WATER FUEL...video... very interesting

[stefan segal]

Apparently, the government has sucked up this breakthrough to save the oil industry.

Stefan

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

[paulm]

Hoax.

http://anti-rant.blogspot.com/2006/05/simple-truth-about-hho-and-water.html

Excerpt from blog article:

Simple thermodynamics deny the premise. Energy is conserved. If you start with water and end with water, then you aren't releasing any more energy than you put into it. In fact, if you look at it from the point of view of energy available to do work, you lose some energy.

[stefan segal]

Paulm, interesting site...and the hoaxing is all straight physics...but I am not so sure the argument is over.

Recently there have been a few very new methods of solar paint and film advances...one in which converts infra red spectrum...so a shirt might generate DC in the dark from body heat.

Then there are micrbiological hydrogen production in which some giant steps have recently occurred.

I am listing these techniques because your blogger's problem with his autimatic scoffer, has to do with energy in= energy out.

This is not a show-stopper. Since we have yet to make any accepted over-unity machine (Tesla lovers...I apologize), then it stands to fact and reason that we put more energy in than we get out. This happens in every mechanism...we have a table of losses.

The point your blogger avoided, is when and where this energy is applied.

A large dam filled with water took no observable energy from our bottom line to fill, but its potential energy is great...especially if channeled off into electric generator.

Once the water is cracked into HH&O, then like oil cracked into gasolene, it has an energy potential to be applied at a certain point as is the dam which generates electricity.

I believe your blogger was comparing this HH&O fuel with an alchemist's stone...all product with no energy required. All energy is provided through energy conversion...one form to another...one element to others.

Paulm, it's best to keep an open mind to new heretofore unknown aspects of our world these days...Newton's world is shifting at its roots and mankind is learning to manipulate elements beneath the reach of Newton's ruller...keep an eye out for the wild and wondrous.

Stefan

Stefan

[Bill]

Using hydrogen as fuel is the same thing as an electricity economy.

Hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's a chemical fuel alternative to liquid fuels like petroleum distillates (gasoline).

You still have to make the actual energy that is used to produce the hydrogen.

And the only method we know of that works for this is electricity.

Biosystems for producing methane and hydrogen look interesting, but we have no guarantees they will work at scale.

[paulm]

I usually do keep an open mind on things. I remember this from a year or so ago.. doesn't look squashed by big oil/government to me since the info is still out there. I'm all in favor of the alternative. It just looks too much like the low cost fusion that was announced in the mid-eightys. Remember where that one went?

[mwillman]

Its true that Hydrogen by itself is not a solution but it does allow us to get off of fossil fuels for things like cars, heating and many other user side technologies.

So what we need to do is design electrical generation technologies that don't use fossil fuels. Solar, thermal, Tidal, Wind, Fussion, methane to name a few. The problem is that we arent investing enough in these technologies.

There is plenty of power available that doesnt harm the environment that if we bother to learn how to use better will allow us to easily stop our contributions to global warming and polution.

Now the question is how do we get people to stop looking for the cheapest solution(oil, coal) and instead find the best solution that takes into account more then just profit margins and looks at the health of the land and its people. As long as the oil and coal industries define energy policy we will continue to destroy the land and limit better technologies.

[paulm]

The alternatives are out there and available, but like you said... they are not the cheapest like the fossil fuels are. I agree that 'doing what's best' would be better. However, just looking at the U.S. alone... our society is geared toward cheap energy. Any solutions will have to take that into account. If not then the U.S. would be in even more serious energy related trouble than it already is.

[mwillman]

Its might hurt at first but we need to make some sacrifices if we want to give our children a decent future.

The trouble isnt the energy its the energy companies.

[paulm]

The trouble is not entirely the fault of the energy companies... the blame lies with us all. We are dependant upon cheap energy/fuel to power our society. We have developed our society around the automobile and the prospect of cheap energy/fuel. WE made the energy companies what they are by our dependance upon their products

[mwillman]

Yes, but at the same time if the companies had invested in better technologies rather then repressing them for profit margins we would still be able to have the same quality of life while not destroying the environment.

We didnt make the energy companies ignore new technologies. What we havent done is help companies invest in alternative technologies. If we as a nation were to subsidize the research into more environmentally sound energy sources rather then giving the Oil companies huge welfare checks we would be much closer to a real long term solution to our energy problems.

[paulm]

"better" technologies or more expensive technoligies? Internal combustion originally started out as an ethanol based technology, but was modified to use gasoline when that was shown to be less expensive.

We're basically in agreement... you just want to blame 'big oil' and the 'government' rather than take responsibility for wanting cheap fuel for your car.
We made 'big oil' big and the government is pandering to our desire for cheap fuel. We're not changing... why should they shoulder all the blame.

I suppose the solution would be for the wealthy only to have mobility... which is what it will most likely come to... either that or riots as society breaks down due to the lack of affordable fuel alternatives.

[mwillman]

All technology is expensive when its new.
Its through R&D and mass production that the price drops. We are technologically advanced enough to make many non-fossil fuel technologies available to the masses but the technology has been ignored or resisted becuase there is already a ready supply of Oil.

While its true that the masses want cheap and easy, its also true that The Car and Oil industries have done alot to limit other types of technologies. I blame everyone Industry and the masses for the problems we are in now.

Everyone is to blame but if Industry doesnt work on other technologies then there is nothing for consumers to buy.

[stefan segal]

"New" technologies come to the public only after those at the top of an industry have had the run to pay for their in-house technology's R&D and start-up costs.

This is not so much a conspiracy...although it IS a conspiracy, as it is viewed as a simple business plan...stupid to do otherwise.

This is another cost of allowing gigantic corporations exist...as they exist precisely at the cost of start-up competition's existance...or more correctly, their lack of existence.

I believe it was GM that manufactured a limited number of plug in electric cars and leased them to people who loved them...then after a couple of years, took them back using legal force and rejecting any terms offered by those who wanted to keep them, collected them and crushed them.

Why do you suppose a company would fight customers off and destroy a worthy product line?

They didn't want...couldn't afford competition with their internal combustion engine business.

If they are that ruthless with themselves and their customers, how ruthless would they be with outside startup hopefuls?

Its very easy for them to squash leading-edge technologies. Its a 1,2,3 process. First you identify the inovator and contact him...professing your interest and his limitless profits from going with the big boys. Then you impress upon him the trials and tribulations of attempting to go it independantly....Then you put your arm around him, give him a stunningly profitable exclusive contract, and make a stab at buying his patent, but yes or no, the exclusive contract is sufficient. Then, you simply fail to produce any of his design..thus legally crippling him from private production.

If his design fits the giant corps' future offerings, then their designers work to alter his design enough to patent their own design and the originator is left dead in the water.

This is the story of the guy who invented intercontinental undersea cable...it took his lifetime and all his energy/money to fight the corporation who outright stole his design, but when he finally won, there was no market left, as wireless and satalite communication took up the overload.

We buy only what they offer...there is no such thing as a free market. If one is big enough, then like the USA, you can hold the world to a price...like buy gold and sell gold for 35 $$...this held the world to the USA cap on gold for at
least a generation...if not more.

We need to educate and anger a large percentage of the people to select and boycott individual industries...make them scale down to where competition can again rise. Vote and harass "representatives" to make laws to level the field to encourage competition.

Stefan