View Full Version : Energy problems? What next?
3rd January 2008, 17:39
I actually started off on this path by thinking that perhaps Hydrogen Peroxide could be used as an alternative fuel source.
I have become quite interested in some rather curious claims. It all started around 1995 with an Equinox report called "It runs on water". Repeatable experimental work is the basis of developing theories. So everybody who says you cannot get more energy out than you put in stop and wonder what else might be happening. A transistor has a small current applied to a plate and this allows a large current to flow. Just maybe, what has been observed is a similar principle to the transistor. That is by passing electricity through water with some arrangement of metal plates allows energy in another form to flow or transuded into the water.
So the question is how many people are interested in trying to repeat the claims made in the Equinox documentary or the even more rather curious claims about "Joe's Cell"
3rd January 2008, 17:42
The 'large' current that flows has to be put in from elsewhere Marcus. It's not 'free' energy.
3rd January 2008, 17:47
Energy and matter are supposed to be interchangeable by E=MCC
Suppose for a moment that we could make an arrangement that transuded matter for a small amount of energy into the energy that was contained within matter.
3rd January 2008, 17:53
I thought that was nuclear fusion?
3rd January 2008, 18:02
Your first objection was to the "free energy" idea. So my reply was to try and get you to consider the possibility of where the "free energy" might come from. In the Equinox documentary they speculate that it is coming from "zero point energy" or the energy that keeps things moving even though it is at zero degrees Kelvin.
Yes we have fusion and that is one method of obtaining energy, now is there another way of doing it cleaner and cheaper?
3rd January 2008, 18:28
I don't think we have fusion yet...we have fission which is certainly cheaper and, compared to fossil fuels, a whole lot cleaner. Once we find out how to create sustainable fusion reactions then that will be totally clean.
You're right that energy and matter are interchangable but there are some caveats. A tiny amount of matter will create a huge amount of energy - as atomic bombs prove. However this "interchangability" also requires incredible speeds, hence the cē part of the equation. All of our current methods of transposing matter into energy are ludicrously inefficient, even nuclear fission, and it's unlikely that converting hydrogen peroxide into fuel will be any more efficient. Besides, there'll always be a shortage of hydrogen peroxide in some parts of the country...Essex for example.
3rd January 2008, 18:51
I'm sure I justed posted some meandering twaddle about 0DegK being a theoretical point on a line, but I can't find it.
I think this is same stuff as if we had enough energy we could warp space and time. Possible but at the moment 'impossible'.:doh:splapme:)
3rd January 2008, 19:32
On the Hydrogen peroxide front
http://www.tecaeromex.com/ingles/destilai.html is interesting
Then there is the problem of storage of energy to be used at a later date. I thought it might be possible to use it as a storage facility.
It does not take much to release the energy stored within this naturally occuring substance. (Yes good essex joke)
Fission and fusion are always being confused together in my mind - sorry.
Why take the time to make a video like
Joe makes a fuel cell (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5838886797220015378) if you just want to fool people.
3rd January 2008, 20:14
Why take the time to make a video like
Joe makes a fuel cell (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5838886797220015378) if you just want to fool people.
For the same reason that hoaxes have always existed. But take it from me, the only person he's fooling is himself. Free energy?? What twaddle. In the first place, this device has a battery attached. No matter how many times they claim that no power is being derived from the battery...it is, as it's the only available source of power.
Secondly, this is water which, for different reasons, is quite special stuff. It's made up of hydrogen and oxygen and the special thing is that those two gases love to combine into water. They'll do it so easily that you only need to introduce the gases to each other and hey presto, you have water. Now try to do it in reverse!
They also have another property - as they combine to form water, they create electricity. NASA knows this which is why, on all of their space missions, they don't actually carry any water because it's too heavy. They carry the two separate gases and then combine them to generate electricity to power the spacecraft. The by-product is water. To reverse the process, i.e. if you want to convert water back into hydrogen and oxygen, you HAVE to put that electricity back again through a process called electrolysis. If you didn't, you be defying a whole host of physical laws.
The other thing that a fuel cell needs is...fuel. In this case, the fuel is oxygen. So you'd need to find/create a supply of that and that too requires energy. On Apollo missions there was plenty of oxygen in the life-support tanks along with, funnily enough hydrogen peroxide, which was used primarily as the fuel for the retro rockets. But the fairies didn't put the oxygen there...a huge amount of energy has to be expended to extract oxygen from the air or, surprise surprise, to produce it from water via electrolysis. If it were free, companies like BOC wouldn't exist.
Incidentally, the idea of fuel cells isn't new - the first was invented in 1839. Nor is hydrogen peroxide - the Germans used it as the fuel for their Messerschmitt jets.
3rd January 2008, 21:49
One day we'll be able to get energy out of the black gooey stuff we drill out of the ground :rolleyes: I'll charge $100 a barrel for it and be very rich :happyboun
4th January 2008, 02:45
Well it is not that difficult to confirm or deny.
