 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Chemistry / Electrochemistry / July 2008Gasoline vs. battery
With gasoline at $4/gal. and electricity at $0.10/kW-hr (residential rate), even a perfect IC engine would have higher fuel costs. $4 buys 40 kW-hr, which is 40 X 3600 BTU = 144,000 BTU. One gallon of gas contains 120,000 BTU. So at 100% efficiency for both, the battery-electric has 6/7th the energy cost (approximately). Actual IC cars get 20% or less and battery- electrics 80% -- or do they? > With gasoline at $4/gal. and electricity at $0.10/kW-hr (residential > rate), even a perfect IC engine would have higher fuel costs. $4 > buys 40 kW-hr, which is 40 X 3600 BTU = 144,000 BTU. One gallon of > gas contains 120,000 BTU. So at 100% efficiency for both, the > battery-electric has 6/7th the energy cost (approximately). Actual > IC cars get 20% or less and battery- electrics 80% -- or do they? Why not run on pure water? Google Brown's Gas. Fuel cells are a total waste of time and money. Brown's gas converts water into hydrogen and oxygen. Which is highly flammable. Far cheaper than fuel cells and about as dangerous as gasoline.  SignatureBill >> With gasoline at $4/gal. and electricity at $0.10/kW-hr >> (residential rate), even a perfect IC engine would have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > into hydrogen and oxygen. Which is highly flammable. Far > cheaper than fuel cells and about as dangerous as gasoline. I hope that suggestion was intended as a joke. Brown's gas does not "convert water into hydrogen and oxygen". Brown's gas is water which has been converted into its constituent elements, hydrogen and oxygen. And that conversion to gas (2H2O -> 2H2 + O2) uses at least as much energy as is released from converting it back to water again. Brown's gas is no route to a perpetual motion machine. John >>> With gasoline at $4/gal. and electricity at $0.10/kW-hr >>> (residential rate), even a perfect IC engine would have [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > John I used to think so too. Petrol pricey? Japanese invent car that runs on water http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINSP7366720080613 http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_jibbguy_080415_brown_s_gas__28_22hho_22_ 29_.htm SignatureBill >>>> With gasoline at $4/gal. and electricity at $0.10/kW-hr >>>> (residential rate), even a perfect IC engine would have [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_jibbguy_080415_brown_s_gas__28_22hho_22_ 29_.htm I have a magic box that turns lead into gold and I'm looking for a few investors to take it commercial. Interested? Or maybe a nice bridge? > I have a magic box that turns lead into gold and I'm looking for a few > investors to take it commercial. Interested? Or maybe a nice bridge? Ah ... even converting lead into gold won't help with the energy crisis ;-) But the highly successful [and impossible to duplicate] "Cold Fusion" is the answer to all of our transportation problems. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple. > I used to think so too. > > Petrol pricey? Japanese invent car that runs on water http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINSP7366720080613 http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_jibbguy_080415_brown_s_gas__28_22hho_22_ 29_.htm Those articles are examples of poor journalism. I'll back the laws of thermodynamics any day over 21st century journalistic standards, venture capital ethics, and uneducated new-age wishful thinking with its pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and conspiracy theories. Wikipedia does a much better job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car John >> I used to think so too. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > John Wikipedia doesn't even say Genepax claim isn't true. And it lists this as a reference. http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080613/153276/ 300 watts per quart of water per hour. Pretty impressive. SignatureBill > Wikipedia doesn't even say Genepax claim isn't true. Read between the lines. Eg "a process which would violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics ... such a system would be equivalent to a perpetual motion machine". > And it lists this as a reference. > http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080613/153276/ A reference in a balanced article does not constitute an endorsement, unless that endorsement is made explicit. > 300 watts per quart of water per hour. Pretty impressive. A good cyclist can output that. John >> Wikipedia doesn't even say Genepax claim isn't true. > > Read between the lines. Eg "a process which would violate the > first and/or second laws of thermodynamics ... such a system > would be equivalent to a perpetual motion machine". Does an electron traveling around an atom violate thermodynamics? >> And it lists this as a reference. >> http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080613/153276/ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > A good cyclist can output that. That is a stretch, but I get your point. ;-) SignatureBill > Does an electron traveling around an atom violate > thermodynamics? Not unless energy gets extracted without affecting that motion. Remember, there's no frictional or electromagnetic losses. We're dealing with quantum mechanics here, not classical Newtonion physics (which are an approximation). John >> Does an electron traveling around an atom violate >> thermodynamics? