway, have to go. last points 1) the government should never give anything to research on alternative energy. Problem is, that's not the case. My energy bills are about $120/month, including gasoline...because I've chosen to live in an area where I get free gas, cheap electricity, and I don't live an hour away from work. If everyone was being so suppressed by the energy crisis, then I'd have a million neighbors...but the population is actually declining here.

2)We are all entitled to our own path. Do your research on solar and get that thing on top of your house. I'm going to sit tight and act like I don't care, because I really don't. $120/month...why should I care? Just don't make me pay to make your energy cheaper and greener...YOU should pay for that, not me or anyone else on this board unless they choose to.

Later!

No assurances of how cheap fusion will be, how many commercial fusion reactors are out there at the moment? Since its centralised, they can charge whatever they want, absent some healthy competition of course.

25 years is a long time, if that's how often you have to replace panels, I don't see a big problem, besides in 25 years, solar panels may be so advanced that they can last 100 years and cost a fraction of what they cost now.

With Solar energy, you are not making anyone else pay for your energy. You become energy independent with solar. Plenty of light for everybody.

True, government shouldnt get involved in science funding, but while it wastes money on wars, it might as well put that money into science instead.

[pyrazole2]

No assurances of how cheap fusion will be, how many commercial fusion reactors are out there at the moment? Since its centralised, they can charge whatever they want, absent some healthy competition of course.

25 years is a long time, if that's how often you have to replace panels, I don't see a big problem, besides in 25 years, solar panels may be so advanced that they can last 100 years and cost a fraction of what they cost now.

With Solar energy, you are not making anyone else pay for your energy. You become energy independent with solar. Plenty of light for everybody.

True, government shouldnt get involved in science funding, but while it wastes money on wars, it might as well put that money into science instead.

You're missing the point entirely....centralized doesn't mean monopolized. So you'd have three companies competing to give you the best price....centralized, not monopolized....it's not all or nothing, ok.

Besides, in 25 years, solar panels might hardly have advanced at all, and they last another 25 years. I'm not going to pay 10-20k/25 years for my power, and batteries, and broken panels...I can't believe anyone would take that kind of beating just for independent power that really does still cost you quite a bit more than the sources that are out there now.

Ok, you get the last word. Thanks for the chat.

Where's the guy with the tap water car? I wanted to debate with him...lol.

[Revolution9]

Randy,

Here's a thought -- why don't you call up the Ron Paul campaign and tell them you want to give him a ride in your car that runs on tap water. That ought to go over real well.

BTW, I'm just leaving off this thread (if you'll let me, lover). Isn't it funny how the guy with the perpetual motion machine thinks I'M a troll...

You are a troll. And pretty lousy at it too.. You constantly make false claims and stick words in others mouths that aren't there simply for the purpose of shit disturbing. Yer a typical online troll of the standard garden issue variety who always thinks they are so cunning with their trite and crapulous babbling bluster.. You are simply the drunken veteran washup with the big mouth at the end of the bar who thinks he knows something but is not exactly kicking it in the intellect department..and whose habits will never let him acquire any more than the fundamental gasoline huffing, cheeseburger engorged intellectual capacity displayed in spattering and drooling detail right here in the very thread. Does your cell phone scare the shit out of you with all that voodoo noise it makes coming from nowhere?..

heh.. You need a cute little clown car with lpedals and training wheels on it to go with your corrupted momentum and online persona. A propeller beanie would fit you nicely just like a cherry on a cupcake.

Randy

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Mesogen]

You keep referring to platinum. Is that the only material that can do the job? I am sure research has uncovered other materials. It's the best so far. I was working on Pt catalysts and making what I would consider fancy exotic compositions and structures of Pt and alloy catalysts. There were some recent papers that showed that Pt3Ni alloy or maybe Pt3Co alloy would be even better at the cathode (the ORR). There are other, cheaper catalysts that will do the job, but they aren't nearly as active as Pt. So you could get away with using them, but you'd have to use more of them, essentially making the fuel cell heavier.

I don't know if you can access this (maybe at a nearby library) but here is a nice article from 2005 discussing some cost issues and some technical issues that would make automotive fuel cells more commercially viable.
http://www.electrochem.org/dl/interface/fal/fal05/IF8-05_Pg24-35.pdf
Here is a quote from the conclusions:

The currently known material set for PEFCs, i.e., PFSA membranes and Pt-based catalysts, are in principle able to meet the cost requirements for high volume automotive applications. To enable automotive fuel cell commercialization, further materials optimization and improved understanding of the currently observed degradation mechanisms are needed. Specifically, future R&D efforts directed at membrane and catalyst materials development should focus on
• Development of low-RH (0.1 S /cm at 25-50% RH) membranes with a main operating temperature of 60- 80°C and short time temperature
excursions up to ca. 100°C. Development of high temperature (120°C) membranes that offer 0.1 S/cm at 25% RH or less is a longer term goal. Membranes should not
swell by over a factor of 2 vs. dry volume when placed in boiling water. This must be achieved without compromising chemical degradation stability and RHcycling
stability.
• Development of Pt-alloy cathode catalysts with improved activity compared to Pt/C and the current generation of PtCo/C, with a long term goal of fourfold mass activity over Pt/C. Simultaneously, these new catalysts must maintain both their mass activity for extended voltage cycling and their specific activity over long term operation.
• Development of more stable catalyst supports that have improved corrosion resistance at high potentials (i.e., under start-stop and idle conditions). Reasonably high BET surface area (on the order of >100 m2/g) is desired to enable good dispersion of the active phase (e.g., Pt surface areas of >50 m2/gPt).
In addition, work focused in the following areas is needed to provide theoretical support to the materials development efforts:
• Understanding of the physical limits of materials based on the sulfonic acid conduction mechanism to enable the development of low-RH membranes
operating at 60-120°C.
• Fundamental understanding of the morphology of membranes and its impact on their mechanical properties, particularly in terms of fatigue, long term creep, and
structural changes under cyclic conditions (i.e., cyclic variations of temperature and RH).
• Understanding of the fundamental chemical degradation mechanisms
of ionomers used both in the electrode and in the membrane, including the dependence on electrode materials and design.
• The likelihood of developing cathode catalysts with improved mass activity and durability (both Pt-based and non-Pt catalysts), would be largely increased if accompanied by strong fundamental molecular modeling approaches. These
models must incorporate aspects of both activity enhancement and dissolution stability and should be complemented by fundamental electrocatalysis work on model surfaces.
• The implementation of new catalysts in high performance H2/air MEAs is still largely based on trial-and-error and more an art than a science. Therefore, fundamental research on electrode characterization (e.g., ionomer distribution, correlation between support structure and electrode performance, etc.) and modeling of mass transport phenomena in electrodes is desired to enable timely implementation of new catalyst/catalyst-support materials.

Finally, we suggest the use of the material characterization tests described here as screening tools for automotive fuel cell materials development: (i) membrane
conductivity vs. RH and water uptake, (ii) membrane RH-cycling test, (iii) catalyst voltage cycling test, and, (iv) support corrosion test at 1.2 V. While these test procedures may not be perfect and may change somewhat over time, we feel that they provide a reasonable evaluation and benchmarking for new materials.
The abbreviations: (RH = resistive heating, PEFC = polymer electrolyte fuel cell, PFSA = perfluorosulfonic acid i.e. Nafion and related membranes.)


I am sure all the other practical problems you outlined are being or have been addressed.Being addressed, yes. People are working on these things.


No reason to abandon this technology and in fact it is already in use. No there is no reason to abandon it. There are many hurdles yet to overcome, though. Hydrogen storage is another one of them. No one has yet to meet the DOE target of 6% by weight hydrogen storage for any medium. They are trying to get around compressing hydrogen because that is energy intensive and a tank of compressed hydrogen adds weight to the car and is an explosion hazard.

So there are problems still associated with H2 production (in mass quantities) that doesn't involve hydrocarbons, H2 storage, and fuel cell design.

The concept of fuel cells has been around for 100 years and practical use of them has been around for 40-50 years, but they have yet to leave niche markets because they can't compete with simpler, cheaper, and more powerful technology.


Perhaps, costs need to come down somewhat, although I have already heard of automotive mass manufacturers making a few models with this technology.

Every reason in the world exists to pursue this with even more determination ie. unnecessary wars for oil, loss of live, limb and money and pollution.
Yes, the DOE has already dumped a few billion into the Hydrogen Initiative. There are labs all over the place getting funding to work on this.

The take home message on this is to not hold your breath for a Hydrogen Economy and that the big push is likely due to large corporations that are feeling the pressure to move away from fossil fuels, but want everyone to run their cars on some commodity that they control in some proprietary way.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll all have H2 cars that can be charged with H2 that everyone makes at home with tap water and rooftop solar panels. But again, it may be decades away.

[Mesogen]

I found news that a company developed nanonickel which is 25% of the cost of platinum:

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8351
http://www.qsinano.com/products/qsi_profile_ni.pdf

Well, maybe 6 months is the norm, maybe its not, there is no reason why longer life-cycle cycle batteries can't come around.

It would be good if government put half a trillion into fuel cell and solar rather than sending soldiers to their deaths in iraq.
Hmm, Quantum sphere also came out with a new Pd benchmark catalyst for formic acid fuel cells that beats the pants off a lot of other commercial Pd and PdC catalysts. A friend of mine is trying to beat it with PdC, but no luck so far.


That Ni catalyst look interesting, but it will not have the same activity of Pt, not even close. They say the surface area is between 25-120 m2/g. I'm thinking the sample in that pic is more toward the 25 range. Those particles are pretty large and not well-separated, lowering the surface area. Just to let you know Pt catalysts are all "nano" so don't let the "nano" make it sound all exotic and cool.

I mean, maybe they have a way to engineer the electrodes to where they aren't 4 times the total mass of a Pt catalyst, I don't know. You could get the same activity out of 4 times as much catalyst at 1/4 the cost, but you'de likely have a much larger fuel cell. There are all kinds of claims made in papers for a replacement for Pt or a way to reduce the total Pt loading, but commercializing these things is another matter. So a news release about this that doesn't make specific claims of activity is kinda unreliable.

To me, this is much more impressive:
He has helped to develop a consumer battery with over four times the energy density of Alkaline cylindrical cells, and many tens of times higher energy than many rechargeable batteries," Maloney added.

[Mesogen]

I knew that would come up...I should have just predicted it. I interviewed with QuantumSphere about 5 years ago. There's like 10 people working there then, and still about 10 employees.

They say they can make it for 25% of the cost, but try to get a hold of some. They have never actually sold it...and from what I saw of the patent, the production cost would be 8x.

It's a patent mill...they think of things, patent them and hope someone else discovers it so they can sue them for infringement.

I certainly can't back any of this up because it's first-hand of course...so take it how you will.

Now, I'm not skeptical to the fact that there may be an alternative and that we should look for one....but this example is bunk.

I think they'll make some money off that formic acid catalyst they have. It's pretty outstanding.

I think they are looking for licensing more than law suits. A lot of companies are like this.

And, Hook, a lot of companies like this rely heavily on government grants. Sorry. They get funding from the government (say the DOD) to develop new technology. Then they can patent it under their name and license it, but the DOD won't pay any royalties, only others. But the government won't keep funding you if you don't produce.

He he, there are SOME well connected companies (SAIC is notorious) that get funded no matter how badly they screw up or waste money.

[TheEvilDetector]

It's the best so far. I was working on Pt catalysts and making what I would consider fancy exotic compositions and structures of Pt and alloy catalysts. There were some recent papers that showed that Pt3Ni alloy or maybe Pt3Co alloy would be even better at the cathode (the ORR). There are other, cheaper catalysts that will do the job, but they aren't nearly as active as Pt. So you could get away with using them, but you'd have to use more of them, essentially making the fuel cell heavier.

I don't know if you can access this (maybe at a nearby library) but here is a nice article from 2005 discussing some cost issues and some technical issues that would make automotive fuel cells more commercially viable.
http://www.electrochem.org/dl/interface/fal/fal05/IF8-05_Pg24-35.pdf
Here is a quote from the conclusions:

The abbreviations: (RH = resistive heating, PEFC = polymer electrolyte fuel cell, PFSA = perfluorosulfonic acid i.e. Nafion and related membranes.)

Being addressed, yes. People are working on these things.
No there is no reason to abandon it. There are many hurdles yet to overcome, though. Hydrogen storage is another one of them. No one has yet to meet the DOE target of 6% by weight hydrogen storage for any medium. They are trying to get around compressing hydrogen because that is energy intensive and a tank of compressed hydrogen adds weight to the car and is an explosion hazard.

So there are problems still associated with H2 production (in mass quantities) that doesn't involve hydrocarbons, H2 storage, and fuel cell design.

The concept of fuel cells has been around for 100 years and practical use of them has been around for 40-50 years, but they have yet to leave niche markets because they can't compete with simpler, cheaper, and more powerful technology.


Yes, the DOE has already dumped a few billion into the Hydrogen Initiative. There are labs all over the place getting funding to work on this.

The take home message on this is to not hold your breath for a Hydrogen Economy and that the big push is likely due to large corporations that are feeling the pressure to move away from fossil fuels, but want everyone to run their cars on some commodity that they control in some proprietary way.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll all have H2 cars that can be charged with H2 that everyone makes at home with tap water and rooftop solar panels. But again, it may be decades away.

I am glad you responded in a balanced intelligent way. Too often, people simply attack a position with such zealotry that it makes one wonder if there is an agenda.

You also say: "but want everyone to run their cars on some commodity that they control in some proprietary way." I feel that this "commodity control" is a far greater force than anyone is willing to admit publicly. In fact, I feel so sure of this, that I would go so far as to say that were it not for this influence, people would already be seeing mass penetration of solar power, H2 technologies and fuel cells in their houses and vehicles, ie. as of several years ago. Sadly, too much money is at stake for oil companies and governments to simply give up on oil en masse and to replace it with solar/H2/fuel cell alternatives. In other words, greed (by power elite) is holding back progress (advantageous to the regular consumer) in this case. This no doubt comes from an unhealthy marriage between government and the big oil corporations where each is heavily influenced by the other. I think more of a hands off policy would be much healthier for the country.

I have no problem regarding outstanding practical and cost issues with this technology, that you have raised. I do however, wonder why several billion dollars dumped into this technology by DOE have not produced mass marketable results. Surely, by now, something should have floated to the surface, in the mind of the average consumer, unless one accepts the possibility that something worked very hard against this technology gaining any real popularity.

I think that even at the current level of technological progress in these areas, these technologies are already in a position to be implemented on a wide scale and of course over time improved further in all important aspects.

After all, the first cars were rudimentary and primitive by today's standards and yet that's how it all started. They had to be introduced at some point, even if initially they were quite expensive.