The Stan Meyer Patents are on-line.
All the instructions for trying out the Joe's Cell are available.
So all it requires is some experimentation.
Finally I have looked for someone saying that it is a myth or a joke but have not yet seen a "I built a Joe's fuel cell and the whole thing is crap".
What I do find is lots of videos of people running cars on one! If it is a myth then the information would be more elusive to find. Instead the information on it NOT being a myth is difficult to find.
So "It is a hoax because hoaxs have always existed" does not fit the pattern of the urban myth or Hoax.
Tessla was not a fool and he observed this oddity too.
Here is another link to another story along similar lines Hydrogen Generator Story and Patent (http://www.fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/FEV-Pacheco-generator.php)
4th January 2008, 04:48
Here is a copy and paste from Joe Cell discussion (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/05/the_joe_cell_a.php)
Ever heard of polar oppisites?
Their was an individual who beleived that an electron has an opposing charged particle, unfortionally the name has been used to describe many types of science fiction (both written and in film) called a "positron"
This is considered a "real" particle folks. It is considered to be devoid of mass and having such a short frequency, that it can "breach" electrostatic ionization fields (molecular barriers that keep you from putting a hand through a keyboard and other "solid" masses).
It has also been stated that if you were to "breach" what is called a communicable barrier, you would get a complete annihilation of both the positive and negative charged "static" environment that both types of energy exist in, including each other. In other words it causes in a pressurized environment (such as the one we live in) a;
(2)imbalance in pressure versus vacuum
(3)Matter -anti matter reaction...... take your pick.
Point is, the temporary "increase" in low pressure versus higher "atmospherical" pressure is what can be called an "imbalanced state"
An engine is nothing more then a fancy pressure, vacuum "regulator", this regulator uses two well known states of pneumatics: pressure & vacuum
Pressure is used to compress x:1 (where x= the cubic centimeters of volume) versus one cubic centimeters of space within a given volume. shape is not relative however for ease of design wear and as equal a distribution possible for a reciprocating (up and down motion) engine, a cylinder was chosen.
Top-Dead-Center (TDC) is considered the absolute maximum potential for an exothermic based reaction, whereas the Bottom-Dead-Center (BDC) is used as the lowest potential and is simply used as a means to cycle "in" air fuel mixtures) (old design) or simply air (fuel enjected models) to achieve what we use as an engine for todays world.
But an endothermic reactionary motor?
An engine is capable of this because the ignition timing is advanced to the point where the intake valve has closed and the stroke is just getting ready to "compress" the air/fuel mixture taken in. the timing can either be "waaay" advanced (firing after TDC) or for less problems, "retard" (fire before TDC) to keep the rang of motion needed by the distributor from having to travel so far.
In any event, in an endothermic reactionary motor, you are "expecting" a sudden decrease in pressure within the cylinder(s), in a reciprocating motor, the action of the pistons causes a "back pressure" that is vented by the PCV (positive crankcase ventalization) valve back into the intake manifold or "carb" (for you non-mechanical type people)
This means that the engine may be "loosely" sealed from the outer environment, the truth of the matter is, the engine is a atmospherical or "open" designed model and can be affected by pressure differences (high altitude versus low altitude)which means an endothermic reactionary engine (when having ignited or "breeched" the communicable barrier) causes an immediate vacuum, and as long as the springs of the valves and the valves "properly" seat, the strong vacuum made from this reaction pulls the piston foward to compensate or "equalize" the pressure differences. "however" you must not ignore the "pressure-potential" caused as well.
when you have a vacuum, you also have the atmospherical pressure "surrounding" the vacuum itself that exist on this planet working upon it as well (thats why a sphere works best for a vacuum chamber). This means that not only is the piston moving to compensate for the decrease in pressure within the cylinder chamber itself, you also have the pressure "pushing" the piston upward as well from behind the piston. a sort of "2-for-1" effect.
This is easy physics folks, not hoodoo or mythical in origin.
BTW when the annihilation happens, it will release a strong EMP field effect that can and does affect positive based digital circuits (since most digital circuits are based upon a 5-volt +/- type of "square wave", since this is a "negative" based reaction that the engine is producing, the effects would be:
(1) sharp spike in power due to the sudden decrease in negative polarity causing a sudden rise in positive charging
(2) a "dampening" field whereas the communicable
barrier becomes a more effective dielectric thereby preventing electrical current from flowing
(3) intermediant digital equipment operations (due to one or both or a mixture of the above..
These are but a few examples.
The purpose of this post is to help remove some of the "new agey" type of methos being used.
Personally my historical studies have shown that we have discovered this principle before, but the physics and training were next to none therefore it was named "something" to refer to it (i.e. Orgone, bio-rhythmic energy, life force, etc...)
So I'm not "knocking" them for trying to explain it (the thing does work you know?)