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We're dealing with quantum mechanics here, not classical > Newtonion physics (which are an approximation). Don't forget that an electron requires heat to travel around an atom. As it can't happen at absolute zero. Surely one should be able to (someday) tap the energy from it. And once this is done, one can argue that is only the heat of the sun(s) that allows us to do so. As long as it is cheaper than fossil fuels, I say so what? SignatureBill >>> Does an electron traveling around an atom violate >>> thermodynamics? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > sun(s) that allows us to do so. As long as it is cheaper than > fossil fuels, I say so what? I'll await your ground-breaking paper on what's wrong with the third law of thermodynamics. You know, the one about entropy. John >>>> Does an electron traveling around an atom violate >>>> thermodynamics? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'll await your ground-breaking paper on what's wrong with the > third law of thermodynamics. You know, the one about entropy. Entropy invites the idea that changing H2O to HHO (Brown's gas) should be child's play. After all, HHO is just a simpler form of water. ;-) SignatureBill > Entropy invites the idea that changing H2O to HHO (Brown's > gas) should be child's play. After all, HHO is just a simpler > form of water. ;-) No. Entropy is about energy, not simplicity of molecular structure. John >> Entropy invites the idea that changing H2O to HHO (Brown's >> gas) should be child's play. After all, HHO is just a simpler >> form of water. ;-) > > No. Entropy is about energy, not simplicity of molecular > structure. That is what I am talking about. H2O to HHO is a downgrade and it should be a release of energy to convert it. So currently it costs 36 watts to do so. It should be far less and you should get energy back by converting it. The part that HHO is explosive and converts HHO back into H2O is what I am having a hard time with. Although this is supposed to be the easy part. SignatureBill > That is what I am talking about. H2O to HHO is a downgrade and > it should be a release of energy to convert it. So currently [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is what I am having a hard time with. Although this is > supposed to be the easy part. That's because you've got it wrong way around. It takes energy to dissociate water. Burning the Brown's gas releases that energy again. 36W is simply a possible rate at which you can put energy into storage as Brown's gas. It equates to so many cubic centimetres per hour produced. John > Innews:6cqje4F3ijn14U1@mid.individual.net, > John Henderson typed on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:16:20 +1000: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > Bill Assuming you are honestly interested in this apparent dilemma, let me explain. Change of entropy that determines direction of the process should be counted for ALL components. In example you are looking at there are roughly two components - entropy of atoms H, H and O, and entropy of electrons that are orbiting it. Entropy of atoms in indeed decreasing in this direction H+H+0 --> H20 so this process would not go by itself (as you correctly noted). dS1 (negative) BUT - in the same time entropy of electrons in orbit of H is much lower than in orbit of O, so once electrons move from H to 0, it causes a huge increase of entropy. dS2 (positive) In overall, dS = dS1 + dS2 (and dS2>>dS1) dS>>0 entropy increases, so process takes place. This is a bit of simplified explanation. In thermodynamics we use Gibbs potential rather than entropy for determining direction of a process. That allows to deal quantitatively with different energy deltas, using measurable values such as heat dissipated by reaction to outside system. But in philosophical sense above explanation is correct and applicable to most processes around you. For example growth of crystals happens for the same reason (internal entropy increase of electrons from coming together is higher than entropy loss of atoms). Same applies to Life itself - it is continuously increasing entropy of outside, using part of the available delta energy to decrease its own entropy. That is not only the explanation how Life can exist, but also explanation WHY it exists. There are many processes where entropy can increase, but are very slow (for example mix of hydrogen and oxygen can stay together for years, even though is is explosive). Effective catalysts that can accelerate processes are complex (typically efficiency of a catalyst is proportional to its complexity) and so have low entropy itself, therefore spontaneously decomposing. To resolve this paradox, some catalysts have evolved to use part of the energy of the reaction to repair themselves and counteract own excessive complexity. These catalysts are Life. Is this the shortest in the world explanation of purpose of Life, or what?? :-) Regards, Yevgen > To resolve this paradox, some catalysts have evolved to use part of > the energy [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Regards, > Yevgen Bingo ... I have believed this virtually the same way for years. Life is a catalyst that allows the universe to continually increase its entropy [disorder]. Life is organized, but the