Fellow tree-huggers rejoice

[Ram Jet]

Sorry for the Bike Bandit plug but this article is interesting.

https://www.bikebandit.com/blog/post...tent_fuel_cell

This prompts me to remember the Hindenburg. It takes a fuel leak to a whole different level.

Bill

[Flying]

Hydrogen, yawn. Come back when all the problems and logistics of that have been solved and over with.

Mass produced direct drive of the wheel? Oooh!

[JohnnyBravo]

Great post... I'm a fan of hydro

[maverick9611]

don't forget water4gas too. hho generators. browns gas in no myth.

https://water4gas.com

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by maverick9611

don't forget water4gas too. hho generators. browns gas in no myth.

https://water4gas.com

The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics aren't myths either.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. It takes more energy to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get out.

Period.

On that site, note the use of language like

"Free Energy Secrets “THEY” Don’t Want You to Know." Yeah, right. Hucksterism at its finest.

[Ram Jet]

Originally Posted by adouglas

The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics aren't myths either.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. It takes more energy to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get out.

Period.

On that site, note the use of language like

"Free Energy Secrets “THEY” Don’t Want You to Know." Yeah, right. Hucksterism at its finest.

Thanks for bustin' my bubble. Aw, hell, I won't live long enough to see a Hydrocycle anyway. Long live I.C. engines.

Bill

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by Ram Jet

Thanks for bustin' my bubble. Aw, hell, I won't live long enough to see a Hydrocycle anyway. Long live I.C. engines.

Bill

Doesn't mean it's not a workable solution long-term.

Think big-picture energy flow. Ultimately, the source of all energy is the sun*. When we burn dino juice, in effect we're converting solar energy that was stored millions of years ago, right?

The big problem with producing hydrogen is that it simply transfers the energy production from the vehicle to a power plant. Inefficiencies in generation and transmission plus thermodynamics mean it's not a net gain in energy efficiency.

So let's posit a fictional solar-powered hydrogen infrastructure. You use solar energy (captured however you like) to power electrolysis. You burn the resulting hydrogen and oxygen to power your vehicle. Net output is usable energy plus heat (second law...).

Thermodynamics works in that case. Solar energy in is always going to be greater than usable energy out... the remainder ultimately becomes waste heat. You're still using more energy to electrolyze the water than you get from burning the resulting gas. BUT it's free energy... sunshine. So you can put up with the losses to gain the benefits.

The question to ask is what you're solving for. In this case, it's zero carbon emissions, zero reliance on fossil fuels and less impactful technologies (a gas-burning engine does not require rare-earth metals the way batteries do). Plus you get a source of clean water, if you want to capture it. Those are worthwhile goals.

Downsides.... lack of fueling/storage infrastructure and low energy density, which means low power output and short range.

* Of course, there's a case to be made that nuclear energy is not derived from the sun, but all our uranium was created in a supernova explosion billions of years ago. So there.

[Ram Jet]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Doesn't mean it's not a workable solution long-term.

Think big-picture energy flow. Ultimately, the source of all energy is the sun. When we burn dino juice, in effect we're converting solar energy that was stored millions of years ago, right?

The big problem with producing hydrogen is that it simply transfers the energy production from the vehicle to a power plant. Inefficiencies in generation and transmission plus thermodynamics mean it's not a net gain in energy efficiency.

So let's posit a fictional solar-powered hydrogen infrastructure. You use solar energy (captured however you like) to power electrolysis. You burn the resulting hydrogen and oxygen to power your vehicle. Net output is usable energy plus heat (second law...).

Thermodynamics works in that case. Solar energy in is always going to be greater than usable energy out... the remainder ultimately becomes waste heat. You're still using more energy to electrolyze the water than you get from burning the resulting gas. BUT it's free energy... sunshine. So you can put up with the losses to gain the benefits.

The question to ask is what you're solving for. In this case, it's zero carbon emissions, zero reliance on fossil fuels and less impactful technologies (a gas-burning engine does not require rare-earth metals the way batteries do). Plus you get a source of clean water, if you want to capture it. Those are worthwhile goals.

Downsides.... lack of fueling/storage infrastructure and low energy density, which means low power output and short range.

Great synopsis, thanks. I guess we'll just have to rely on good ol' Dino Poop for a while longer.

Bill

[DannoXYZ]

There are ways to make water work that's not conventional. I think something about keeping the water cold just above freezing. And there's mercury involved.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by JacRyann

There are ways to make water work that's not conventional. I think something about keeping the water cold just above freezing. And there's mercury involved.

What can't he do?

[Klondike1020]

Lets look at the big picture. It took millions of years to store and consolidate all the energy that is buried in our dino juice.