Oh on the note about "human negative energy" affecting a joe cell and so forth?
Remember that we are a "dipolar" object, we have a negative pole at our feet, and a positive pole at our heads, our body is made up of mostly "water", and we have red blood cells (lots of them)
A red blood cell has a single iron molecule that is used for the oxidation processes, this means it has a weak magnetic attractor happening.
take an inductance and capacitor reading of yourself "at rest", then go on a jog or get really mad about something, wait for the endorphine kick to get the blood rate up, and then take another reading, you will be surprised by the results.
anyone remember what happens to iron when accelerated in a heated or molten state?
Just because you lack the means to describe what you see, does not mean it is any less possible to become or is a reality, only the tools and communications need to be refined..
4th January 2008, 14:51
There's a hugh ball of fire over our heads that pumps out millions of joules of energy every second. If there was any commitment in this world to a cleaner way of capturing energy there would be solar panels on every roof of every dwelling in the world. The lives of many Africans could be transformed by having solar panels supplied to them but all our politicians are interested in is giving them aid so that they can give it back to us for a supply of guns and bullets.
4th January 2008, 15:03
I personally think Geothermal power plants are the future and it is ridiculous that they are not used more. They are easy to build as it is just like drilling an oil well and can be built in the vast majority of countries. There is even one down the south of England somewhere that was built years ago and is still working.
You just pump cold water into the ground hot water comes up, you run it through a turbine and you have electricity. No pollution, cheap setup, can be run 24 hours a day. What more could anyone want?
4th January 2008, 16:56
The first few posts when straight over my head, but I just thought I'd pop in to say hello :waver to Marcus who I haven't seen for a while. Nice to see you back and well... and trying to solve the worlds problems :D
5th January 2008, 18:59
I saw a program on TV about British Rocket development using Hydrogen Peroxide as Rocket Fuel. All that was required to release the energy was a metalic catalyst. The project was using Magnesim as a catalyst. The project was abandoned in favour of developing the Concord:splapme:ermmm:lickme
So it seemed to me that if you can power a Rocket with the stuff then you could turn the turbines that make electricity with it.
There is also the posibility that you could power a car with it too. Hydrogen fueled cars are currently being made as I saw on Top Gear but of course the problem was in filling your car up and transporting it. However Hydrogen Peroxide is a liquid so that would have overcome that.
So as long as you make sure there is no blowback in from the burn and blow the car up the posibility seemed reasonable.
Started exploring the Internet and found many interesting people experimenting and not caring what phyiscs has to say. All things are only theories that are either proved or disproved by experiments.
6th January 2008, 03:14
As I stated above, using hydrogen peroxide as a rocket fuel isn't new - we used it as the main fuel in our Black Knight rockets. We also used it to power torpedoes until one of them blew up and sank a submarine. It's thought that the Kirsk sank for the same reason.
Unfortunately, just like using oil-powered jet engines, it wouldn't be economical as an electricity power generator as the cost of creating the energy source would be more than the energy that was generated.
You're right about one thing...the internet is full of people that don't care what physics says. The bad news for them is that physical laws do matter whether they like it or not. Take this Joe's fuel cell. It claims to generate energy from nothing which wouldn't be so bad if it didn't violate the most fundamental physical law, the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created out of nowhere.
It also claims to be able to generate power without losing any water. Yes, it creates combustible gases through electrolysis (namely oxygen and hydrogen) yet water is still lost, albeit in neglible quantities compared to the amount of gas released. If it didn't lose water it would violate the second law of thermodynamics which states that a system will degrade its energy over time.
To make up for this fundamental ignorance of basic physics, the people who claim to have built one of these fuel cells state that it runs on some mysterious chemical called orgone. Strangely enough, no one has been able to determine precisely what orgone is, or where it might fit in the periodic table. Despite this it must have some quite remarkable properties, as it's not only capable of overturning two of the laws that govern how the universe operates, but it's also claimed to be responsible for controlling heartbeats, human emotions, respiration, and even rain clouds. Pretty impressive stuff for something that doesn't actually exist. But then, neither does a genuine working Joe's fuel cell exist either. Every single page that purports to describe a working fuel cell follows the same sleazy pattern of disreputable pseudoscience:
The use of vague scientific terms (e.g. endothermic reactionary motor)
The lack of specific measurements (e.g. the basic inability to measure the amount of water that's lost)
Over-reliance on anecdotes and personal testimonial (treehuggers say it's a great invention)
Failure to progress towards additional evidence of their claims (has anyone seen a working example?)
Reversed burden of proof, i.e. it's supposed to be our job to prove that their claims are false rather than them proving that they're true (I've made a working fuel cell, so now you prove that I haven't)
Using uncommon terms for common substances in order to deliberately mislead (e.g. referring to water as dihydrogen monoxide)
Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to their claims (see orgone above)
And finally, making claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community and/or the oil companies to suppress their miraculous invention.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.