temporary organization is a catalyst for much more disorganization [consider the fact that we may eventually spread our presence throughout the reachable universe and continually set processes into action that release energy that does work for us and at the same time causes the entropy to increase and thus the disorder of the universe to increase. There is a point where the universe will come to an eventual statsis and that is where entropy -> infinity .... it will be a very dark and cold place at that time and will be long after humans have ceased to exist. For this reason alone I think life is a natural occurance in the universe and most likely exists all over the place. The more elusive question is how much of it is intelligent and since there has to be a "first" intelligent life form .... are we it? Most of our religeons would have us believe this to be so; but in fact, our religeons do very little to answer this question beyond an ability to otherwise explain the unknown [i.e. how we got here, why, etc.] and why we seem to be the masters of our existance [top of the food chain]. We are the first on Earth ... but that doesn't mean we are the first in the universe ... in fact, the odds are very very small indeed. It could be that it is not possible to move a living human being past the speed of life and thus, it may be that we NEVER encounter another intelligent life form before we come to an end. Somehow or other, entropy will prevail, but it is questionable how far along that route towards increasing entropy that humanity will play a part. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple. > > To resolve this paradox, some catalysts have evolved to use part of > > the energy [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bingo ... I have believed this virtually the same way for years. It is interesting how ideas seem to ripen in certain times and many people come to know the "secret" simultaneously. >Life is a > catalyst that allows the universe to continually increase its entropy [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of it is intelligent and since there has to be a "first" intelligent life form > .... are we it? To answer this question we first need to define "intelligent". Information processing as such is inherent to any Life, because very concept of information, first "bit" comes into being as a choice between Path A and Path B that an unstable system has to make to improve chances of own preservation. In purely physical systems all choices are equally beneficial. They have "information capacity" (many possible states) but not information itself (all states have equal benefit or equally irrelevant). But in optionaly-stable systems choice A may mean death and choice B survival. Systems which had chosen B will multiply and those this choice will be stored in its "memory" (initially it was only genetic, later became stored in neural systems, even later - in language, written text, computer HD and DVDs etc). But nature of it did not change, it still remains a collection of choices that benefit survival (no matter how complex it might be organized). But at what level of information processing should be call it "intelligence"? We can randomly assign any "cut-off". Is it when "concepts" use was started to reduce dimensionality of problems that are being optimized? But penetrating deeper into actual operation of many organizms (down to celular level) reveals that they have been acting upon complex stimuli generilized for faster processing already for billions of years. Or should we take time where concepts became hardware-independent and expressed in symbols? Again, we will find that insects are widely use symbolic language such as language of smells in ants and language of dance in bees. Looking at all this, making any quantitative distinction between "lower" and "higher" information processing appears hopeless. More likely, there is infinite continuum of more and more efficient methods of information processing, and we ourselves are somewhere in the middle of this continuum. Some superior aliens would have just as hard time to assign us to "lower" or "higher" level of information processing (intelligent vs non-intelligent) as we do with ants. Most of our religeons would have us believe this to be so; > but in fact, our religeons do very little to answer this question beyond an > ability to otherwise explain the unknown [i.e. how we got here, why, etc.] and > why we seem to be the masters of our existance [top of the food chain]. Good thing about religions however is that they all agree - there is ONE optimization criteria (God) for any behavior, that is absolute and independent on anybody opinion. This intuitive discovery humanity made (and preserved in framework of religion) is important for proper convergence of any thinking process, and ultimately for best survival chances of any Lifeform. Of cause, now came the time that and nature of this mysterious criteria - "maximization of the rate of entropy increase from this moment to infinity", will come out in the open. >We > are the first on Earth ... but that doesn't mean we are the first in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > questionable how far along that route towards increasing entropy that humanity > will play a part. We have billions of years to answer this question. Btw seeing continuity of information as inherent to Life allows us to think