Certainly, there would have to be some basic calculations done in terms of when these technologies would pay for themselves, but I think it wouldn't take that long, considering for example that some people easily spend $50/week on gasoline.

So after a couple of years that amounts to $5200. I am sure there are systems that can introduce fuel cell and H2 technology into a vehicle for comparable sums of money. When you also introduce some solar panels into the household which can pay themselves off in say 3-5 years, this does begin to look like a worthwhile overall investment.

I believe that no matter what the short term outlook might look like, investment in these technologies (even today) will always win over conventional energy in the long term.

I believe that conventional energy pricing has no way to go but up, for several reasons such as growing political instability, inflation, real and artificial shortages, growing collusion between government and corporations.

On the other hand, it can be safely assumed that the sunlight and water on this earth, are for time-being safe from government, corporate, monetary or military intrusions.

[WannaBfree]

An OUTSTANDING source of every conventional new products for energy production and researching articles on "free energy" . If you love this stuff like me you will get hooked on this site. Also sign up for their email updates. Very many reasonable energy projects

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

latest updates
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Latest


sign up for email weekly or daily updates. Includes conventional productions of energy
http://www.freeenergynews.com/newsletters/

.

thanks I'll check it out!

[Mesogen]

I am glad you responded in a balanced intelligent way. Too often, people simply attack a position with such zealotry that it makes one wonder if there is an agenda.

That's the internets for you. :p


You also say: "but want everyone to run their cars on some commodity that they control in some proprietary way." I feel that this "commodity control" is a far greater force than anyone is willing to admit publicly. In fact, I feel so sure of this, that I would go so far as to say that were it not for this influence, people would already be seeing mass penetration of solar power, H2 technologies and fuel cells in their houses and vehicles, ie. as of several years ago. Sadly, too much money is at stake for oil companies and governments to simply give up on oil en masse and to replace it with solar/H2/fuel cell alternatives. In other words, greed (by power elite) is holding back progress (advantageous to the regular consumer) in this case. This no doubt comes from an unhealthy marriage between government and the big oil corporations where each is heavily influenced by the other. I think more of a hands off policy would be much healthier for the country.

I don't doubt any of that. Big companies with lots of influence in the government can squeeze out smaller companies that threaten them. I think a bill passed the House recently, though, that cut down or cut out tax breaks for oil companies in favor of renewable energy.
http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/85/i33/html/8533notw6.html

House Passes Energy Bills
Renewable energy would get boost through House bills
Jeff Johnson

IN A RARE SATURDAY vote on Aug. 4, the House cleared two energy-related bills, one emphasizing renewable energy and efficiency and the other focusing on energy taxes by eliminating tax breaks for oil and gas production and adding tax support for renewable energy.

More than a month earlier, the Senate passed its energy bill. The two bills have differences, which Congress will try to resolve in conference committee debate when members return in September from the August recess. The conference is likely to be difficult but lively.

Among the dissimilarities, the House bill would require that, by 2020, utilities generate 15% of their electricity from renewable sources—wind, solar, and hydropower. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) pushed unsuccessfully for such a "renewable portfolio standard" in the Senate but could not overcome objections by Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and others. Bingaman and Domenici will continue their disagreement in conference, as both will be at the conference table.

Another hot area is auto efficiency standards, which are in the Senate bill but not in the House bill, primarily due to strong objections from Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.). Although other House members are likely to try to add auto efficiency to the conference bill, Dingell, as chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, is sure to be there to try to bat down their amendments.

In addition, the Senate bill includes support for cellulosic ethanol, and the House bill does not. Ethanol has powerful congressional supporters who are likely to try to include such provisions during conference.

Although the House bill's bent for renewable energy enjoys support from environmental groups and renewable energy advocates, the American Chemistry Council and other industry organizations bemoan provisions removing incentives for greater natural gas and oil production and blocking access to potential gas fields.

Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman warned that the President will veto the bill if the final version contains no production incentives.

In the same issue some interesting stuff:
http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/85/i33/html/8533govc.html#2

DOE plans 30% cut in energy use

Energy consumed by the Department of Energy would be reduced by 30% through a plan announced by Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman last week. Details of the plan are yet to come, Bodman says, but the department estimates the 30% reduction will save approximately $90 million per year in DOE energy costs, beyond the cost paid for the efficiency technologies that will be put in place. DOE's plan calls for efficiency proposals to be developed by utilities, energy service companies, and other private-sector contractors over the next year and presented to DOE. The contractors are expected to identify potential energy savings, conduct audits, and purchase and install needed equipment. The companies will recoup their cost plus profits through payments from DOE from the expected energy savings realized over time, Bodman says. Bodman predicts the energy reductions will be fully in place by 2015 or earlier. The overall plan, Bodman says, will become a model for all agencies of the U.S. government, the nation's largest energy user. DOE also plans to increase its use of renewable energy, such as solar, wind, and alternative vehicle fuels, and Bodman intends to shift DOE's entire 14,000-vehicle fleet to ethanol and other nonpetroleum fuels.

http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/85/i32/html/8532gov1.html

Congress Boosts DOE Science Funds
Office of Science, other R&D programs fare well as agency's 2008 appropriation moves through Congress
Jeff Johnson

So far in the congressional appropriation process, next year's funding looks bright for many Department of Energy scientists.

Appearing particularly rosy is the Office of Science appropriation in both the House-passed bill (H.R. 2641) and the Senate's version (S. 1751), which has passed committee but not the full Senate. It is unclear when the Senate bill will make its way to the floor.

Although the bills are favorable to scientists now, the road ahead is pitted with potholes. Still to come is a House-Senate conference to rectify differences between bills passed by the two bodies. Muddying the future further is President George W. Bush's promised veto if the final bill exceeds his original requested appropriation by more than $1 billion, which both bills do.

In a statement of Administration policy concerning the House-passed bill, the White House said the level of spending was "irresponsible and excessive." It also objected to several specific House bill provisions. The House Energy & Water Appropriation funds several agencies besides DOE, but the lion's share (some $25 billion) of the $31.6 billion appropriation goes to DOE, with a budget that would be $480 million beyond Bush's request.

Looking at the Office of Science, H.R. 2641 would provide $4.5 billion, $717 million more than Bush sought for next year and $117 million more than the office received last year. The Senate committee-passed bill provides a few million dollars less, but both show an increase of nearly 20% above this year's funding.

In a House Appropriations Committee report explaining the spending, members underscored crises in energy needs and global warming. "This bill," the report says, "attempts to face these twin crises with over $3 billion to address global climate change-researching its effects and working on technologies to slow it down-and investment in renewable energy programs that both reduce greenhouse gases and help our nation meet its energy needs."

The report singles out a $20 million jump to $150 million for climate-change research directed by the Office of Science to model and monitor the atmosphere and carbon dioxide levels in ecosystems. Most of this additional money will fund the office's Biological & Environmental Research program. Another $208 million, $30 million above the President's request, is directed to research on energy storage and generation technologies, according to the report. Some $70 million of the increase is slated for science laboratory infrastructure improvements at DOE labs, taking total construction infrastructure spending to $128 million.

The appropriation level in the Senate's bill for the Office of Science is similar. But exact comparisons are difficult because the two bills account for funds for congressionally directed projects, or "earmarks," differently. Earmarks are provided in appropriation bills for specific institutions and programs selected by a member of Congress, they are outside DOE control.

The House cleared most of the DOE appropriation bill in late June but put off debate on member-supported earmarks until mid-July. That bill was passed last month and carried some $1.1 billion in earmarks and about $248 million for energy-related projects. In all, some 269 institutions would receive government funds through energy earmarks. Most individual amounts were $1 million or less, but some were as much as $6 million. Most of the funds were provided for energy efficiency and renewable energy areas or were science or technology related.

In the Senate, earmarks are sprinkled throughout the bill. The Biological & Environmental Research program, which usually receives the majority of Office of Science earmarks, would receive about $50 million in Senate earmarks.

Looking at general energy-related funding, the President's original budget request proposed a funding cut for solar, biomass, wind, and vehicle technologies and projects. The House and Senate appropriations, however, do the opposite.

Solar energy spending in the House bill would increase to $200 million, $51 million above the Administration's request and last year's funding. Biofuels R&D would go to $250 million, $70 million above Bush's proposed budget. Funding for vehicle technology and energy efficiency would also be increased. The Senate bill provides similar increased funding for renewable energy.

Nuclear energy research would also get a boost to $759 million, far more than the spending for renewables. Although this level is $51 million less than Bush sought, it is $277 million more than 2007 levels. The House bill, however, would cut the Administration's request for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a DOE program to restart nuclear fuel reprocessing in the U.S. The Administration sought $405 million for GNEP, and the House cut it to $120 million. In explaining the reductions, the committee report notes weak nuclear industry support for GNEP, a host of concerns voiced by nuclear scientists, tens of billions of dollars in projected long-term costs, and the availability of short-term waste storage sites that could serve as an alternative to reprocessing (C&EN, June 18, page 48).

The Senate is seeking to spend $720 million on nuclear energy. Like the House, it cut the Administration's GNEP request but with a lighter hand. The Senate would trim the GNEP appropriation to $243 million, twice the House level. In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee notes that senators were split in their support for the Administration's new program for reprocessing spent fuel. The Senate report directs the Administration to restrict R&D work to existing facilities and urges the Administration to broaden its nuclear research agenda to consider a wider array of potential reprocessing technologies.

Even Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), ranking minority member on the Senate Appropriations Committee with DOE oversight and a longtime supporter of nuclear power and reprocessing, is pushing for a go-slow approach on reprocessing. He noted that "new congressional leadership" wants a "more modest program that can more fully demonstrate the technical and commercial feasibility of closing the nuclear fuel cycle" before moving ahead with a full-fledged reprocessing facility, which DOE is proposing.

Concerning coal, the House bill would provide $709 million, $142 million more than Bush proposed, to develop technologies to capture and sequester carbon from coal-fired power plants. Such an increase in funding was similar to recommendations of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, the House report notes (C&EN, April 2, page 48).

The Senate's legislation calls for similar increases for developing coal technologies.

Despite similarities in several energy areas, the House and Senate split over funding for nuclear weapons, another big chunk of the DOE budget.

The House bill cuts the President's request for the nuclear weapons program by $632 million to $5.9 billion. Among high-profile areas, the bill eliminates $88 million in funding for a new nuclear weapon, the reliable replacement warhead (RRW). The House bill withholds RRW funding until the Administration develops a nuclear defense strategy in light of the changes that have taken place since the end of the Cold War. House members on the Appropriations Committee have been highly critical of RRW and a DOE plan to overhaul the nuclear weapons complex, the so-called Complex 2030 proposal.

"It is critical that the Administration lay out a comprehensive course of action before funding is appropriated." said Rep. Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee with DOE oversight. "Given the track record of mismanagement at the agency for projects that have a plan, I don't think it is asking too much for a comprehensive nuclear strategy before we build a new nuclear weapon."

Despite division among Senate members on support for RRW and for modernizing the weapons complex, the legislation provides $66 million of the $88 million the Administration sought for RRW. But it limits spending to fund only RRW research. It, too, urged DOE to develop an overall strategy for weapons and particularly to consider the impact on international nuclear weapons proliferation by the addition of a new U.S. weapon. The appropriation would halt work on DOE's planned new weapons complex until an RRW feasibility study is complete and a decision made whether to move further.

The Senate Appropriations Committee also endorsed creation of a bipartisan congressionally appointed commission to evaluate the role of nuclear weapons in the future before moving ahead with RRW or overhauling the weapons complex. A similar recommendation has been made by the House Armed Services Committee and passed in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2008, which was approved by the House on May 17.

The Bush Administration is not pleased with these restrictions. Along with opposing the overall funding level in the bills, the Administration specifically objected to the earmarks, to increases in funds set aside for carbon capture and sequestration technologies, to GNEP reductions, and to the elimination of RRW funds.

In a policy document released on July 24, the Departments of Energy, Defense, and State voiced strong opposition to congressional restrictions on RRW. In a four-page document, representatives from the departments stated their intention to develop a detailed report on nuclear strategy, and they threatened that without the new RRW, the U.S. may have to return to nuclear testing to certify the condition of existing weapons.

Senate leadership hopes to pass legislation to fund DOE for 2008 before leaving for the August recess. Many members of Congress have predicted tough conference committee meetings to resolve thorny differences between House and Senate bills. Bush's veto threat will complicate negotiations. Although the House cleared its bill by a veto-proof 312–112 vote on July 17, it is unclear if that margin of support will stand after a bill is modified in House-Senate negotiations.

Sorry it's so long. Needs subscriptions.

All this research funding goes to academic research and small R&D companies (like Quantum Sphere). Whether the govt should be funding all this research is another debate, though.

But all this funding into coal? I guess we'll be blowing up mountains for a long time, then.

[Mesogen]

Certainly, there would have to be some basic calculations done in terms of when these technologies would pay for themselves, but I think it wouldn't take that long, considering for example that some people easily spend $50/week on gasoline.

So after a couple of years that amounts to $5200. I am sure there are systems that can introduce fuel cell and H2 technology into a vehicle for comparable sums of money. When you also introduce some solar panels into the household which can pay themselves off in say 3-5 years, this does begin to look like a worthwhile overall investment.

I live 1 mile from work and take a bike. I fill up my little rice rocket once a month, if that.

I figured out what it would cost me to solar up my house to provide all my power needs. I figured I'd need 2 kW worth of solar cells. This thing says 9.08 kW is the average home. Maybe I didn't take everything into account.
http://info.lu.farmingdale.edu/~irtt/The_Solar_Hydrogen_Home_presentation.pdf

Oh the graph on page 6 is peak, while producing hydrogen. Anyway, it looks like it's about 2kW all day long. I looked up some solar panels and the best deal I could find were 140 W panels at ~$900 a piece. I would need 14 or so of those = $12,600. DC/AC inverter = ~$200, not much. Without battery storage, and without professional installation, with taxes it would have been ~$13,000. Right now, I pay the electric company an average of ~$1000 a year. The system would pay for itself in 13 years. I just happen to live in the TVA, where electric prices are some of the lowest in the country. (ETA: I didn't take into account a battery, which I would need for night time).

This looks like it would cost a bit, but would last a lifetime:
http://www.gadgetgrid.com/2007/03/26/10000-kw-electrical-power-generation-in-your-backyard/

Couldn't see too many of those in a big city though.

[TheEvilDetector]

I live 1 mile from work and take a bike. I fill up my little rice rocket once a month, if that.