But the human race is consuming way more energy than we could ever collect via solar. Let alone creating the infrastructure to store and use this solar energy 24/7.

We have to drastically reduce energy consumption before fuel cells and solar can become a viable answer.

Originally Posted by adouglas

Think big-picture energy flow. Ultimately, the source of all energy is the sun. When we burn dino juice, in effect we're converting solar energy that was stored millions of years ago, right?

The big problem with producing hydrogen is that it simply transfers the energy production from the vehicle to a power plant. Inefficiencies in generation and transmission plus thermodynamics mean it's not a net gain in energy efficiency.

So let's posit a fictional solar-powered hydrogen infrastructure. You use solar energy (captured however you like) to power electrolysis. You burn the resulting hydrogen and oxygen to power your vehicle. Net output is usable energy plus heat (second law...).

Thermodynamics works in that case. Solar energy in is always going to be greater than usable energy out... the remainder ultimately becomes waste heat. You're still using more energy to electrolyze the water than you get from burning the resulting gas. BUT it's free energy... sunshine. So you can put up with the losses to gain the benefits.

The question to ask is what you're solving for. In this case, it's zero carbon emissions, zero reliance on fossil fuels and less impactful technologies (a gas-burning engine does not require rare-earth metals the way batteries do). Plus you get a source of clean water, if you want to capture it. Those are worthwhile goals.

Downsides.... lack of fueling/storage infrastructure and low energy density, which means low power output and short range.

[DannoXYZ]

Originally Posted by Alex

What can't he do?

HAhah! Some of my favourite musics, writer and singer!!!

[ducatiman]

A tremendous showman too..he connected with... and won over ...*every* audience.

Watch their 80's Wembley Stadium concert sometime....the audience interaction a classic. Their performance at Live Aid too.

[MrAtom]

He's one of those guys I wish I could've seen live.

I actually found Queen because I found a boom-box with a cassette of Queen's Greatest Hits in it in our shed when I was younger. I listened to it until my dad threw it out.

[maverick9611]

ok, do you agree Brown's gas is real?
sometimes called HHO or 2HO or Hydroxy)
A process which develops a "gas" from ordinary water invented by Yull Brown (originally a Bulgarian citizen who escaped to Turkay during communism time and later moved to Australia) and now deceased. The water is converted into a completely safe compressed stochimetric hydrogen and oxygen mixture. The flame of this gas under the right lighting conditions, normally almost transparently colorless, can be seen to possess a small blue cone, as it emits from a torch, with a longer, pale red-blue extension. Within its overall sheath are several distinct regions called "mantles". The most unusual property of the flame is that it is not formed as a set of explosions, as are ordinary flames, but as a set of implosions. Consequently, all classical theory about combustion products, highest temperature regions, and other specifics are up for revision. It is in the central blue cone of the flame, as opposed to its extension, that the novel combustion is sustained. This blue cone region separates the inner sustained vacuum from the continuously forming implosion products. The flame, upon application to an element or compound of elements, increases its temperature due to an interactive combustion property which is one of the unique characteristics of Browns Gas. There is no theoretical temperature limit to the flame as applied to materials as the local environment of the combustion will determine the extent of incremental calorific energy supplied and/or released. The temperature of the flame while in contact with only the surrounding air was measured to be 264 to 269 F (129 to 137 C). When the same flame was applied to the face of an ordinary building brick the temperature was measured at 3100 F. When the flame was applied to a tungsten wire the temperature was measured at nearly 6000 C.



Yull Brown

(These photos are of Yull Browns original gas generator now in our possession.)
The ratio 1,860:1 refers to the fact that when the gas is electrically sparked, it immediately returns to water. If the amount of gas sparked, and thus imploded could fill 1,860 units, then the amount of water produced by its implosion would then only fill one unit. The resulting space instantly becomes filled with a very high and particularly clean vacuum.
"There is no other method capable of producing such a gas. Browns Gas is a new product and there is no literature describing its properties which are sufficiently different from a combined molecular hydrogen and oxygen gas mixture, in 2:1 proportion, to be significant in industrial and commercial applications." Brown, 1979
Gas and its flame have been used in and exhibits characteristics:
1) Used in a car the gas combusts and emits water vapor as the only effluent in its exhaust.
2) A solid-state refrigeration unit in which temperature could instantly be changed with no freon or other refrigeration chemicals.
3) A room heater fueled with the gas will carbonize a strip of paper held near it but not create flames or smoke.
4) Used in an acetylene torch it singed hairs from a welders forearm but didnt burn the skin.
5) Flame from this gas can glaze concrete thus rendering it impervious to acids and other corrosives and greatly extending the concretes useful lifespan.
6) The gas when burned does not explode but implodes. "An intriguing situation arises when a volume of Browns Gas is detonated because the contraction in that volume which occurs is revolutionary in character. Of an order of 1,860:1, the contraction can be defined as an implosion, as opposed to an explosion." 1979
7) When heating water in an iron basin using a torch if applied only to the water barely raises its temperature even after long exposure. The flame applied to the bottom of the basin raises the temperature of the metal so high, and so instantly, that the water boils away almost in the blink of an eye. When directed at a brick under the surface of the water, however, the flame can heat the brick as easily as though the brick was not water covered.
8) Steel, after treatment with the flame, is much more impervious to rust and before treatment.
9) The flame can fuse plastic to titantium.
10) Directing the flame at Cobalt-60 radiation was reduced by 70% in the sample.
11) Directing the flame at Americium the radiation was reduced 96%.