about humanity as being same thing as ourselves. After all, Me is just a copy of latest version of humanity Software, loaded into monkey brain hardware. The decomissioning of my hardware will have no effect as long as original Software continues to exist (with some continuous improvements) and there is some hardware (not necessarily monkeys) to load it into. Regards, Yevgen > -- > Thomas T. Veldhouse > > Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple. >>> Entropy invites the idea that changing H2O to HHO (Brown's >>> gas) should be child's play. After all, HHO is just a simpler [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >am having a hard time with. Although this is supposed to be the easy >part. What you need to come to grips with is that there is no HHO. More accurately, HHO is just a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gasses. If you have a child named John and I call him Charlie, is he a different child or am I just plain mistaken? You are just plain mistaken. >> Entropy invites the idea that changing H2O to HHO (Brown's >> gas) should be child's play. After all, HHO is just a simpler >> form of water. ;-) > >No. Entropy is about energy, not simplicity of molecular >structure. Actually it's about both... energy and order... to the extent that a "simpler" molecular structure (order) represents a lower energy of formation. (I don't like the term "simpler.") However, as long as we're talking about water there is no "simpler" structure. Good luck getting that across. ;-) > > Entropy invites the idea that changing H2O to HHO (Brown's > > gas) should be child's play. After all, HHO is just a simpler > > form of water. ;-) > > No. Entropy is about energy, not simplicity of molecular > structure. It's more about rocks. Since the only thing energy has to do with it is that some idiots in chemistry make batteries, and then there's the ones that make computers, robots, enthalpy, lasers, magnets, and money. > John >>>>> Does an electron traveling around an atom violate >>>>> thermodynamics? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Entropy invites the idea that changing H2O to HHO (Brown's gas) should >be child's play. After all, HHO is just a simpler form of water. ;-) There is no "simpler form of water." It's all two hydrogen atoms bound (as defined by chemistry) to an oxygen atom. The principle basis of what you propose is just wrong. Brown's Gas is nothing but hydrogen and oxygen molecules (H2 and O2) in a 2:1 ratio, with those molecules NOT bound to each other. It's a dangerously explosive mixture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen > Entropy invites the idea that changing H2O to HHO (Brown's gas) should > be child's play. After all, HHO is just a simpler form of water. ;-) Where did this imbicilic (sp?) thread come from anyway .... a troll? 2H2O + energy -> 2H2 + O2 In short, two water molecules, with the addition of energy to break the bonds will form two molecules of hydrogen gas and one molecule of oxygen gas. A small amount of energy to server as a ignition source is all it takes to begin the reaction to get this reaction to move in reverse and reform water and release energy. That is the principal behind using hydrogen and oxygen as a fuel source [the simplest means of creation is via the hydrolysis of water as I just documented. The process of hydrolysis is not 100% efficient though as energy is lost during the process in the form of heat. That heat loss is the reason you can't create a "perpetual motion" machine. As just mentioned, entropy ensures that the heat can never be converted 100% back to work, because if it could, entropy in the universe would decrease and the universe would become more organized and the 3rd law of thermodynammic explicitly indicates that the reverse is true (the universe is destined for relatively homogenous chaos). SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple. "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in news:486814e0$0$1347 $834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com: > Entropy invites the idea that changing H2O to HHO (Brown's gas) should > be child's play. After all, HHO is just a simpler form of water. ;-) Bill, I suggest you go back and retake those physics classes you slept through. Tim Signature"Don't let the same dog bite you twice." Chuck Berry > Don't forget that an electron requires heat to travel around an atom. As > it can't happen at absolute zero. Surely one should be able to (someday) > tap the energy from it. And once this is done, one can argue that is > only the heat of the sun(s) that allows us to do so. As long as it is > cheaper than fossil fuels, I say so what? Heat is nothing more then an increase in the excitation of the orbiting electrons; or the electron cloud as the case may be, so the electrons jump up one quantum level and all the atoms as a group become the element that you see in our physical world and feel as heat [more excited energy bombarding atoms in our own bodies]. In short, the very definition of heat is the movement of electrons around protons [and neutrons]. If there is no heat [absolute zero], the electrons will come to rest at the atom nucleus right along side the protons and neutrons [if present]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple. > > Don't forget that an electron requires heat to travel around an atom. As > > it can't happen at absolute zero. Surely one should be able to (someday) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > will come to rest at the atom nucleus right along side the protons and > neutrons [if present]. Nope; wrong on all counts. Please go back and read a freshman physics book before you make such statements. --- /~\ The ASCII \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML / \ Email! Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible). > >> Wikipedia doesn't even say Genepax claim isn't true. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > That is a stretch, but I get your point. ;-) Lance Armstrong was measured at approx 400 watts for an hour in a time trial. About 460 for 40 minutes. 300 for an hour is a fairly high level, but there are amateur cyclists who can do it (I'm not one of them, though!) SignatureRemove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible). >>> Wikipedia doesn't even say Genepax claim isn't true. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Does an electron traveling around an atom violate thermodynamics? No. >> 300 watts per quart of water per hour. Pretty impressive. > > A good cyclist can output that. Really? Freak bicyclist maybe and thus not that useful or relevant. > >> 300 watts per quart of water per hour. Pretty impressive. > > > > A good cyclist can output that. > > Really? Freak bicyclist maybe and thus not that useful or relevant. 300W is definitely not in the "freak" category; I've managed over 400 watts on an ergometer for 15 sec or so, and I'm a 47 year old recreational cyclist. A top-level pro at the peak of his career can put out 350 - 400W continuously for an hour or so. SignatureRemove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible). >> >> 300 watts per quart of water per hour. Pretty impressive. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > recreational cyclist. A top-level pro at the peak of his career can put > out 350 - 400W continuously for an hour or so. As you have just confirmed, "freak". 15 secs is bugger all and those "pros" putting it out for an hour are rather "stuffed" physically and thus mentally for considerable longer thereafter. > >> >> 300 watts per quart of water per hour. Pretty impressive. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "pros" putting it out for an hour are rather "stuffed" physically and thus > mentally for considerable longer thereafter. 400 sustained is getting close to "freakish". 300 is not. Like I said, there are strong amateurs who can do that, though I'm not one of them. SignatureRemove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible). > 300W is definitely not in the "freak" category; I've managed over 400 > watts on an ergometer for 15 sec or so, and I'm a 47 year old > recreational cyclist. A top-level pro at the peak of his career can put > out 350 - 400W continuously for an hour or so. You are invited to join the Matrix. Please lie down and relax ... and enjoy your new life. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple. >>> 300 watts per quart of water per hour. Pretty impressive. >> >> A good cyclist can output that. > > Really? Freak bicyclist maybe and thus not that useful or > relevant. Sustained for an hour, it's certainly near the upper limit and well beyond me at any stage of my life. The point is that that power isn't going to move a car in any traffic-useful way, very short trip times notwithstanding. John >>>> 300 watts per quart of water per hour. Pretty impressive. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > power isn't going to move a car in any traffic-useful way, very > short trip times notwithstanding. Agreed. The average "Car" is 1-2 tons? You'd have to go to a different technology, oh, like bicycle tech, or thin shell tech(?) to get something under 250kg(~500lbs) all up. And as mentioned, definite a slimmer profile for thwe wind. > John >>> I used to think so too. >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >300 watts per quart of water per hour. Pretty impressive. One horsepower = 746 watts... so 300 watts = 0.40 horsepower. This from a power plant that almost fills the luggage space. The darn thing can't run a decent lawn mower and they have it in a car? Give me a break! It's not possible to attack pseudoscientific claims to the satisfaction of the uneducated. Their beliefs aren't grounded in science, but science is required to debunk the claims. Catch 22! Wiki doesn't encourage attack articles anyhow. They want facts and citations. There's little in the Geneplex claims that is subject to attack in the eyes of the uneducated. If you haven't a clue to the laws of physics, there is no way anyone can attack the Geneplex claims to your satisfaction. >>>> I used to think so too. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > thing can't run a decent lawn mower and they have it in a car? Give > me a break! I dunno... that does seem to be a stretch doesn't it? > It's not possible to attack pseudoscientific claims to the > satisfaction of the uneducated. Their beliefs aren't grounded in > science, but science is required to debunk the claims. Catch 22! Actually I am very disappointed in science for the most part. As most of it is based on theories and some of it is no better than pseudoscience IMHO. But then again, what is really interesting is most truth comes down to this throughout history. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer -- German philosopher (1788 - 1860) > Wiki doesn't encourage attack articles anyhow. Wiki can be very biased IMHO. That to me seems pretty attackful if you ask me. > They want facts and citations. There's little in the Geneplex claims > that is subject to attack in the eyes of the uneducated. If you > haven't a clue to the laws of physics, there is no way anyone can > attack the Geneplex claims to your satisfaction. How does the laws of physics explain how an electron can travel around an atom for billions of years? An electron and an atom does need a heat source though. As absolute zero, the electron fails to travel around an atom in theory anyway. ;-) SignatureBill > > They want facts and citations. There's little in the Geneplex claims > > that is subject to attack in the eyes of the uneducated. If you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > source though. As absolute zero, the electron fails to travel around an > atom in theory anyway. ;-) That's part of quantum mechanics, not newtonian physics. An electron does NOT stop orbiting its nucleus at absolute zero; it's just in its lowest energy orbital state at that point. SignatureRemove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible). >>> http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080613/153276/ >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I dunno... that does seem to be a stretch doesn't it? It's definitely a stretch that such a power source will run a car at 50 mph as claimed elsewhere. >> It's not possible to attack pseudoscientific claims to the >> satisfaction of the uneducated. Their beliefs aren't grounded in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >IMHO. But then again, what is really interesting is most truth comes >down to this throughout history. Again, you need to educate yourself in the thing that disappoijnts you. Know your enemy! When you use the word "theory" as you just did you are falling prey to the pseudo-scientists who base their nonsense on false principles because the real principles are "just theories." A theory is a testable model describing natural phenomena. A theory is false or wrong when those natural phenomena are observed (via replicatable scientific experiments) to behave in a manner inconsistent with the theory. At that point the theory is discarded or modified to take into account the new observations and the new theory is then tested. Rinse, lather , repeat. That's how science progresses. >"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, >it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." >-- Arthur Schopenhauer -- German philosopher (1788 - 1860) I think if Shopenhauer were here he would warn you against the logical error consisting of believing that because all roosters are chickens, therefore all chickens are roosters. The converse of a true statement is not necessarily a true statement. Just because something is violently opposed and/or ridiculed does not mean it is true. >> Wiki doesn't encourage attack articles anyhow. > >Wiki can be very biased IMHO. That to me seems pretty attackful if you >ask me. Wiki is subject to the whims of individual contributors, but there are so many that it generally balances out, especially when it comes to the hard sciences. (Social/political issues are another matter.) Besides, Wiki is only one very convenient source we all have access to. It is far from being the only basis for debunking the free and zero-point energy crowd. >> They want facts and citations. There's little in the Geneplex claims >> that is subject to attack in the eyes of the uneducated. If you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >source though. As absolute zero, the electron fails to travel around an >atom in theory anyway. ;-) With no offense intended, you have shown yourself incapable of understanding physics and chemistry as they affect gross matter. Given that, you aren't likely to understand quantum physics, nor can I put forth a good argument without more consultation of texts than I care to do. And then it's irrelevant because everything related to the Geneplex claims is explainable in terms of classical Newtonian physics and everyday chemistry. The only folks making a quantum quagmire of it are the zero-point and free energy crowd that believes there is a conspiracy to suppress inventions that promise a source of unlimited free energy. Our economy is based on cheap energy and the only segment of it that would oppose more and cheaper energy would be the energy companies. They're big, but they aren't that big. > Brown's gas is no route to a perpetual motion machine. You know I watched the moon travel around the Earth. And when I studied physics, I was told that there are electrons orbiting atoms for billions of years. I don't know about you, but those make pretty good perpetual motion machines IMHO. SignatureBill >> Brown's gas is no route to a perpetual motion machine. > > You know I watched the moon travel around the Earth. And when > I studied physics, I was told that there are electrons > orbiting atoms for billions of years. I don't know about you, > but those make pretty good perpetual motion machines IMHO. OK, show me the extracted energy doing useful work without affecting that motion. John >>> Brown's gas is no route to a perpetual motion machine. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > OK, show me the extracted energy doing useful work without > affecting that motion. Well the tides get their energy from the gravity of the moon for one. Some claim many earthquakes also occur from the gravity of the moon (and they could be right). Although the motion of the moon is effected. As the moon is moving slower and slower and it is moving farther and father away. Like a quarter of an inch a year. While not a true perpetual motion machine. Tapping energy from the moon's gravity for billions of years sounds pretty close to a perpetual motion machine to me. As far as tapping off energy off of electrons traveling around an atom... I am still working on that one. I do believe it is indeed possible though. :-) SignatureBill John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote in news:6cog5hF3dm2fpU1 @mid.individual.net: > Brown's gas is water which has been converted into its > constituent elements, hydrogen and oxygen. I thought Brown gas was methane from cow patties. Seriously, does anybody have any figures for the overall energy efficiency of current battery-electric cars? > John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote in > news:6cog5hF3dm2fpU1 @mid.individual.net: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Seriously, does anybody have any figures for the overall > energy efficiency of current battery-electric cars? Yes, your thread has got seriously sidetracked. Have you seen this Wikipedia article? It looks like a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle I think your figures look reasonable. John >> With gasoline at $4/gal. and electricity at $0.10/kW-hr (residential >> rate), even a perfect IC engine would have higher fuel costs. $4 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >oxygen. Which is highly flammable. Far cheaper than fuel cells and about >as dangerous as gasoline. Brown's Gas does no such thing. Brown's Gas is a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen usually obtained by electrolysis. It takes more energy to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get back by burning the hydrogen and oxygen. Going the Brown's Gas route is a net loss. >>> With gasoline at $4/gal. and electricity at $0.10/kW-hr (residential >>> rate), even a perfect IC engine would have higher fuel costs. $4 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you get back by burning the hydrogen and oxygen. Going the Brown's > Gas route is a net loss. It can be done with 36 watts or less. SignatureBill > > Brown's Gas does no such thing. Brown's Gas is a stoichiometric > > mixture of hydrogen and oxygen usually obtained by electrolysis. It [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It can be done with 36 watts or less. And the useful energy produced burning that in an engine will be less still. Robert ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>> Brown's Gas does no such thing. Brown's Gas is a stoichiometric >>> mixture of hydrogen and oxygen usually obtained by electrolysis. It [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And the useful energy produced burning that in an engine will be less > still. "Genepax unveiled the car in the western city of Osaka on Thursday, saying that a liter (2.1 pints) of any kind of water -- rain, river or sea -- was all you needed to get the engine going for about an hour at a speed of 80 km (50 miles)." That is 200MPG from water. Sounds like they are getting more out than they put into it. http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINSP7366720080613 Think of it this way. I have 25 acres of forest here and I can burn wood until I am blue in the face and I'll never run out of wood here. And my heating bill it like $2000 a year. Although it would only take less than $25 worth of gasoline to cut all of the wood I need per year. Interesting, eh? ;-) SignatureBill > "Genepax unveiled the car in the western city of Osaka on > Thursday, saying that a liter (2.1 pints) of any kind of water [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That is 200MPG from water. Sounds like they are getting more > out than they put into it. http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINSP7366720080613 Their fraud, mistake, or scientific sleight-of-hand will soon be fully evident. You can safely put your life savings into backing that. > Think of it this way. I have 25 acres of forest here and I can > burn wood until I am blue in the face and I'll never run out > of wood here. And my heating bill it like $2000 a year. > Although it would only take less than $25 worth of gasoline to > cut all of the wood I need per year. Interesting, eh? ;-) Those trees are storing solar energy. They did not conjure it from nowhere. They're using solar energy to sink atmospheric carbon dioxide into potential fuel. John >> "Genepax unveiled the car in the western city of Osaka on >> Thursday, saying that a liter (2.1 pints) of any kind of water [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fully evident. You can safely put your life savings into > backing that. Well maybe. This technology looks a lot better than fuel cells which lots of people are spending money on. >> Think of it this way. I have 25 acres of forest here and I can >> burn wood until I am blue in the face and I'll never run out [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > from nowhere. They're using solar energy to sink atmospheric > carbon dioxide into potential fuel. Yes and what is wrong