I figured out what it would cost me to solar up my house to provide all my power needs. I figured I'd need 2 kW worth of solar cells. This thing says 9.08 kW is the average home. Maybe I didn't take everything into account.
http://info.lu.farmingdale.edu/~irtt/The_Solar_Hydrogen_Home_presentation.pdf

Oh the graph on page 6 is peak, while producing hydrogen. Anyway, it looks like it's about 2kW all day long. I looked up some solar panels and the best deal I could find were 140 W panels at ~$900 a piece. I would need 14 or so of those = $12,600. DC/AC inverter = ~$200, not much. Without battery storage, and without professional installation, with taxes it would have been ~$13,000. Right now, I pay the electric company an average of ~$1000 a year. The system would pay for itself in 13 years. I just happen to live in the TVA, where electric prices are some of the lowest in the country. (ETA: I didn't take into account a battery, which I would need for night time).

This looks like it would cost a bit, but would last a lifetime:
http://www.gadgetgrid.com/2007/03/26/10000-kw-electrical-power-generation-in-your-backyard/

Couldn't see too many of those in a big city though.

Thanks for the info. The fancy windmill certainly seems to me an example of a unique technology manufacturer charging a hefty price due to lack of competition.

I would venture a guess in relation to solar panels and say that you could probably knock down the price of panels a bit if you got a few quotes and then made the retailers try to win your business and beat the lowest quote. Some may even throw in a battery or two and give you an installation discount, who knows. The fact that buyers are few relatively speaking may work in your favour, since they may be anxious to sell their goods.

In addition, you can get rebates or even sell excess electricity (in certain situations and with certain companies), thus shortening the pay off period.

There are also state and federal tax credits that you may be able to claim because you are investing into solar.

Check out:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-04-12-off-the-grid_x.htm
http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/netmetering.shtml

If you like you can borrow some of the money to install a decent system and then sell the any excess electricity to the utility and use that money to help you pay the loan back over some period of time. Net-metering is much better than 2 meters from what I have seen, because you will get retail price for it. The pay off period is generally reduced when you can sell the excess electricity.

[Ninja Homer]

I haven't read every message in this thread, but skimmed a lot of them.

Forget about using hydrogen via electrolysis. It's very inefficient to get hydrogen out of water through electrolysis.

Look into Stan Meyer. He's the one who originally invented the car that runs on water. It isn't electrolysis, it is pulsed DC that destroys the water cells, and then you get a mix of hydrogen and oxygen known as Brown's Gas. Brown's Gas is very volatile, so storage is a problem. It's best used at the point it is being produced.

Take a look at these videos:
Peter Lindemann explaining Stanley Meyer's patent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqfiAXIs3Xc)
An animation from Xogen, a company currently using this technology in Canada (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pXo7CVFI5Sk)
A working example of a water fuel cell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSFpBW8_v8o)
Lots of Stan Meyer videos, take your pick (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=stan+meyer&search=Search)

Here's a good forum on renewable energy:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/
Some of the leading renewable energy people post there, including John Bedini and Peter Lindemann. There are people building working models, as well as plans for building your own. Some very leading edge stuff. It doesn't look that hard to build your own Bedini model to charge an array of batteries that will work better than solar or wind.

I'd also recommend checking out http://energyfromthevacuum.com/

[Mesogen]

I haven't read every message in this thread, but skimmed a lot of them.

Forget about using hydrogen via electrolysis. It's very inefficient to get hydrogen out of water through electrolysis.

Look into Stan Meyer. He's the one who originally invented the car that runs on water. It isn't electrolysis, it is pulsed DC that destroys the water cells, and then you get a mix of hydrogen and oxygen known as Brown's Gas. Brown's Gas is very volatile, so storage is a problem. It's best used at the point it is being produced.

Take a look at these videos:
Peter Lindemann explaining Stanley Meyer's patent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqfiAXIs3Xc)
An animation from Xogen, a company currently using this technology in Canada (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pXo7CVFI5Sk)
A working example of a water fuel cell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSFpBW8_v8o)
Lots of Stan Meyer videos, take your pick (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=stan+meyer&search=Search)

Here's a good forum on renewable energy:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/
Some of the leading renewable energy people post there, including John Bedini and Peter Lindemann. There are people building working models, as well as plans for building your own. Some very leading edge stuff. It doesn't look that hard to build your own Bedini model to charge an array of batteries that will work better than solar or wind.

I'd also recommend checking out http://energyfromthevacuum.com/

Whether it's pulsed DC or not, it's still electrolysis.

The wiki page thing here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Water_Fuel_Cell
says that it uses 36 watts to make the H2/O2 mix. Ok, how much of that 36 watts do you get out of the whole process? It can't be more than 36 watts. Also, combusting the gas will release heat and you will not get that 36 watts back as work. If you just used the DC battery and powered a motor with the 36 watts, you would get almost all of that power out of the motor with very little heat loss.

I also have a hard time believing a lot of the claims on the page. It makes it sound like you are getting free energy.

[Hook]

Whether it's pulsed DC or not, it's still electrolysis.

The wiki page thing here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Water_Fuel_Cell
says that it uses 36 watts to make the H2/O2 mix. Ok, how much of that 36 watts do you get out of the whole process? It can't be more than 36 watts. Also, combusting the gas will release heat and you will not get that 36 watts back as work. If you just used the DC battery and powered a motor with the 36 watts, you would get almost all of that power out of the motor with very little heat loss.

I also have a hard time believing a lot of the claims on the page. It makes it sound like you are getting free energy.

Folks, Lithium Ion Polymer batteries are within an order of magnitude of gasoline energy density. Batteries or SuperCaps are the future, not some H2 fantasy. The chemical bonds in battery electrolytes can hold H ions far more densly than any sort of H2 compression scheme. There is a reason why you can get Li batteries for your laptop right now, but H2 has been promised as the panacea of energy for the last 30 years or more and still hasn't produced anything worthwhile.

[Mesogen]

This is crackpot stuff.


The Meyer Effect is occasioned by the establishment and maintenance of an electron deficit in the water.Electron deficit? What are they talking about? Water is neutral. There is no electron deficit.


As the Cell operates, a free electron current develops as two electrons are liberated per water molecule, through first, the ionization and then, the dissociation of each molecule.If you "liberate" 2 electrons from water, you will not get H2 and O2 as products. Also, those two electrons have to be going to something else. If water is the source, what is the drain? In a battery, electrons go from the anode to the cathode, along the way they do work in a circuit. Same thing goes for a fuel cell. In a fuel cell, the fuel supplies the electrons which then go to oxygen forming water.

If this is a "water fuel cell" then the electrons are coming from water, but going to where?

[Hook]

I think they go into hyperspace through a gateway formed from a warp coil. :)

[Mesogen]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Clafqu0Xw6E

Total crackpottery.

If this makes sense to anyone out there, please explain it to me.

He says here that it's getting nuclear energy out of water. "It could power an F-15."
Well, then, show us the thing powering an F-15! :rolleyes:

[Ninja Homer]

Whether it's pulsed DC or not, it's still electrolysis.

The wiki page thing here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Water_Fuel_Cell
says that it uses 36 watts to make the H2/O2 mix. Ok, how much of that 36 watts do you get out of the whole process? It can't be more than 36 watts. Also, combusting the gas will release heat and you will not get that 36 watts back as work. If you just used the DC battery and powered a motor with the 36 watts, you would get almost all of that power out of the motor with very little heat loss.

I also have a hard time believing a lot of the claims on the page. It makes it sound like you are getting free energy.

Look at this thread (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/198-radiant-h20-water-gas-voltage-potential.html). Aaron recently built a working model, and probably understands it as well as anybody in the world.

Explore around that forum a bit. There's a lot of leading edge info on free energy. Some of the people there have been building free energy systems for over 20 years. If you're wondering why they haven't gone public with them, just consider how much influence the power and oil companies have. Hell, just think about how long they've been in the White House.

Try to keep an open mind about it. In particular, be open to the possibility that some of the things you have been taught may not be correct. I'm sure you'll have questions about how these work, considering the Law of Thermodynamics. There's info on that there as well, and Aaron does a good job of explaining things in a way that the average person can understand.

[Revolution9]

Randy,

Ron Paul does not believe in your insane 9/11 theories and apparently he turned down your offer to take him for a ride in your magic car.

Why are you here?

To kick former Kerry supporters like you in the teeth for trolling the forums here. They are awaiting your arrival at zinjanthropianforums.net. I got a magick size ten boot for yer ass. It will send you to the moon and is powered by rock and roll.

Randy

[BenIsForRon]

This thread is a great example of how hopeless our future energy situation is going to be. There is no simple solution to replace oil and coal. We just have to stop using so much damn electricity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug

Here's a good movie about how dependent we are on oil and why the only real solution is reducing consumption. People don't like to hear that because it means we won't have an exponentially growing economy like we have in the past, but if want to survive as a species we're going to have to do it.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Mesogen]

Look at this thread (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/198-radiant-h20-water-gas-voltage-potential.html). Aaron recently built a working model, and probably understands it as well as anybody in the world.

Explore around that forum a bit. There's a lot of leading edge info on free energy. Some of the people there have been building free energy systems for over 20 years. If you're wondering why they haven't gone public with them, just consider how much influence the power and oil companies have. Hell, just think about how long they've been in the White House.

Try to keep an open mind about it. In particular, be open to the possibility that some of the things you have been taught may not be correct. I'm sure you'll have questions about how these work, considering the Law of Thermodynamics. There's info on that there as well, and Aaron does a good job of explaining things in a way that the average person can understand.

I still see nothing explaining even a hypothetical mechanism as to how this "works."

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/198-radiant-h20-water-gas-voltage-potential.html#post6856
This comment says "Impressive amount of gas for 36W!"

Know what a Watt is? It is 1 V x 1 A .
As in one volt times one ampere. As in CURRENT. As in electrolysis.

the term "Voltage Potential" is redundant. It's like saying "Amperage Current."

Page 16 of this:
http://www.esmhome.org/library/stan-meyer/stan-meyer-water-fuel-cell-technical-brief.pdf
Should tell anyone who knows anything about anything that this is total crap.

Page 10 says "Electron Extraction Circuit (BB) of Figure (1-14) removes, captures, and consumes "dislodged" electrons (from the gas atoms) ... The "dislodged" negative charged electrons are "destroyed" or "consumed" in the form of "heat" when an Amp Consuming Device (S) (such as a light bulb) is positively electrically charged during alternate pulsing operations."

Smell that? Total BS.

Can someone please explain how electrons are destroyed? Unless positrons are coming from somewhere, no electrons are destroyed. And you wouldn't get "heat" from that process, you'd get gamma rays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-positron_annihilation
And notice the little conversion laws on that page.



* Conservation of charge. The net charge before and after is zero.
* Conservation of linear momentum and total energy. This forbids the creation of a single gamma ray.
* Conservation of angular momentum.


Conservation of charge. You do not just "liberate" electrons and then "destroy" them. You're not turning a light bulb into a magic electron destroying device.

Ah, there is a wiki page on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell


The Water Fuel Cell is designed to utilize less energy to break molecular bonds than the quantity capable of being recovered by combustion of the product hydrogen and oxygen gases; the validity of the design is controversial. The water fuel cell is claimed to be able to produce several times more energy than it consumes; the source of this addition energy has not been scientifically identified therefore the theory is treated with skepticism. In practice, an engine would be connected to the output of a water fuel cell and through the combustion process convert the hydrogen back into water (2H2 + O2 → 2H2O), which can then be vented to the fuel tank (containing water) [1]; such a practice conforms to the parameters of perpetual motion, hence conclusive scientific investigation would either verify violation of thermodynamic law or identify the source of claimed additional energy. At least one car prototype, reportedly powered by a water fuel cell, has been assembled.[2]

It's amazing he was able to get patents. But patent officers are usually people with some training in science and engineering. They don't need advanced degrees, but some of them have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_officer#Notable_patent_examiners_and_clerks
Ok ok, Einstein was a patent clerk, but so was Walt Whitman.

Patents require "reduction to practice" as in you have to have a working model of what you want to patent, but that doesn't mean you have to actually show up somewhere and physically demonstrate anything. These people can be fooled. Others are harder to fool.


His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[1] The Water Fuel Cell, on the other hand, was examined by three expert witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis".[1]

This always happens with perpetual motion machines or even telekinesis people or ESP people. When examined closely or asked to give a demonstration under controlled conditions, they either fail or come up with some excuse for why it didn't work, or bail entirely. This happened with Orbo in July.
http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/

I repeat. This is total crackpot bullshit.
That is all.

[Ninja Homer]

I repeat. This is total crackpot bullshit.
That is all.

You probably aren't ready to accept that we can have free energy and completely do away with fossil fuels, so I'm not going to try to convince you. It's like trying to convince some people that the Federal Reserve is privately owned by a bunch of bankers that have used it to steal most of the wealth of America, or that wars are created to make money. If people don't want to believe it, there's no convincing them.

When Stan Meyer died, he took a lot of his secrets with him. People are just starting to figure out how to do some of the stuff he did now, and he did it 20 years ago. His patents are purposefully ambiguous and sometimes misleading. It's actually a pretty common practice... You put just enough in the patent so your invention is covered, but not enough that other people can figure out how to do it. Then you can continue work, find other uses or discoveries about it, and patent those without somebody else beating you to it who happened to read your patent.

A lot of people throughout history have done things that didn't seem possible according to the knowledge of the time, or seemed to break Universal Law. Ever study Tesla? People are still trying to figure out how some of Tesla's inventions worked. All of the wonderful things he brought to this world, and he was still outed by the scientific community for inventing things that didn't make sense to them, and he was labeled a crackpot towards the end of his life until the day he died.

If you ever want to look into it more, check out Tom Bearden and John Bedini. These are 2 people that are working on things that will truly change the world. Most of what they do doesn't make any sense according to textbooks, and shouldn't work, and yet they do. Laws of Physics are not actually laws, they are just a model for how things appear to work. If somebody invents something that seems to break the Laws of Physics, it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the invention, it means there's something wrong with the model. It takes somebody with an open mind to reexamine that model. Scientists don't like that, so they do their damndest to try to prove the invention is a fraud.

[Hook]

Here we go again :rolleyes:

[Hook]

The way that water fuel cell works, you can burn the H2 that you got for less cost than the electical power put in. Then you can run a generator from the combustion and run the power back into the fuel cell. It will quickly grow output power to infinity, and you can use that power to feed into a flux capacitor and then have yourself a time machine. :)

[Ninja Homer]

Here we go again :rolleyes:

No, I'm done. I posted enough links that people can research it for themselves. I know I'm not going to convince anybody here. If people want to argue that this stuff doesn't work, they can go to this forum (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/), and talk to the people who have working models sitting in front of them.

[Brandybuck]

All the government needs to do is leave it to the free market and not worry about it.
I second that! If a roof of solar-cells will fill your tank, then the market will soon provide that good. But if it can't then it won't, and no amount of whining about BigPetro or Hallicheney will change that.