More photos of the Brown unit in our possession.





For more information on these test results contact:
The Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc.
100 Bronson Ave, suite 1001
Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6G8
Canada
(613) 236-6265 fax: (613) 235-5876
Browns Gas generators are manufactured by Norinco, a Chinese manufacturing concern, in four sized models and can be custom manufactured in any size. These devices are also being manufactured by Eagle Research.
Editors notes: There is evidence Yul Brown did not invent this system. It is claimed he borrowed the design and ideas from a Mr. Rhodes of the Henes Corporation. There are other articles on similar processes from the 1940s. And lets not forget Keelys original "ether liberation" work and devices from the 1870s. And his most interesting work in dissociating water into H and O using acoustic excitation.
Free Energy claims: We must add the note it is unlikely Browns Gas will be used as a so-called free energy source, in our estimation. The current manner BG is being generated uses quite a bit of electricity. Currently the cost of electricity exceeds the value of the generated H. BG however can be exploded (as opposed to its natural tendency to IMPLODE) by mixing air with it. I myself have operated a VW with BG in this manner but only to show it could be done.

[DannoXYZ]

Yeah, a lot of conventional knowledge is similar to flat-earth models. There are a lot of new and non-mainstream ideas out there that should be investigated. A lot of it has been around for a while, such as Viktor Schauberger's work on water engines. It was all seized by the US military and classified. All of the inventors who've re-discovered these principles have met untimely and unnatural demises. Not to mention the original victims Byrd and Forrestal...

[maverick9611]

I heard quite a few have disappeared. I bet it's the new world order.😨

[adouglas]

Physics. It's the law, people.

Tell ya what.... build yourself a Brown's Gas generator (Google it... there are lots of DIYs out there, despite the assertions that the technology has been suppressed), pick up an inexpensive oxyacetylene rig and try #4 above.

4) Used in an acetylene torch it singed hairs from a welders forearm but didnt burn the skin.

Put it on YouTube. I'd PAY to see that.

Good luck.

Oh, wait.. you can do that with an ordinary lighter. Never mind.
In fact, they do that to cows as part of normal hygiene.... using propane... https://youtu.be/IXiElYojKYA

[adouglas]

[Ram Jet]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Physics. It's the law, people.

Tell ya what.... build yourself a Brown's Gas generator (Google it... there are lots of DIYs out there, despite the assertions that the technology has been suppressed), pick up an inexpensive oxyacetylene rig and try #4 above.



Put it on YouTube. I'd PAY to see that.

Good luck.

Oh, wait.. you can do that with an ordinary lighter. Never mind.
In fact, they do that to cows as part of normal hygiene.... using propane... https://youtu.be/IXiElYojKYA

That's how I trim my netherland hairs.

Bill

[Ram Jet]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Column B is the methodology of Washington, D.C.

Bill

[adouglas]

The thing that drives me nuts over stuff like this... pseudoscience, "fringe" science, conspiracy theories (Things THEY don't want you to know!)... is that all of it is self-propagating. It's more akin to religion than the scientific method, because it's based on belief and hearsay rather than objective evidence, repeatable results and peer review. Anything that doesn't align with the claim is by definition part of the conspiracy to suppress the "truth" so no matter what argument you bring to the table, it is automatically ignored.

Just look at the vaccine mess. Despite the ONE study on which the whole freakin' thing is based being clearly and unequivocally debunked by the very journal that printed it in the first place, we still have people swallowing the whole thing hook, line and sinker. We've had measles outbreaks as a result. People are getting hurt. IDIOTS!!!!!!