[Mesogen]

You probably aren't ready to accept that we can have free energy and completely do away with fossil fuels, so I'm not going to try to convince you.
No, I'm ready. I'm more than ready for free energy. Just tell me how it works.

The deliberately ambiguous notes of Stan Meyer didn't let me in on the secret. Maybe you could do that here.

I MUST know how the water fuel cell makes more energy than you put into it.



It's like trying to convince some people that the Federal Reserve is privately owned by a bunch of bankers that have used it to steal most of the wealth of America, or that wars are created to make money. If people don't want to believe it, there's no convincing them.
http://www.xfilesfanclub.com/userImages/productImages/IW2B_Mousepad_TRXF1004_lg.jpg



When Stan Meyer died, he took a lot of his secrets with him. People are just starting to figure out how to do some of the stuff he did now, and he did it 20 years ago. His patents are purposefully ambiguous and sometimes misleading. It's actually a pretty common practice... You put just enough in the patent so your invention is covered, but not enough that other people can figure out how to do it. Then you can continue work, find other uses or discoveries about it, and patent those without somebody else beating you to it who happened to read your patent.

A lot of people throughout history have done things that didn't seem possible according to the knowledge of the time, or seemed to break Universal Law. Ever study Tesla? People are still trying to figure out how some of Tesla's inventions worked. All of the wonderful things he brought to this world, and he was still outed by the scientific community for inventing things that didn't make sense to them, and he was labeled a crackpot towards the end of his life until the day he died.
Tesla never broke any laws of physics. And believe it or not, although Tesla invented many things that changed the world forever, toward the end he became so obsessed with ideas that would never work or would never be practical that you could actually call them crackpot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Theoretical_inventions

Tesla began to theorize about electricity and magnetism's power to warp, or rather change, space and time and the procedure by which man could forcibly control this power. Near the end of his life, Tesla was fascinated with the idea of light as both a particle and a wave, a fundamental proposition already incorporated into quantum physics. This field of inquiry led to the idea of creating a "wall of light" by manipulating electromagnetic waves in a certain pattern. This mysterious wall of light would enable time, space, gravity and matter to be altered at will, and engendered an array of Tesla proposals that seem to leap straight out of science fiction, including anti-gravity airships, teleportation, and time travel. The single strangest invention Tesla ever proposed was probably the "thought photography" machine. He reasoned that a thought formed in the mind created a corresponding image in the retina, and the electrical data of this neural transmission could be read and recorded in a machine. The stored information could then be processed through an artificial optic nerve and played back as visual patterns on a viewscreen.

Another of Tesla's theorized inventions is commonly referred to as Tesla's Flying Machine, which appears to resemble an ion-propelled aircraft. Tesla claimed that one of his life goals was to create a flying machine that would run without the use of an airplane engine, wings, ailerons, propellers, or an onboard fuel source. Initially, Tesla pondered about the idea of a flying craft that would fly using an electric motor powered by grounded base stations. As time progressed, Tesla suggested that perhaps such an aircraft could be run entirely electro-mechanically. The theorized appearance would typically take the form of a cigar or saucer.Of course, the government has working models of all this at Area 51.

Oh, but there was a conspiracy against Tesla too that robbed us all of free energy that we could have had since 1905!
http://www.world-mysteries.com/doug_teslat.htm


If you ever want to look into it more, check out Tom Bearden and John Bedini. These are 2 people that are working on things that will truly change the world. Most of what they do doesn't make any sense according to textbooks, and shouldn't work, and yet they do. Laws of Physics are not actually laws, they are just a model for how things appear to work. If somebody invents something that seems to break the Laws of Physics, it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the invention, it means there's something wrong with the model. It takes somebody with an open mind to reexamine that model. Scientists don't like that, so they do their damndest to try to prove the invention is a fraud.
There's one thing you can do to prove'em all wrong. Make it work.

If you can REALLY make a free energy machine, then it shouldn't be that hard for you to sell them. OR to sell all the free energy you get from it.

Unless these people with working models of the water fuel cell in their garages are running their entire house with it and then the entire neighborhood, then don't be shocked when people aren't convinced.

If you get free energy, there is no stopping you.

[Mesogen]

Oh, someone here, I think pyrazole, said that Pt was the cheap alternative to Pd.
I can tell you catalog prices for 5g of Pt and Pd compounds, but I didn't really know their prices per ounce.

I was quite astounded when I looked them up.
http://metals.about.com/library/bl-palladium-chart.htm
Palladium = $327/oz

http://metals.about.com/od/investing/l/blplatinum_chrt.htm
Platinum = $1225/oz
!!!

WOW! I remember last year Pt was about $750/oz.
I wish I had the money to invest in Pt last year and had any idea it would go up that high!!!

Now rhodium takes the cake.
It's $6010/oz
So a bar of that stuff would be millions.
http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/rd92-pres.gif

O wait, no I'd have to go back to 2003 when it was under $800.
http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/pt92-pres.gifHmm, I wonder what could be driving those prices up?

Compared to gold, it's a good investment.
http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au75-pres.gif

I thought gold was supposed to be a hedge against inflation?
It's the same price now as it was in 1980. And $650 in 1980 is a hell of a lot more than $650 in 2007. So really, gold is going down with the dollar. Seems like a crappy investment to me.

Silver doesn't look like a very good investment either.
http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/ag85-pres.gif

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Man from La Mancha]

This thread is a great example of how hopeless our future energy situation is going to be. There is no simple solution to replace oil and coal. We just have to stop using so much damn electricity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug

Here's a good movie about how dependent we are on oil and why the only real solution is reducing consumption. People don't like to hear that because it means we won't have an exponentially growing economy like we have in the past, but if want to survive as a species we're going to have to do it.

I can't believe how well they have people scared about everything, the energy, the terrorists, the food,ect.ect. I've said this before there is plenty of oil and enough to last till we get something better. That term is not accurate, free energy. The universe is full of energy we just have to learn how to tap it like magnets do and the spin of the atoms. It's unlimited. Look how much oil is here and this is on top of whats being pumped out of the ground now. Really when are people going to stop believing the scientist priests of the elite??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale]


Main article: Oil shale reserves
The world deposits of oil shale are estimated to be equal to 2.9-3.3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil. (HELLO PEOPLE:rolleyes:) Although oil shale resources occur in many countries, only 33 countries possess deposits of economic value.[10] Total resources of these countries are estimated at 411 billion tonnes, which is equal to 2.9 trillion U.S. barrels.[15] Among those, USA accounts for 62% of the world resources, and USA, Russia and Brazil together account for 86% in terms of shale oil content.[10] The above mentioned figure of total reserves is conservative because several deposits have not been explored sufficiently to make accurate estimates, and other deposits were not included.[15][16]

.

[BenIsForRon]

^ok, where do I begin. Look at the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) on shale oil, it is much less than conventional oil. Shell states a ratio of 3:1, which is very optimistic. Even if that ratio was true, it is much less than the oil we use now, which is on average somewhere around 30:1.

SHALE OIL IS THE CONSPIRACY! IT IS ONE OF THE THINGS OIL COMPANIES ARE USING TO DISTRACT US FROM THE REALITY OF PEAK OIL.

If the majority of the American people were aware of the reality of peak oil, we would immediately reduce consumption and try to figure out a new way to run our economy. This would not be good for oil companies.

Seriously La Mancha, go to http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html, read the two pages there, it shows (with many sources) how there is now way we can work ourselves out of this crisis. We have to slow down the economy and reduce consumption, there is no other solution in the near term.

[pyrazole2]

Oh, someone here, I think pyrazole, said that Pt was the cheap alternative to Pd.



Platinum is the cheap alternative! They used Palladium and Rhodium in the past.

Yes, I said that, without checking. Sorry about that. However, in a tiny little kernel of defense: Relative abundances.

Pt: Earth's Crust/p.p.m.: 0.0010 (from http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Pt.html)
Pd: Earth's Crust/p.p.m.: 0.0006 from http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Pd.html)

for contrast:
Au: Earth's Crust/p.p.m.: 0.0011 (from http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Au.html)

Of course market prices are based on supply and demand (I hope). Given the relative abundance, the ever-increasing use for Pd, it's alternative use as a catalytic CO oxidizer, it's way underpriced.

[Hook]

The problem with shale is that it is very expensive to get the oil out. Right now you can just punch a hole in the ground to pump oil. But you have to really squeeze and heat shale to get the oil out, plus you have to dig it up in rock form. There is literally millions of tons of gold disolved in seawater, but that doesn't mean that it is cost effective to try to distill it out.

[Man from La Mancha]

^ok, where do I begin. Look at the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) on shale oil, it is much less than conventional oil. Shell states a ratio of 3:1, which is very optimistic. Even if that ratio was true, it is much less than the oil we use now, which is on average somewhere around 30:1.

SHALE OIL IS THE CONSPIRACY! IT IS ONE OF THE THINGS OIL COMPANIES ARE USING TO DISTRACT US FROM THE REALITY OF PEAK OIL.

If the majority of the American people were aware of the reality of peak oil, we would immediately reduce consumption and try to figure out a new way to run our economy. This would not be good for oil companies.

Seriously La Mancha, go to http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html, read the two pages there, it shows (with many sources) how there is now way we can work ourselves out of this crisis. We have to slow down the economy and reduce consumption, there is no other solution in the near term.


I scanned that site. No problem, shale might cost more but it will be there especially to use for industry uses and we still have coal and natural gas. A combination of many different technology's will work. There is no way the faucet will be instantly off and most of it will start slowing down over a long enough time period while people change over. The market place will work it out. If this country can mobilize for ww2. I really see this as no big deal.

[Hook]

I scanned that site. No problem, shale might cost more but it will be there especially to use for industry uses and we still have coal and natural gas. A combination of many different technology's will work. There is no way the faucet will be instantly off and most of it will start slowing down over a long enough time period while people change over. The market place will work it out. If this country can mobilize for ww2. I really see this as no big deal.

I agree. As oil starts getting harder to extract, the prices will go up. That will provide the economic incentive to start using solar. It ain't gonna happen until oil is above $150/bbl though.

[BenIsForRon]

The market place will work it out. If this country can mobilize for ww2. I really see this as no big deal.

You know how we mobilized so quickly for WW2? We punched thousands of more holes for oil in the ground to support our rapidly growing military and industry, so the energy was there. But American oil peaked in 1971, we had the shocks in 73, then we struck up trade agreements with the Saudis and other middle eastern countries. 30 years later here we are, deep in shit because we couldn't put the needle down.

Our economy is based on ever increasing supplies of cheap oil. Yes, the market will adjust so that companies might start using shale, but it will be MUCH more expensive (you physically can't produce it as cheaply). So right now that gallon of milk is $4.00, with gasoline extracted from shale oil it will be about $20.00... I have no evidence to back that specific number up, but if anything its an underestimate.

Now if you still think the markets can deal with peak oil fast enough, check this out...

Mexico's oil production in its main field fell 8% last year, and is expected to fall even faster next year. A huge portion of Mexico's economy is going to collapse because of this. THIS IS THE PRIMARY REASON WHY HALLIBURTON IS BUILDING CAMPS IN TEXAS! They know we are going to have a rapid influx of immigrants, and the ones they don't want they'll throw in the camps, and I'm sure later on they'll use them for any American dumb enough to question the government.

[Mesogen]

Gold has been heavily manipulated, via the "carry trade" and other methods. But the manipulation can't last forever. (Relax, this is a conspiracy theory in which the conspirators openly admit their machinations).

See: http://gata.org/

Taking the long view:

-- The basket of goods one could purchase in 1900 for an ounce of gold still cost one ounce of gold, while the dollar from 1900 is now worth about 3 cents.

-- For the past 5,000 years, one ounce of gold has been (more or less) consistently able to buy about 300 loaves of bread.

Really? A "pound of bread" cost $0.51 in 1980 according to:
http://qrc.depaul.edu/djabon/cpi.htm

In 1998, it cost $0.89. I guess a loaf is 1.5 pounds?
So a loaf in 1980 was $0.76
And a loaf in 1998 was $1.33

Gold was $650/oz in 1980.
Gold was $300/oz in 1998.

So in 1980 an ounce of gold would buy 855 loaves.
And in 1998 an ounce of gold would buy 225 loaves.

I'm sure it all averages out over time, though. And it does seem to stay within the same order of magnitude. I can't ever see a day when an ounce of gold will only buy ONE loaf of bread, but it's easy to see a loaf of bread costing $100.

But, like I said in the other thread. Simply depositing the money into an interest earning savings account over the period of 1980 to 2005 would be a much better hedge against inflation than buying bars of gold.

[Mesogen]

Yes, I said that, without checking. Sorry about that. However, in a tiny little kernel of defense: Relative abundances.

Pt: Earth's Crust/p.p.m.: 0.0010 (from http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Pt.html)
Pd: Earth's Crust/p.p.m.: 0.0006 from http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Pd.html)

for contrast:
Au: Earth's Crust/p.p.m.: 0.0011 (from http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Au.html)

Of course market prices are based on supply and demand (I hope). Given the relative abundance, the ever-increasing use for Pd, it's alternative use as a catalytic CO oxidizer, it's way underpriced.

Yeah, that's what I thought when I saw its price. I was assuming that since Pd is less abundant than Pt, it would cost more. I'm guessing the price of Pt is going through the roof because of demand for fuel cells.

But what caused rhodium to shoot from 700 to 6000 ? The only thing I can think of is some guy out there hoarded a whole hoard of it. Either that or we are ramping up acetic acid production using the Monsanto process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_process)? :) That's the only thing I can think of. Maybe there's been a huge increase in catalytic hydroformylation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroformylation)? :p

[Ninja Homer]

No, I'm ready. I'm more than ready for free energy. Just tell me how it works.

The deliberately ambiguous notes of Stan Meyer didn't let me in on the secret. Maybe you could do that here.

I MUST know how the water fuel cell makes more energy than you put into it.

I don't know specifically how the water fuel cell works. My guess would be that the pulsed potential shorts out in the water, which brings in enough energy from the vacuum to break up the H20 into HHO. Look at this forum for specifics. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/198-radiant-h20-water-gas-voltage-potential.html)

In general, you get more energy out of the water fuel cell than you put in because of the potential energy already put into the H20 by nature. Just as there is potential energy created by nature in the water above Niagara Falls that we extract by using generators, there is potential energy created by nature in H2O that we can extract by turning it into HHO.



Tesla never broke any laws of physics. And believe it or not, although Tesla invented many things that changed the world forever, toward the end he became so obsessed with ideas that would never work or would never be practical that you could actually call them crackpot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Theoretical_inventions
Of course, the government has working models of all this at Area 51.

Oh, but there was a conspiracy against Tesla too that robbed us all of free energy that we could have had since 1905!
http://www.world-mysteries.com/doug_teslat.htm

Wardenclyffe would have been great, but I've heard that it wouldn't have been able to supply nearly as much energy as the world now uses. The big Tesla conspiracy is the ignoring of the science that he used.

Tom Bearden (http://cheniere.org/misc/bearden%20cv%20long.htm) is one of the foremost experts on Tesla. Watch this video. Tom does a great job of explaining Tesla and his science.
Tom Talks Tesla (http://www.guba.com/watch/3000049334)

These are must-watch videos if you are interested in free energy:
Energy From The Vacuum: Part 1 - Tom Bearden (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1066893416132462243)
Energy From The Vacuum: Part 2 - John Bedini (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2858148671911962750)



There's one thing you can do to prove'em all wrong. Make it work.

If you can REALLY make a free energy machine, then it shouldn't be that hard for you to sell them. OR to sell all the free energy you get from it.

Unless these people with working models of the water fuel cell in their garages are running their entire house with it and then the entire neighborhood, then don't be shocked when people aren't convinced.

If you get free energy, there is no stopping you.

Big oil stops you.

Here are 3 news stories on 3 different inventors that created HHO from H2O:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YIgOn1kRw5s
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNOmuliwbhQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lud1qceKqyQ

Are you asking yourself why you hadn't seen these stories previously? Big oil has long arms...

[Mesogen]

I don't know specifically how the water fuel cell works. My guess would be that the pulsed potential shorts out in the water, which brings in enough energy from the vacuum to break up the H20 into HHO. Look at this forum for specifics. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/198-radiant-h20-water-gas-voltage-potential.html)
Maybe, if you really believe in this stuff, email a few electrical or chemical engineers, or an electrochemist, to see what they think of this. See if they would be willing to do a few experiments. They'd have the instrumentation to do the tests. Just go to the website of the nearest university and look up their emails from the faculty pages.



In general, you get more energy out of the water fuel cell than you put in because of the potential energy already put into the H20 by nature. Just as there is potential energy created by nature in the water above Niagara Falls that we extract by using generators, there is potential energy created by nature in H2O that we can extract by turning it into HHO.

Then you should be able to route some of the produced power back into the fuel cell and create a runaway reaction. You should be able to keep building and building power until you max out the equipment. You should be able to make a "perpetual motion" machine that will produce H2 or HHO or whatever you think it's doing indefinitely, or at least until the materials wear out.

Why haven't we seen this? Why hasn't this guy in his garage started powering his whole house with this? Why isn't he selling ultracheap power to his neighbors? Or even giving it away? It's free after all.


Wardenclyffe would have been great, but I've heard that it wouldn't have been able to supply nearly as much energy as the world now uses. The big Tesla conspiracy is the ignoring of the science that he used.

Tom Bearden (http://cheniere.org/misc/bearden%20cv%20long.htm) is one of the foremost experts on Tesla. Watch this video. Tom does a great job of explaining Tesla and his science.
Tom Talks Tesla (http://www.guba.com/watch/3000049334)
Cool. Tesla was an interesting guy. I'll definitely watch this when I have the time.


These are must-watch videos if you are interested in free energy:
Energy From The Vacuum: Part 1 - Tom Bearden (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1066893416132462243)
Energy From The Vacuum: Part 2 - John Bedini (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2858148671911962750)
It's funny because the term "free energy" is already widely used in thermodynamics, but it has nothing to do with how much one pays for electric power. You know Gibbs Free Energy? Usually denoted G.



Big oil stops you.

Here are 3 news stories on 3 different inventors that created HHO from H2O:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YIgOn1kRw5s
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNOmuliwbhQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lud1qceKqyQ

Are you asking yourself why you hadn't seen these stories previously? Big oil has long arms...

I'm not doubting that big oil companies collude to drive up oil and gas prices and manipulate the market. I also don't doubt that they played a hand in planning for the Iraq war, or at least its aftermath. I'm sure they have bought up patents and squashed technology that would lose them money.

I am not convinced that this is one of those technologies.

[pyrazole2]

Where do you some of you get your info?

I'm a MS electrochemical engineer. 12 years experience. I work at the only plant in the US that produces 99.9% Cr metal. Ore gets leached, purified, and electroplated. We make 7500 tons of it a year, 150 tons at 99.9999% I know a little about electrochemistry.

What is HHO?...meaningless. H20, HOH, HHO, OHH...it doesn't really matter how you type it, it doesn't change the chemistry of water. It's called electrolysis and it's a very inefficient way of converting electricity to hydrogen (H2 or HH, as you all know it as). http://anti-rant.blogspot.com/2006/05/simple-truth-about-hho-and-water.html ..if you don't know what you're talking about, leave it alone, you're not a natural genius...sorry to burst your bubble.

Big oil...give it a rest. I just drove by BP Solar in Frederick, MD this weekend. http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=4700

All the pieces are in place, why doesn't anything get done? Because we expect the government to do it all for us....won't happen in our lifetimes (unless we run the market wide open) Quick quiz - of the top 20 solar power plants in the world, how many are in the US? one. we suck. http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php if we're the wealthiest country in the world, and are home to the biggest companies in the world, why don't we have all the top 20?

I do appreciate that the perpetual motion crackpots have something to do, can you imagine what they'd do otherwise?

"The hydrocarbon-powered internal combustion engine will out-live us. As will many other incredibly great ideas like the wheel, air conditioning, and breast implants." - http://anti-rant.blogspot.com/2006/05/simple-truth-about-hho-and-water.html

[Electric Church]

If we can make civilian and military vehicles run on water or hydrogen (either from water or directly), why are we wasting lives and money in middle east?

Qualifier: When I say run on water, I mean use electrical energy obtained from a source such as solar panel, to break water down into H2 and O2 and then use H2 to either burn in Hydrogen ICE or recombine in a FUEL CELL with O2 and generate electricity that way or hybrids of either of the two with standard ICE systems.

Essentially free: Sun providing light free of charge. Water can be obtained free of charge. The only costs are some periodical costs which are applicable to regular ICE too (moving parts lubricants, worn parts etc) and install once-off charges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMBni0sDBww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9_VYn_CGtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt1uN38EcoQ
*Listen carefully to what the guy says roughly halfway through the third video in the list, starting at around the 6:20 mark.

--

Oil Companies don't want to become irrelevant and the government loves the oil tax.
Conflict of interest? I think so.

--

This is only half the story.

The point is that TECHNOLOGY EXISTS TODAY TO TAKE YOUR HOUSE AND YOUR CAR COMPLETELY OFF THE ENERGY GRID.

The only thing you would need is access to sun and/or wind and water (purity is a good thing).

--

Ask yourself would MSM, Oil, Govt, Coal and Nuclear Industries want every citizen to have such systems?

--

We already know that the war on terror a massive fraud (why hasn't Al-Qaeda been crushed? Why has it actually grown? Where are the WOMD? etc etc etc).
In fact the entire presence in middle east is completely unnecessary because we do not need their oil.

Domestic oil would be more than sufficient.

A much smaller amount of oil is needed to make plastics.

A lot of plastics can actually be made from organic sources thus reducing dependence on oil even further.

--

In basic terms, his house (guy in 3rd video) uses sun's energy (solar panels) to split water into hydrogen and oxygen (electrolysis). He keeps the hydrogen in tanks.

He then fills up his car hydrogen tank and uses that hydrogen to charge his car's battery by recombining the hydrogen with oxygen (fuel cell).

So, he basically just takes the light of the sun and uses it to power his house and car (using the hydrogen and oxygen from water in the process).

Stan Meyer, apparently murdered, already could run a car on water and then was employed by the US military and ran a military vehicle on water...he then was quickly disposed of.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800

[pyrazole2]

We have another one.

Stan Meyers was not an inventor, just a snake oil salesman to an ignorant public.
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html

""It takes so much energy to separate the H2 from the O," said Ohio State University professor emeritus Neville Reay, a physicist for more than 41 years. "That energy has pretty much not changed with time. It's a fixed amount, and nothing changes that."

Meyer's work defies the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

"Basically, it says you can't get something for nothing," Reay said.

"He may have had a nice way to store the hydrogen and use it to make a very effective motor, but there is no way to do something fancy and separate hydrogen with less energy."


'I was a sucker'

Nevertheless, Meyer attracted believers, investors and, eventually, legal trouble.

"I was a sucker for some of this stuff at the time," William E. Brooks said from his home in Anchorage, Alaska.

Brooks invested more than $300,000 in Meyer's technology. He hoped to find applications for his aviation business.

Today, he and his wife, Lorraine, laugh about the ordeal, made easier because their money was returned in a 1994 settlement in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

Two years later, a Fayette County judge found "gross and egregious fraud" in Meyer's contract negotiation with two businessmen. Their money was returned.

[cjhowe]

All the government needs to do is leave it to the free market and not worry about it.

Exactly, no need to talk about phantom products, pipe dreams or the next big thing, if the government stops subsidizing and regulating, the products will come.

[Electric Church]

We have another one.

Stan Meyers was not an inventor, just a snake oil salesman to an ignorant public.
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html

""It takes so much energy to separate the H2 from the O," said Ohio State University professor emeritus Neville Reay, a physicist for more than 41 years. "That energy has pretty much not changed with time. It's a fixed amount, and nothing changes that."

Meyer's work defies the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

"Basically, it says you can't get something for nothing," Reay said.

"He may have had a nice way to store the hydrogen and use it to make a very effective motor, but there is no way to do something fancy and separate hydrogen with less energy."


'I was a sucker'

Nevertheless, Meyer attracted believers, investors and, eventually, legal trouble.

"I was a sucker for some of this stuff at the time," William E. Brooks said from his home in Anchorage, Alaska.

Brooks invested more than $300,000 in Meyer's technology. He hoped to find applications for his aviation business.

Today, he and his wife, Lorraine, laugh about the ordeal, made easier because their money was returned in a 1994 settlement in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

Two years later, a Fayette County judge found "gross and egregious fraud" in Meyer's contract negotiation with two businessmen. Their money was returned.

No offense intended but I still would encourage folks to look into it anyway and look at all the arguments. Why? Because if Stan Meyer is for real you can bet the corporate run establishment is going to do everything in their power to keep this swept under the rug and that includes paying folks like yourself to be ready with detailed available debunking material on hand to quickly discredit his findings.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[BenIsForRon]

Exactly, no need to talk about phantom products, pipe dreams or the next big thing, if the government stops subsidizing and regulating, the products will come.

This is mostly true except for one thing. The market won't produce new products because the resources won't be there to replace our current infrastructure. What the markets will do is encourage people to alter their consumption and spending habits, as well as design their urban infrastructure to use less energy. A limited amount of new technology will arise, but most of what we will end up doing is drastically changing our way of life.

Of course if someone like Hillary or Rudy get in the white house, we'll end up doing a lot of retarded things like subsidizing shale oil and coal-to-liquids programs.

[Electric Church]

"The hydrocarbon-powered internal combustion engine will out-live us. As will many other incredibly great ideas like the wheel, air conditioning, and breast implants." - http://anti-rant.blogspot.com/2006/05/simple-truth-about-hho-and-water.html

That is a load of pure corporate elitists propaganda pro-oil company rubbish...I tell ya...you guys all sound the same...I would suggest your handlers have one debunking style and message per agent as opposed to one debunking style for all agents and all messages.
:cool:

[aravoth]

There was a guy that developed this already, you can find the news clip on youtube. He ionized H2O somehow, and turned it into HHO. The result was filling your car up with a garden hose, the same horsepower or better than standard gasoline. After combustion, all it emitted was water vapor.

[pyrazole2]

That is a load of pure corporate elitists propaganda pro-oil company rubbish...I tell ya...you guys all sound the same...I would suggest your handlers have one debunking style and message per agent as opposed to one debunking style for all agents and all messages.
:cool:

lol, it's called an education. Look into getting one. That one debunking style you refer to is called a Natural Law...The Laws of Thermodynamics, not the 'Theories' of Thermodynamics.

The basic idea of all this is: Just do it. If you believe the pseudo-science and want to waste your time, it's cool with me, just quit talking and show us. Keeps you far out of my way, 'cause I got s*** to do.

I love this thread, Darren. I'm a Load of Pure Corporate Elitists™ trying to stir them up in order to goad them into buying more tinfoil hats from my handlers. *evil laugh*

[BenIsForRon]

There actually is a conspiracy, except its not what everyone here thinks. The oil companies want us to believe that technology they are developing will save us from a crisis. They sell ideas to us like hydrogen and tar sands. With oil shale, they say, "We have more oil in the mountains of Colorado than in the entire middle east!" What they don't say is that to tap into that energy, you have to put nearly as much energy into the extraction as you get from the actual oil. That is expensive energy, not energy you could fill 200 million cars with.

They don't tell us about peak oil because then we'd be out of their control. We wouldn't buy as much stuff. We would invest in public transportation as opposed to building more highways. We would grow all food locally and not eat food grown with oil from 1,000 miles away. When all the money in the economy isn't flowing in one direction, you can't control the world.

[aravoth]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNOmuliwbhQ

here, it's more than possible, it's been done. Pointless argument. If it was a fruad, I seriously doubt the government would be entertianing contracts for this technology.

[Hook]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNOmuliwbhQ

here, it's more than possible, it's been done. Pointless argument. If it was a fruad, I seriously doubt the government would be entertianing contracts for this technology.

You'd be amazed at the stupidity Uncle Sam will entertain. Like invading Iraq 'ferinstance.

[Hook]

This is mostly true except for one thing. The market won't produce new products because the resources won't be there to replace our current infrastructure. What the markets will do is encourage people to alter their consumption and spending habits, as well as design their urban infrastructure to use less energy. A limited amount of new technology will arise, but most of what we will end up doing is drastically changing our way of life.

Of course if someone like Hillary or Rudy get in the white house, we'll end up doing a lot of retarded things like subsidizing shale oil and coal-to-liquids programs.

Don't forget Ethanol!

[BenIsForRon]

He ionized H2O somehow

That somehow is electrolysis. You need electricity to do this. You get the electricity from a battery, which is charged by a power plant. So the source of the energy you are talking about is actually coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car

WATER IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE! It would be much more efficient to make a car that would run straight from the energy in the battery.

[Electric Church]

....Natural Law........Thermodynamics, not the 'Theories' of Thermodynamics......pseudo-science


bla bla bla bla... Dingbats just might consider you to an expert
:cool:

[Electric Church]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNOmuliwbhQ

here, it's more than possible, it's been done. Pointless argument. If it was a fruad, I seriously doubt the government would be entertianing contracts for this technology.

Intresting. He gets a hundred miles on four ounces of water. Not bad for "pseudo-science."

[r3volution]

.........