[Ram Jet]

Originally Posted by adouglas

The thing that drives me nuts over stuff like this... pseudoscience, "fringe" science, conspiracy theories (Things THEY don't want you to know!)... is that all of it is self-propagating. It's more akin to religion than the scientific method, because it's based on belief and hearsay rather than objective evidence, repeatable results and peer review. Anything that doesn't align with the claim is by definition part of the conspiracy to suppress the "truth" so no matter what argument you bring to the table, it is automatically ignored.

Just look at the vaccine mess. Despite the ONE study on which the whole freakin' thing is based being clearly and unequivocally debunked by the very journal that printed it in the first place, we still have people swallowing the whole thing hook, line and sinker. We've had measles outbreaks as a result. People are getting hurt. IDIOTS!!!!!!

That's the reason I don't get a flu shot. Back in the 70s elderly people were dieing like flies from it. Doctors tell me today that all that's changed - yada yada yada. Now I just take flew shots.

Bill

[DannoXYZ]

Humans can never go faster than 45mph, you'll suffocate!
You can never go faster than speed of sound!
Don't go to edge of earth, you'll fall off and die!
yada, yada, yada..


Sure with existing tech, new stuff can't happen. But you have to adopt new rules and develop new laws of physics that needs to be discovered and accepted. It's the giving up of old ideas and accepting new ones where breakthrough occurs. There is nothing in newtonian physics that can explain quantum physics and string-theory. You just have to accept the new stuff.

[Alex]

Right. But just because some things are incorrectly described as impossible, doesn't mean that everything is therefore possible. The expansion and exploration of science is designed to address that, not suppress it.

[DannoXYZ]

Yes, it's little exceptions to general rule that's the clue. Little wobbles of planets that don't fit Newtownian physics lead to entirely new fields of science. It's little cracks in existing thermodynamics laws that needs to be examined. Like the fractional cents that was discarded in Office Space...

I suspect there are actually multiple variables leading to successful usage of water as fuel. Catalysts to lower activation energy is one way to crack it easily. Also spinning mercury to harness energy from Earth's magnetic fields is also tied in somehow. Too bad Wikipedia didn't exist at end of WWII, Schauberger could've released all his research into public-domain instead of having it grabbed by U.S. military. Think about how long stealth technology had been around by the time we learned about it. My friends in different branches of military all say that their satellites can read your ID when you remove it from your wallet!

Shortly before his and Forrestal's deaths, Byrd warned of crafts that can fly from pole-to-pole at great speed. I don't think these are extra-terrestrial. I don't think it's coincidental that numbers of UFO sightings near military bases increased tremendously afterwards... There's new tech that has been hidden from us for a long time.

Heck, it's not even new stuffs, we still haven't fully utilized a lot of Tesla's work.

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by Alex

Right. But just because some things are incorrectly described as impossible, doesn't mean that everything is therefore possible. The expansion and exploration of science is designed to address that, not suppress it.

Exactly. And just because someone makes a claim of results that violate one or more accepted physical laws, does not make the laws invalid. A key aspect of the scientific method is that until you can repeatedly and predictably demonstrate results that invalidate an accepted law, the law holds.

Remember cold fusion? That's a great example of something that would have required a rethink of some fundamental physics. Seemed very promising, until the results could not be duplicated. Does that make the concept wrong? Not necessarily. But at this time, there is no evidence that it's valid.

Inventors have been trying to violate the laws of thermodynamics since they were first stated in 1850, likely because the prize is so tempting... free energy! Many have claimed victory. No one has actually proven successful yet.... and the operative word is PROVEN.

The scientific method of observation, hypothesis to explain the observation, experiment to test the hypothesis, painstaking replication of results to confirm the findings, and formulation of theories that successfully predict the experimentally obtained results has worked for centuries. It is very good at providing proof of valid theories.

Lack of proof does not automatically invalidate a theory, but it does mean that said theory will not be accepted until its predictions hold up to independent experimental verification.

Often, proof takes a long time. Hell, just THIS YEAR we finally got confirmation of one of the predictions made by general relativity, a century after the prediction was made.

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-einste...elativity.html

So: Rigorously follow the scientific method, because the method works. Test the claims. Find independent, documented, peer-reviewed confirmation that includes data (not wild claims or anecdotes--see above).

[DannoXYZ]

Might take more than a century for water-engine. We're finally re-discovering mathematics China had several thousand years ago and was lost through various revolutions. Greeks and Egyptians had batteries, etc.

Even following scientific method of evidence and repeatability, it will take a long time for new ideas to be accepted. Hundreds of years for Copernican heliocentric model to be accepted. Over hundred years since Darwism, and a lot of people still don't accept it (mostly due to improper translation and interpretation of ancient history books). Just because their ideas weren't accepted at their time does not make Corpernicus or Darwin wrong.