[Electric Church]

the most promising thing i have seen is cars that run on compressed air
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
http://www.theaircar.com/

looks very promising

[Ninja Homer]

lol, it's called an education. Look into getting one. That one debunking style you refer to is called a Natural Law...The Laws of Thermodynamics, not the 'Theories' of Thermodynamics.

The basic idea of all this is: Just do it. If you believe the pseudo-science and want to waste your time, it's cool with me, just quit talking and show us. Keeps you far out of my way, 'cause I got s*** to do.

I found Tom Bearden's comments on extracting energy from water, which will put an end to the idea that this is some impossible "pseudo-science" from a bunch of crackpots.

Since you value education, this is from Tom Bearden's Bio (http://cheniere.org/misc/bearden%20cv%20long.htm):

President and Chief Executive Officer, CTEC, Inc. Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army (Retired). Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study. Director of Association of Distinguished American Scientists. Course work completed for doctorate; thesis being submitted. MS Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. BS Mathematics, Northeast Louisiana University with minor in Electronic Engineering. Graduate of Command & General Staff College, U.S. Army. Graduate of Guided Missile Staff Officer's Course, U.S. Army (equivalent to MS in Aerospace Engineering). Graduate courses in statistics, electromagnetics. Numerous missile, radar, electronic warfare, and counter-countermeasures courses.

A crackpot? I don't think so. He probably has more education than everybody on this thread combined.

His comments on energy from water, including how this process can violate the laws of thermodynamics (including many references), from here (http://cheniere.org/correspondence/061807.htm):

Subject: Salt Water Power!
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:19:33 -0500

Hi Tony,

The videos of Kanzius and his “watergas” (http://cheniere.org/video/WaterFuel.wmv) or “salt water gas (http://cheniere.org/video/SaltWater.wmv)” discovery are much appreciated!

The tone of it – Kanzius was looking for a cancer treatment – is very proper.

I suspect he may have really stumbled onto something very good and very useful, if it can be followed up now and fully investigated and mastered.

It’s potentially a really good energy solution, particularly if the entire process has a COP>1.0. That is, if one can put in a little energy to the water, break down the water into H2 and O2 and then burn the H2 – and in the process recover more energy back out of the combustion recombination of the H2 and O2 than what one inputs.

Note that he has a good solution even if the process has COP<1.0, so long as he has a decent efficiency. It still would allow getting away from burning oil and coal, and getting onto “burning watergas”.

If the Kanzius process is COP >1.0, he will have to be violating the second law of equilibrium thermodynamics in there. Not to worry, one is permitted (in nonequilibrium thermodynamics) to violate that sad old “law” (it’s actually an oxymoron assuming its own contradiction has previously occurred but is not accounted) almost at will. One known and accepted way (in nonequilibrium thermodynamics) to violate the second law almost at will is by sharp gradients – or, sharp pulses of energy density, in other words. Since chemists do not consider that sort of 2nd law violation, the conventional chemists are going to argue that it is not possible.

We iterate the “magic” capabilities permitted by nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamics systems, while absolutely precluded in equilibrium thermodynamics. A proper NESS system is permitted to (1) self-order, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the operator himself inputs (the excess energy required is input by the active environment), (4) self-power (all the required energy input is provided by the environment freely, and the operator inputs none at all), and (5) exhibit negative entropy.

The reason that electrical power system engineers fail to build such systems is that such a NESS system is basically an asymmetrical system. With Lorentz’s 1892 arbitrary symmetrization of Heaviside’s 1880s vector equations, the resulting symmetrized theory arbitrarily discards all such asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, and allows only symmetrical Maxwellian systems that self-enforce COP<1.0. So the electrical engineers are trained to believe and accept that there exists no such thing as a COP>1.0 EM system, taking its excess energy freely from the active vacuum’s ongoing interaction with every charge. Indeed, the EE model falsely assumes an inert vacuum and a flat spacetime. Neither its assumed vacuum environment nor its assumed spacetime environment ever furnishes any excess net energy to the system in the EE’s model.

If one looks at the watergas phenomenon through the nonequilibrium thermodynamicist’s eyes, and then considers the transient fluctuation theorem whose existence and effects in fluids in regions of up to a cubic micron for up to two seconds or more have been rigorously proven by Australian thermodynamicists, then indeed one can have a process in water that does violate the second law and does allow a COP>1.0 overall process. And one can have a process that produces continuous negative entropy.

Consider this: Heat is just EM energy that is being scattered usually. So a key question becomes: “How can we produce EM energy or heat energy output, without inputting real, observable energy ourselves?”

It is clearly established that every charge and every dipole in the universe already freely and steadily pours out real, observable, usable photons – real EM energy – and yet there is no observable EM energy input. Instead, there is a “Maxwell’s demon” process being accomplished by that charge or that dipole. The charge or dipole is absorbing virtual energy, and producing and emitting observable energy.

Note that a single “classical” charge polarizes its surrounding virtual state vacuum with charge of opposite sign, so that the “classical, isolated charge” is actually part of a dipolar ensemble also. And for separated opposite charges, broken symmetry was predicted and rapidly proven experimentally in the 1950s, resulting in the immediate award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang for their prediction of broken symmetry – a giant revolution in physics whose ramifications have not yet made it into electrical engineering! And not much into chemistry either!

As Nobelist T. D. Lee points out, when we have a broken symmetry, something virtual has become observable. Because of its broken symmetry, any charge and dipole does indeed absorb virtual state energy, coherently integrate it to observable state, and re-emit the energy as real, observable photons – real, usable EM energy.

So yes, there are indeed “Maxwell demon” processes that violate the second law and are legitimate; every charge and dipole is already a glowing example.

E.g., see D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, “Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states,” Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648. This paper advances the transient fluctuation theorem which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. The theorem relates the relative probability of delivering negative versus positive work to an experimental vessel. The theorem applies to systems in a constant-temperature environment and initially at equilibrium.

Quoting Blau:

“[There are many theorems] … that tackle the statistical nature of fluctuations. Specific forms of the various theorems depend on which thermodynamic parameters (temperature, volume, and so forth) are held constant, whether the system is prepared in an equilibrium state, and other factors. The transient fluctuation theorem tested by Evans and coworkers applies to systems in a constant-temperature environment and initially at equilibrium.” [Steven K. Blau, "The Unusual Thermodynamics of Microscopic Systems," Physics Today, 55(9), Sep. 2002, p. 19-21. Quote is from p. 19-20].

Actually Maxwell – who also was a thermodynamicist of note – was aware that the old second law was routinely violated in macroscopic fluids when one considers the molecules. Quoting Maxwell:

“The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body.” [J. C. Maxwell, “Tait's Thermodynamics II,” Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].

To see how closely Maxwell’s view corresponds to the modern work of Evans et al., we quote Evans:

“We are known for deriving and experimentally confirming the Fluctuation Theorem. This Theorem gives an elegant extension of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so that it applies to finite systems observed for finite times. … The Theorem also resolves the paradox of how time-reversible microscopic dynamics leads to irreversible macroscopic behaviour. It also implies that as devices are made smaller and smaller the probability that they will run thermodynamically reverse to what one would expect, increases exponentially with decreasing system size.” [D. J. Evans, http://rsc.anu.edu.au/~evans/index.php.].

A further generalized form of the transient fluctuation theorem, due to Gavin Crooks at Berkeley, applies when one manipulates a system so as to change its free energy. See Gavin E. Crooks, “Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences,” Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 60, 1999, p. 2721-2726.

For a really startling paper, see D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, “Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States,” J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. This paper proves that real physical systems can produce continuous negative entropy, in total violation to the flawed old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics.

And finally, see G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, “Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601. The authors experimentally demonstrate the integrated transient fluctuation theorem, which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. Entropy consumption (production of negative entropy) is shown to occur over colloidal length and time scales, for up to two seconds and at micron size scales.

The source charge and the source dipole clearly and easily demonstrate experimentally that (1) there do exist proven processes that produce observable EM energy from the virtual state energy of the vacuum, and (2) an example of this proven process – from charges and dipoles – exists in every fundamental charged particle and dipole.

This clearly means that the potential for negative entropy effects (such as possibly the production of watergas in a COP>1.0 overall process) already exists in all atoms and molecules.

Thus there ought to be a way to do in water exactly what Kanzius appears to have done. The thrust of his work – and his conclusions as to the cause – are indeed already supported by hard science, just science that has been accomplished by Australian thermodynamicists!

A real advantage of such a real watergas process, of course, is that the combustion of the H2 and O2 obtained from the water just produces more water! And no CO2 emissions from the combustion process! You take a natural resource, trick it into being an energy (combustion of fuel) source by first using a negative entropy (negative work) process, and “exhaust” it back in the original form as water with usable heat liberated in the combustion process.

And it will also dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and thus global warming, if one replaces carbon fuels combustion with such a “pure” and “clean” process.

These are the kinds of effects and systems that our scientific leaders ought to be funding and investigating at full capability. Instead, mostly they are just funding rather orthodox “more of the same” technologies.

Let’s hope Kanzius or someone gets it for real, and then gets it out there very quickly.

Best wishes,
Tom

I also strongly suggest you watch these videos:
http://www.guba.com/watch/3000049334
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1066893416132462243
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1066893416132462243)

[aravoth]

That somehow is electrolysis. You need electricity to do this. You get the electricity from a battery, which is charged by a power plant. So the source of the energy you are talking about is actually coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car

WATER IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE! It would be much more efficient to make a car that would run straight from the energy in the battery.

Yeah, except that the car actually makes the H2O into HHO. And it's not plugged in. Nor does it have any solar panels. The power plant for the battery you're talking about is the cars alternator, as long as there is something comustable in the engine, the car's engine will crank, the alternator will spin, the battery will get charged, and you could continue makeing water into whatever.

[BenIsForRon]

The alternator is hardly a source of energy. It charges the battery (or conducts electrolysis) with kinetic energy from the engine. In the overall system you are still getting a net loss of energy. The original source of energy is a battery. You have to convert H2O into HHO, which recombines into H2O to give you energy. The conversion of H2O to HHO is not free The alternator does reclaim energy, but not all the energy, so you will need battery power the whole time. An electric car that ran strait from a powerful battery would be much more efficient. Once again, I'll point you to the wikipedia water-fuelled car article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car

And then you go and start talking about vacuum energy. Of course it exists, you see it everywhere, because it is the actual source of gravity. The thing is, no one has even been able to design a theoretical large scale device that could even power an alarm clock with vacuum energy. Thats why the article you posted only mentions vacuum energy on small intervals of time and space.

There is no panacea to our energy crisis. You are going to realize this when the airline industry collapses in a few years because fuel is just too expensive and no one can afford tickets. Or when you look at your receipt after going to the grocery store. Either way, its happening, and the earlier we stop lying to ourselves, the earlier we can make meaningful changes to reduce our dependence on cheap energy.

[Electric Church]

Either way, its happening, and the earlier we stop lying to ourselves, the earlier we can make meaningful changes to reduce our dependence on cheap energy.


No...you and the global corporations have to stop lying to us about scarcity and the suppression of technologies that eliminate our dependence on the global oil giants.

The so called “meaningful changes” proposed are a global carbon tax based upon the manmade global warming hoax, more regulations, more fines and penalties, more revenue sucked out of the public into the hands of private foreign interests, more public investment into harmful alternatives like methanol which contributes to world food scarcity and more centralized elitists control over the impoverished masses to continue their implementation of managed global genocide.

[BenIsForRon]

^The meaningful changes I'm talking about are the same ones Ron Paul talks about, which is simply living within our means. What I'm talking about involves much less taxes, because we simply are consuming less. If energy is becoming more scarce, then we need to think about simply using less energy, not praying for magical elves to pop out of the ground and give us free energy tomorrow. Like I said, you are mistaken about the actual conspiracy. I will refer you to my earlier post about why the oil companies are hiding the fact of scarcity from the public.


There actually is a conspiracy, except its not what everyone here thinks. The oil companies want us to believe that technology they are developing will save us from a crisis. They sell ideas to us like hydrogen and tar sands. With oil shale, they say, "We have more oil in the mountains of Colorado than in the entire middle east!" What they don't say is that to tap into that energy, you have to put nearly as much energy into the extraction as you get from the actual oil. That is expensive energy, not energy you could fill 200 million cars with.

They don't tell us about peak oil because then we'd be out of their control. We wouldn't buy as much stuff. We would invest in public transportation as opposed to building more highways. We would grow all food locally and not eat food grown with oil from 1,000 miles away. When all the money in the economy isn't flowing in one direction, you can't control the world.

[Ninja Homer]

Once again, I'll point you to the wikipedia water-fuelled car article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car

Are you serious? I give you an article by Tom Bearden (President and Chief Executive Officer, CTEC, Inc. Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army (Retired). Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study. Director of Association of Distinguished American Scientists. Course work completed for doctorate; thesis being submitted. MS Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. BS Mathematics, Northeast Louisiana University with minor in Electronic Engineering. Graduate of Command & General Staff College, U.S. Army. Graduate of Guided Missile Staff Officer's Course, U.S. Army (equivalent to MS in Aerospace Engineering). Graduate courses in statistics, electromagnetics. Numerous missile, radar, electronic warfare, and counter-countermeasures courses.) in which he states that it is possible for this method of getting energy from water to be COP > 1.0, and then he backs it up with findings that won 2 people a Nobel Prize, and you point to freaking Wikipedia?

OK, I'll go with it...

From your Wikipedia link:
A variation of the electrolytic design is the water fuel cell where it is claimed that hydrogen and oxygen are produced by a mysteriously efficient form of electrolysis. This design also reduces to a perpetual motion machine and violates the first law of thermodynamics.

That's what we're talking about here. You can throw the rest of the Wikipedia article out for this discussion. I'll point you to Bearden's article for why it can violate law of thermodynamics.

According to this forum (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/198-radiant-h20-water-gas-voltage-potential.html), they are using pulsed voltage potential, not amperage, so it isn't your every-day electrolysis being used to convert H2O to HHO.


And then you go and start talking about vacuum energy. Of course it exists, you see it everywhere, because it is the actual source of gravity. The thing is, no one has even been able to design a theoretical large scale device that could even power an alarm clock with vacuum energy. Thats why the article you posted only mentions vacuum energy on small intervals of time and space.

I believe that's how this "mysteriously efficient form of electrolysis" works. Pulsed (small intervals of time) voltage potential brings in energy from the vacuum to provide the necessary energy to convert H20 to HHO.

Really, watch these videos. I promise you'll learn something:
http://www.guba.com/watch/3000049334
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1066893416132462243

[Electric Church]

^The meaningful changes I'm talking about are the same ones Ron Paul talks about, which is simply living within our means. What I'm talking about involves much less taxes, because we simply are consuming less. If energy is becoming more scarce, then we need to think about simply using less energy, not praying for magical elves to pop out of the ground and give us free energy tomorrow. Like I said, you are mistaken about the actual conspiracy. I will refer you to my earlier post about why the oil companies are hiding the fact of scarcity from the public.

Don't bring Ron Paul into this because this has got nothing to do with his message. The world elites are always trying to tell us that we’re all a bunch of greedy pigs living beyond our means and we should all feel guilty because we’re depleting the earth’s resources and our avaricious appetites must be forcibly curtailed. Meanwhile these same elite inbreeds have been hording multiple trillions in private property and natural resources.

You are the same as the oil companies because you are promoting their lies about scarcity and their lies about new technologies. There’s more oil discovered in Alaska than in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined and it’s readily accessible. Oil is not scarce and that’s what you and the oil companies want the general public to believe so they can keep prices and profits high and force the masses like sardines into public transit where not only will they loose their individual liberties but they’d be lucky to get from point A to point B without getting mugged or shot.

Controlling transportation and energy is one of the key factors at reducing individual liberty and creating their desired police state. And those who can afford to drive will have to pay expensive tolls on a North American transportation grid under total electronic surveillance. One of the reasons why they’re in Iraq is because Sadam was keeping oil prices down because of production, which is one of the reasons why they want to go into Iran.

No, these “meaningful changes” that you and your oil buddies are talking about have got nothing to do with Ron Paul but has everything to do with a hoax that brings in more rules, more regulation, higher prices, greater profits and loss of individual liberties.

[Man from La Mancha]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/12/01/8364596/index.htm

new technologies for getting more oil

1...Using the latest technology, companies are tapping new reservoirs miles below the surface, off the coasts of Africa and Asia. Chevron and Transocean, a firm that owns deepwater drill ships, set a world record when they drilled a well almost two miles beneath the sea. "This is really one of the last frontiers for oil recovery," says Guy Cantwell, a spokesman for Transocean. All told, analysts at the U.S. Geological Survey estimate that nearly 300 billion barrels of oil still rest below the sea worldwide



2... But thanks to a 27,000-square-mile swath of largely untapped deposits in northern Alberta, Canada won't face that problem for decades. In fact, with an estimated 175 billion barrels of accessible oil buried in the tarlike sands scattered throughout the frigid region, Canada sits atop one of the largest known oil reserves in the world, two-thirds the size of Saudi Arabia's estimated 263 billion barrels. (this one looks very ecologically dirty)(this one is making so much money that some workers are making $200,000 per yr)POTENTIAL PAYOFF 175 billion barrels of recoverable reserves



3....Specialized software from companies like Landmark and new, low-cost supercomputers are bringing petroleum exploration and recovery closer to being an exact science. In the North Sea, Norwegian petroleum giant Statoil is using the latest software to help it position wells for optimal recovery from deposits at the bottom of the ocean. Statoil estimates that its IT initiatives will bring in an additional $400 million from its existing wells while saving $20 million in drilling costs over the next several years.
Advances in sensor technology and seismic surveying are also helping drillers find new oil, making the extraction process more efficient by orders of magnitude. Pressure and temperature sensors are beginning to supply companies with accurate profiles of wells and reservoirs to help them optimize the rate at which oil is withdrawn. POTENTIAL PAYOFF 150 billion barrels of recoverable reserves



4....Their methods range from the straightforward (pumping water into the wells to force out the oil) to the truly inspired--like filling wells with bioengineered microbes that help release oil stuck in microscopic holes, making it easier to extract. Called microbial-enhanced oil recovery, this approach is being perfected by researchers at Caltech and the University of Kansas. Dane Cantwell, an area manager at Anadarko Petroleum, estimates that applying these secondary and tertiary techniques could raise production from existing oil fields tenfold. At the Forties oil field in the North Sea, Apache has boosted annual production by 100 percent to 80,000 barrels a day by installing new pumps to increase water flow.
POTENTIAL PAYOFF 377 billion barrels of recoverable reserves


5....The circuitous travels of the Fischer-Tropsch process, a chemical technique to convert natural gas and coal into liquid fuels. Now, that privatized company, Sasol, may help liberate Western democracies (and non-Western ones, like India) from the grip of crude oil produced largely by loathsome authoritarian regimes.

Sasol is the ExxonMobil of South Africa, though its annual sales of about $10 billion are around what Exxon Mobil does in about 10 days. With 30,000 employees, including the largest number of Ph.D.s of any company in the Southern Hemisphere, Sasol is one of South Africa's largest employers. It produces about 38 percent of South Africa's fuel needs and accounts for about 4.4 percent of the country's GDP.(This is feasible in the USA at $100/barrel. It is viable now and USA has vast coal researves and so do other countries)



So for all those chicken littles out there, for a price not much higher than now, a liquid fuel product will be there for a long time while making alternative energy and conservation more competitive. May the free market reign.:)



.

[pyrazole2]

I found Tom Bearden's comments on extracting energy from water, which will put an end to the idea that this is some impossible "pseudo-science" from a bunch of crackpots.

Since you value education, this is from Tom Bearden's Bio (http://cheniere.org/misc/bearden%20cv%20long.htm):


A crackpot? I don't think so. He probably has more education than everybody on this thread combined.

His comments on energy from water, including how this process can violate the laws of thermodynamics (including many references), from here (http://cheniere.org/correspondence/061807.htm):


I also strongly suggest you watch these videos:
http://www.guba.com/watch/3000049334
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1066893416132462243
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1066893416132462243)

Oh good lord already.
http://www.phact.org/e/z/bearden/
Conclusion

It has been shown that there are several flaws in Beardens work that suggest that his device which is supposed to convert energy from the ``active vacuum'' does not work as predicted. Other fundamental flaws suggest that Bearden lacks the knowledge and theoretical understanding of the concepts involved in electrodynamics which led him to propose basic errors as perpetual motion devices and revolutionary theories.

http://www.phact.org/e/z/bearden.htm
Try to find something that isn't from a complete idiot. Tom Bearden is a moron. He re-invents the permanent magnet transformer (yes, the one from 200+ years ago), and the rest of the crackpots get all giddy. He doesn't have any business discussing how water boils, let alone any other ignorant theories.

His education isn't that impressive...I'm half his age with a comparable bio, and he used to claim he received a PhD from a degree mill...you know, where you buy them.

If you follow Tom Bearden, you really didn't get much out of your physics class in high school, did you?

Did the energy from a vacuum people go to public school? Don't be shy, I want to see those hands. All the more reason to get government out of education.

Here, you too can be like Tom Bearden: http://www.phact.org/e/con_man.htm

And I have work to do, so don't expect me to enlighten you any further for a couple of days. Why don't you take that time to build this water engine electromagnet thing, or whatever, and show it to me. I'll wholeheartedly believe it when I see it with my own two eyes (not youtube, which you seem to take as 'proof').

[pyrazole2]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/12/01/8364596/index.htm

new technologies for getting more oil

1...Using the latest technology, companies are tapping new reservoirs miles below the surface, off the coasts of Africa and Asia. Chevron and Transocean, a firm that owns deepwater drill ships, set a world record when they drilled a well almost two miles beneath the sea. "This is really one of the last frontiers for oil recovery," says Guy Cantwell, a spokesman for Transocean. All told, analysts at the U.S. Geological Survey estimate that nearly 300 billion barrels of oil still rest below the sea worldwide



2... But thanks to a 27,000-square-mile swath of largely untapped deposits in northern Alberta, Canada won't face that problem for decades. In fact, with an estimated 175 billion barrels of accessible oil buried in the tarlike sands scattered throughout the frigid region, Canada sits atop one of the largest known oil reserves in the world, two-thirds the size of Saudi Arabia's estimated 263 billion barrels. (this one looks very ecologically dirty)(this one is making so much money that some workers are making $200,000 per yr)POTENTIAL PAYOFF 175 billion barrels of recoverable reserves



3....Specialized software from companies like Landmark and new, low-cost supercomputers are bringing petroleum exploration and recovery closer to being an exact science. In the North Sea, Norwegian petroleum giant Statoil is using the latest software to help it position wells for optimal recovery from deposits at the bottom of the ocean. Statoil estimates that its IT initiatives will bring in an additional $400 million from its existing wells while saving $20 million in drilling costs over the next several years.
Advances in sensor technology and seismic surveying are also helping drillers find new oil, making the extraction process more efficient by orders of magnitude. Pressure and temperature sensors are beginning to supply companies with accurate profiles of wells and reservoirs to help them optimize the rate at which oil is withdrawn. POTENTIAL PAYOFF 150 billion barrels of recoverable reserves



4....Their methods range from the straightforward (pumping water into the wells to force out the oil) to the truly inspired--like filling wells with bioengineered microbes that help release oil stuck in microscopic holes, making it easier to extract. Called microbial-enhanced oil recovery, this approach is being perfected by researchers at Caltech and the University of Kansas. Dane Cantwell, an area manager at Anadarko Petroleum, estimates that applying these secondary and tertiary techniques could raise production from existing oil fields tenfold. At the Forties oil field in the North Sea, Apache has boosted annual production by 100 percent to 80,000 barrels a day by installing new pumps to increase water flow.
POTENTIAL PAYOFF 377 billion barrels of recoverable reserves


5....The circuitous travels of the Fischer-Tropsch process, a chemical technique to convert natural gas and coal into liquid fuels. Now, that privatized company, Sasol, may help liberate Western democracies (and non-Western ones, like India) from the grip of crude oil produced largely by loathsome authoritarian regimes.

Sasol is the ExxonMobil of South Africa, though its annual sales of about $10 billion are around what Exxon Mobil does in about 10 days. With 30,000 employees, including the largest number of Ph.D.s of any company in the Southern Hemisphere, Sasol is one of South Africa's largest employers. It produces about 38 percent of South Africa's fuel needs and accounts for about 4.4 percent of the country's GDP.(This is feasible in the USA at $100/barrel. It is viable now and USA has vast coal researves and so do other countries)



So for all those chicken littles out there, for a price not much higher than now, a liquid fuel product will be there for a long time while making alternative energy and conservation more competitive. May the free market reign.:)



.

Thank you, we've been looking for a rational post all day!

[Electric Church]

So for all those chicken littles out there, for a price not much higher than now, a liquid fuel product will be there for a long time while making alternative energy and conservation more competitive. May the free market reign.:)

.

Neat post. When you combine these new technologies with the already existing vast oil reserves that lie dormant and are easily accessible (excluding Alberta tar sand production which has only been recently profitable because of the imposed artificial scarcity. In a free market oil prices would drop and tar sand production would cease.) it looks like were in fine shape. Now all we have to do is get Ron Paul into the oval office so we can freely enjoy the benefits of individual liberty and a free market.

[BenIsForRon]

Don't bring Ron Paul into this because this has got nothing to do with his message. The world elites are always trying to tell us that we’re all a bunch of greedy pigs living beyond our means and we should all feel guilty because we’re depleting the earth’s resources and our avaricious appetites must be forcibly curtailed. Meanwhile these same elite inbreeds have been hording multiple trillions in private property and natural resources.

You are the same as the oil companies because you are promoting their lies about scarcity and their lies about new technologies. There’s more oil discovered in Alaska than in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined and it’s readily accessible. Oil is not scarce and that’s what you and the oil companies want the general public to believe so they can keep prices and profits high and force the masses like sardines into public transit where not only will they loose their individual liberties but they’d be lucky to get from point A to point B without getting mugged or shot.

Controlling transportation and energy is one of the key factors at reducing individual liberty and creating their desired police state. And those who can afford to drive will have to pay expensive tolls on a North American transportation grid under total electronic surveillance. One of the reasons why they’re in Iraq is because Sadam was keeping oil prices down because of production, which is one of the reasons why they want to go into Iran.

No, these “meaningful changes” that you and your oil buddies are talking about have got nothing to do with Ron Paul but has everything to do with a hoax that brings in more rules, more regulation, higher prices, greater profits and loss of individual liberties.

Ok, I'm not going to be nice anymore, because you are fucking stupid. ME AND MY OIL BUDDIES? I'M IN FUCKING COLLEGE AND POOR AS HELL! I hate the oil companies because they, as with many other corporations and governments, are in the middle of a plan to enslave all of humanity. I want less regulation, because if you leave it to the markets, people will be smart enough to invest in things that don't involve oil.

YOU ARE FALLING FOR THEIR LIES! You know who tells us about all this undiscovered oil in alaska, saudi arabia and venezuela? THE FUCKING OIL COMPANIES YOU MORON!

Like I said, they don't want us to know about peak oil because then we won't invest so much into their giant oil consuming infrastructure. And you are really dumb if you think you are more free on a highway than on public transportation. That's exactly what GM and Exxon have been tricking Americans into thinking for a hundred years, to get in your little box and get in line on these gigantic asphalt corridors they've set up for you.

Electric Church, you will only believe what is convenient for you, so you attack anyone that is using factual evidence that goes against those beliefs.

[Electric Church]

... complete idiot. ....moron. ....rest of the crackpots get all giddy. He doesn't have any business discussing how water boils, let alone any other ignorant theories.

And I have work to do, so don't expect me to enlighten you any further for a couple of days.

sniff sniff...i can smell another one....
:cool:

[BenIsForRon]

Thank you, we've been looking for a rational post all day!

That wasn't a rational post, all those processes are incredibly energy intensive and wouldn't make sense in a free market, because nobody could afford those fuels. Most of that info is actually from oil companies, who have long history of fudging the numbers and giving half truths to prevent panic in the markets. Read the two pages of info that are in the link in my signature, they debunk everything he said with many sources.

[Electric Church]

Ok, I'm not going to be nice anymore, because you are fucking stupid. ME AND MY OIL BUDDIES? I'M IN FUCKING COLLEGE AND POOR AS HELL! THE FUCKING OIL COMPANIES YOU MORON!
Electric Church, you will only believe what is convenient for you, so you attack anyone that is using factual evidence that goes against those beliefs.


Ya...right ...as if the oil companies are advertising on mainstream media that we have a glut in oil.

I'll stay on the FREEway and you can keep your prescribe socialist mass transit for all.

[BenIsForRon]

Ya...right ...as if the oil companies are advertising on mainstream media that we have a glut in oil.

I'll stay on the FREEway and you can keep your prescribe socialist mass transit for all.

This is BP's official web page about how we have so much oil under the ocean and how their expensive technology is going to save us.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=16&contentId=2008142

I win. You lose. I'll wait for your apology. It's ok. We all need to pull the wool off of our eyes at some point.

And like I said, if you think you're free on a freeway, just think about how much money you're spending on gas for that car as opposed to fare on a train.

[Man from La Mancha]

That wasn't a rational post, all those processes are incredibly energy intensive and wouldn't make sense in a free market, because nobody could afford those fuels. Most of that info is actually from oil companies, who have long history of fudging the numbers and giving half truths to prevent panic in the markets. Read the two pages of info that are in the link in my signature, they debunk everything he said with many sources.

Yes those technologies could be more expensive like the coal to gas. But they will exist and one will have to pay more, but it will be still viable. And it will help what you contend we should do. When people have to pay more they will naturally try to travel less distances or conserve more. I just don't buy into doomsday effect but a gentle transition. The only way way to prove this is time. As one who was around during the 60-70's I witnessed entire books projecting many doomsday scenarios that never transpired. I'm more afraid of nuclear war or a exploding super vocano. Do you own diesel vehicles and generators that employ no electronics or tube only radios and tube only shortwave radios when nuclear explosions will burn out all computer circuits, 12volt inverters will be useless? Here is a oil press that you can use and press out your own vegetable oils to run a diesel generator http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-OIL-PRESS-DIESEL-EXPELLER-EXTRUDER-VEGOIL-BIODIESEL_W0QQitemZ110163726250QQihZ001QQcategoryZ 1269QQcmdZViewItem:)

.

[Electric Church]

This is BP's official web page about how we have so much oil under the ocean and how their expensive technology is going to save us.http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=16&contentId=2008142



Of course BP is going to boast about their discoveries of oil that is barely accessible and only their expensive technologies can extract it providing that oil prices continue to soar. All this is in line with their imposed artificial scarcity. Do you think they are going to publish information about the vast amounts of easily accessible oil that they discover that would drive down oil prices? Hardly not!

[JMann]

Don't buy a hybrid until they stop using nickel batteries. Those car are the worst cars on the road for the environment and that is including the H3. The carbon used to produce each battery for the Prius is shocking. They mine the nickel in Canada, ship it all over the world to make the battery before it ends up back in the US to place in a production vehicle.

[BenIsForRon]

Of course BP is going to boast about their discoveries of oil that is barely accessible and only their expensive technologies can extract it providing that oil prices continue to soar. All this is in line with their imposed artificial scarcity. Do you think they are going to publish information about the vast amounts of easily accessible oil that they discover that would drive down oil prices? Hardly not!

My point was that these giant oil fields you say exist were actually reported by the oil companies. When you talk about canada, saudi arabia, alaska; the people who are telling us about the vast amount of oil in those places are the oil companies. Do you have any good sources that aren't from Exxon, BP, Chevron that have evidence for all this easily recoverable oil?

[hard@work]

I am waiting for a vehicle that I can power on hot air. Once I have this I can drive unlimited miles forever just by bloviating.

;-)

[Man from La Mancha]

My point was that these giant oil fields you say exist were actually reported by the oil companies. When you talk about canada, saudi arabia, alaska; the people who are telling us about the vast amount of oil in those places are the oil companies. Do you have any good sources that aren't from Exxon, BP, Chevron that have evidence for all this easily recoverable oil?

How could you? No independent company would spend the billions for the oil research these oil companies spend and if they did they would sell it to the oil companies secretly to use.


.

[BenIsForRon]

How could you? No independent company would spend the billions for the oil research these oil companies spend and if they did they would sell it to the oil companies secretly to use.

There is access to information about oil fields that the public has access to. It is limited, and countries like Saudi Arabia keep info about their reserves top secret. But there are many independent geologists and other experts who research this stuff and most of them will tell you we are in the peak right now. The science is complicated, but you don't necessarily need billions to know how much is left in a field.

http://www.theoildrum.com/ is a site that has many independent researches who are closely following the industry. This is the site where I found out that Saudi Arabia is probably past its peak and lying about how much they have to maintain their position in the world.

[Man from La Mancha]

There is access to information about oil fields that the public has access to. It is limited, and countries like Saudi Arabia keep info about their reserves top secret. But there are many independent geologists and other experts who research this stuff and most of them will tell you we are in the peak right now. The science is complicated, but you don't necessarily need billions to know how much is left in a field.

http://www.theoildrum.com/ is a site that has many independent researches who are closely following the industry. This is the site where I found out that Saudi Arabia is probably past its peak and lying about how much they have to maintain their position in the world.

Are they like the idiots telling me that co2 is causing global warming?;)

.

[Electric Church]

My point was that these giant oil fields you say exist were actually reported by the oil companies. When you talk about canada, saudi arabia, alaska; the people who are telling us about the vast amount of oil in those places are the oil companies. Do you have any good sources that aren't from Exxon, BP, Chevron that have evidence for all this easily recoverable oil?

There is no way oil companies are going to make great lofty announcement to the general public about discoveries of huge oil deposits that are easily accessible, even if they have to use the phony environmentalists (whom they fund) to bar access to accessible deposits in the name on "preservation". Anything rather than flood the market with cheap oil, drive down prices and reduce profits.

And there is no way oil companies are going to allow breakthrough technologies that provide cheap energy that will immediately eliminate the world's dependence on fossil fuels.

Anyone who wants to research this can go ahead. You, on the other hand, are simply a talking head so I have no interest to put forth the effort to dig up sources just for the sake of dishonest debate.

In the end, the most you'll do is shut up and disappear just like the proponents of manmade global warming.

[BenIsForRon]

There is no way oil companies are going to make great lofty announcement to the general public about discoveries of huge oil deposits that are easily accessible, even if they have to use the phony environmentalists (whom they fund) to bar access to accessible deposits in the name on "preservation". Anything rather than flood the market with cheap oil, drive down prices and reduce profits.

And there is no way oil companies are going to allow breakthrough technologies that provide cheap energy that will immediately eliminate the world's dependence on fossil fuels.

Anyone who wants to research this can go ahead. You, on the other hand, are simply a talking head so I have no interest to put forth the effort to dig up sources just for the sake of dishonest debate.

In the end, the most you'll do is shut up and disappear just like the proponents of manmade global warming.

I've been interested in this for a year, so I know where my information is coming from. Your information is coming from the oil companies. They want us to think we aren't going to run out anytime soon so that we will keep buying SUV's and driving one hour to get to work everyday.

I am debating as honest as I can, using real information as opposed to propaganda. You have been using nothing but ad hominem arguments throughout this whole thread, so I'm pretty sure the people looking at this thread will know who is really the talking head.

[Electric Church]

I'm not really that concerned... I viewed all of your posts and they are pro oil whether you know it or not. I just happen to believe that you are pro oil and are trying to appear otherwise

[Mesogen]

Ya...right ...as if the oil companies are advertising on mainstream media that we have a glut in oil.

I'll stay on the FREEway and you can keep your prescribe socialist mass transit for all.

:D He he. Ok then. I'll get to work in 20 minutes and you can sit in traffic for an hour. When you are stuck bumper to bumper and really have to go take a leak, use that time to think about how free you are.


Yeah, except that the car actually makes the H2O into HHO. And it's not plugged in. Nor does it have any solar panels. The power plant for the battery you're talking about is the cars alternator, as long as there is something comustable in the engine, the car's engine will crank, the alternator will spin, the battery will get charged, and you could continue making water into whatever.

Are you claiming that the car runs solely on power gotten from water?
Ok, step one, you put the water in the car. There is no hydrogen or even HHO (which doesn't exist) yet, just empty cylinders and a tank of water. Where does the initial power come from to start splitting water? I guess from the battery. Then how quickly does it make hydrogen (or whatever) to get the engine going? Can it split water fast enough to feed the engine as it's going? At all speeds?

Then you're saying that there is so much hydrogen (or whatever) produced that it is enough to power the engine, drive the car, split more water, and recharge the battery?

I'm here to tell you, sorry, no. :(

And please, can someone give me a molecular structure for HHO? What would it look like?

Is it like this? H:H:O:: ?
Where the middle hydrogen has 4 electrons around it (2 too many) and oxygen only has 6 (2 too few)?

Not going to happen. If it did, it would immediately form water.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNOmuliwbhQ

here, it's more than possible, it's been done. Pointless argument. If it was a fraud, I seriously doubt the government would be entertaining contracts for this technology.

Then they are being hosed. They are being sold an oxygen-hydrogen torch.


Don't buy a hybrid until they stop using nickel batteries. Those car are the worst cars on the road for the environment and that is including the H3. The carbon used to produce each battery for the Prius is shocking. They mine the nickel in Canada, ship it all over the world to make the battery before it ends up back in the US to place in a production vehicle.

Did not know that. Hmm. I'll keep that in mind. O well. If they come out with a plug in version. I won't care about them shipping the nickel all over. If I can just plug in my car and "filler up" for a couple of bucks, it's all worth it.

[Electric Church]

:D He he. Ok then. I'll get to work in 20 minutes and you can sit in traffic for an hour.


No. You can go to work in 20 minutes and I'll do whatever the hell I want.
:cool:

[BenIsForRon]

I'm not really that concerned... I viewed all of your posts and they are pro oil whether you know it or not. I just happen to believe that you are pro oil and are trying to appear otherwise

Keep telling yourself that, just think about whose pockets you're lining next time you take that SUV down the "free"way.

[Man from La Mancha]

And please, can someone give me a molecular structure for HHO? What would it look like?

Is it like this? H:H:O:: ?
Where the middle hydrogen has 4 electrons around it (2 too many) and oxygen only has 6 (2 too few)?

Not going to happen. If it did, it would immediately form water.
I think this is the same stuff made called Browns gas. A gas that doesn't weld stuff together but causes an implosion between two substances that is why it can weld very dissimilar materials together, like glass to steel. supposedly it can even neutralize radioactive materials. Regardless one can buy one these machines or build one for welding saving a lot of money from not using oxi acetylene. Fascinating to play with.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=411405755714495752
http://www.nottaughtinschools.com/Yull-Brown/Free-Energy-Demo.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Browns+Gas&search=Search





Oxyhydrogen is a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen gases, prescribed to be stoichiometric at a 1:2 atomic ratio; the same proportion as water. When ignited, this mixture changes to water, making 142.35 kJ (34,116 gram calories) of heat for each gram of hydrogen burned: that is 286.97 kJ/mol of enthalpy.

The flame is hottest in the burning of perfectly stoichiometric "oxyhydrogen" gas (a mixture having twice as many moles of hydrogen as oxygen). The flame is less hot when the "oxyhydrogen" is mixed with excess of oxygen or hydrogen, or with an inert gas such as nitrogen, because there the same amount of heat is applied to a larger amount of matter.

Oxygen and hydrogen can be produced together in a stoichiometric proportion by water electrolysis, to produce oxyhydrogen.

Oxyhydrogen, at normal temperature and pressure, can explode when it is between about 4% and 95% hydrogen by volume[1].

Oxyhydrogen explosions can be a hazard where water electrolysis happens unintentionally, for example in large lead-acid batteries....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen_flame


Scientific Answer: ,...http://www.watertorch.com/buytorch/buybg1.html
The scientific answer for the constituents of Brown's Gas is:

The total mixture of gasses that evolve by electrolyzing water in an electrolyzer specifically designed NOT to separate the gasses.
The BG mixture consists of diatomic hydrogen, diatomic oxygen and water vapor.

Technology Innovator Answer:
Eagle-Research Inc. defines Brown's Gas (BG) as:

The total mixture of gasses that evolve by electrolyzing water in an electrolyzer specifically designed NOT to separate the gasses.
The BG mixture consists of diatomic hydrogen, monatomic hydrogen, diatomic oxygen, monatomic oxygen, water vapor and electrically expanded water.

Brown's Gas Users Answer:
The BG flame is a unique method for transmitting electrical energy directly into the atomic structure of materials, producing effects often unobtainable by any other means.

The answer most people are really looking for is actually the answer to the question
"What can Brown's Gas do for me?"

That answer depends on what your needs are.

Q. If you need industrial torch gasses, then the answer is:
A. Point for point, Brown's Gas is the torch gas of choice!

Q. If you want to neutralize radioactive waste, then:
A. Brown's Gas is the answer to the largest problem the nuclear industry faces today!

Q. If you are in ore concentration, then the answer is:
A. Brown's Gas helps recovery of extraordinary volumes of metal, even from ores that were previously resistant to traditional techniques!

We are finding more Brown's Gas answers everyday. It is a technology with so many practical applications that it will literally change civilization as we know it. Eagle-Research has invented the machines that finally make Brown's Gas practical; so the final answer is:

[LibertyOfOne]

I can't wait for a car that is powered by pseudoscience. This thread alone could power it for a life time.

[LibertyOfOne]

It won't let me delete this post. Count it as a signature test I guess.

[akovacs]

Guys, you're not going to convince certain people that their crackpot theories don't hold water (Pun intended). Their whole worldview is based around conspiracy theories. They're not far off from creationists, just that instead of the atheists trying to destroy religion, it's oil companies trying to destroy some new technology. Countless variations of it have been going on for at least two centuries.

As for fuel cells, they are not practical. For cars or homes, you're much better off spending your money on regular batteries. Even lead acid batteries have competitive efficiencies. All someone needs to do is invent a battery that has the same capacity as a modern Li-ion battery, and extend the lifetime to at least 10-15 years. A car developed around that kind of battery could actually be competitive with gasoline. I personally don't think fuel cells will ever be anything other than a curiosity, although if a company wants to spend its money to try to make it work, they are certainly welcome to try.

[LibertyOfOne]

I don't think it's conspiracy theories that foster this nonsense. I think it has to do with the fact that public schools suck at teaching hard science and critical thinking. Instead of focusing on concepts, the average school just tosses out facts from authority. Instead of showing the mathematical proof of why a thermal engine can't reach %100 efficiency, they just cite the second law of thermo.

[akovacs]

Agreed on public schools sucking. I honestly don't think I learned much of anything outside of 2-3 classes in four years. It's pathetic (And I went to a decent one!).

I don't think that's all of it though. It's part psychology. People find the idea of a lone genius working out of his garage that ends up turning science on its head a romatic one. Some so desperately want to believe it that they have to build up vague, unverifiable and elaborate "facts" and stories to prop it up.

In the end it doesn't bother me, really. They don't really waste anyone else's time other than their own, and it means they stay out of trouble :P

[Electric Church]

Guys, you're not going to convince certain people that their crackpot theories don't hold water (Pun intended). Their whole worldview is based around conspiracy theories. They're not far off from creationists, ....

sniff sniff...
total disinfo troll jargon. You guys are going to have to change your scripts....it's getting way too obvious

[Electric Church]

I don't think it's conspiracy theories that foster this nonsense. I think it has to do with the fact that public schools suck at teaching hard science and critical thinking. Instead of focusing on concepts, the average school just tosses out facts from authority. Instead of showing the mathematical proof of why a thermal engine can't reach %100 efficiency, they just cite the second law of thermo.

blah blah blah blah...take a coffee break along with your disinfo buddy

[LibertyOfOne]

blah blah blah blah...take a coffee break along with your disinfo buddy

blah blah blah blah...read a crystal ball along with your pseudoscience buddy.