with that? With gasoline prices going up and my wood is basically free, I thought about building a stream engine automobile. I'm sure somebody is already driving one somewhere. ;-) SignatureBill > Well maybe. This technology looks a lot better than fuel cells > which lots of people are spending money on. Appearances can be deceiving. Fuel cells are based on sound, verified scientific principles. Research is continuing into overcoming technological obstacles. It's unlikely, but that research might lead nowhere and have no useful spin-offs. By all means, continue research into perpetual motion machines too. But treat seemingly positive breakthroughs with due scepticism, because a working model would falsify the very foundations of classical and quantum physics. It would lead straight to a Nobel Prize. We're talking about a discovery of that magnitude if Genepax is right in some of the claims attributed to them. >>> Think of it this way. I have 25 acres of forest here and I >>> can burn wood until I am blue in the face and I'll never run [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > stream engine automobile. I'm sure somebody is already driving > one somewhere. ;-) There's nothing intrinsically wrong with using renewable energy in my view, as long as the renewal phase is included. I wasn't questioning your getting something for nothing money-wise, just energy-wise. John >> Well maybe. This technology looks a lot better than fuel cells >> which lots of people are spending money on. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > overcoming technological obstacles. It's unlikely, but that > research might lead nowhere and have no useful spin-offs. Fuel cells require more energy than you get back. I don't see any hope getting around that problem. And I think all of the money spent in that direction is a total waste and time and money. > By all means, continue research into perpetual motion machines > too. But treat seemingly positive breakthroughs with due [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that magnitude if Genepax is right in some of the claims > attributed to them. Well perpetual motion machines whether possible or not doesn't matter much to me. Although a machine tapping off of inexpensive energy is really attractive to me. Like $25 worth of gasoline to cut wood equals to $2000 of propane sounds really attractive to me. :-) >>>> Think of it this way. I have 25 acres of forest here and I >>>> can burn wood until I am blue in the face and I'll never run [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I wasn't questioning your getting something for nothing > money-wise, just energy-wise. As far as I am concern, we live in about room temperature because of our sun. Without it, nothing we are doing now would be possible. So in one way or another, we are doing what we are doing because of the heat generated. And because to us this heat is basically free for billions of years, we should be able to use it cheaper than fossil fuels, don't you think? SignatureBill > > "Genepax unveiled the car in the western city of Osaka on > > Thursday, saying that a liter (2.1 pints) of any kind of water [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fully evident. You can safely put your life savings into > backing that. In fact, it is just bad public relations, and bad reporting. Of cause the source of energy is a metal (or a metal-hydride), which is the fuel, that reacts with water to release hydrogen. Here are some more explanations coming from Japanese being pressed by a more competent correspondent: http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=48607432f7498196&ei... I am amazed by the proliferation of the original story through mass media, without any mention of actual fuel (e.g metal, sodium borohidride etc). Also no mention of how long can the car go on one load of that fuel, where to get the fuel and what is its price. I mean, come on, they should institute a physics test for these who want to report stories about energy... Or to report stories, period. Regards, Yevgen >>>> Brown's Gas does no such thing. Brown's Gas is a stoichiometric >>>> mixture of hydrogen and oxygen usually obtained by electrolysis. It [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >$25 worth of gasoline to cut all of the wood I need per year. >Interesting, eh? ;-) And in another article they describe the power plant as producing 300 watts, which is equivalent to 0.40 horsepower. In what universe will a 0.40 hp power plant move a car of the type depicted at 50 mph? >>>>> Brown's Gas does no such thing. Brown's Gas is a stoichiometric >>>>> mixture of hydrogen and oxygen usually obtained by electrolysis. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > watts, which is equivalent to 0.40 horsepower. In what universe will > a 0.40 hp power plant move a car of the type depicted at 50 mph? I dunno Jim? I know I don't have a problem with 1HP traveling at 50MPH (a bike). Faster than 50MPH the wind usually kills ya. A man in good shape can pedal a bike up to 50MPH and a man is less than 1HP. So I wouldn't discount it. SignatureBill > >>>>> Brown's Gas does no such thing. Brown's Gas is a stoichiometric > >>>>> mixture of hydrogen and oxygen usually obtained by electrolysis. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > shape can pedal a bike up to 50MPH and a man is less than 1HP. So I > wouldn't discount it. Not at 50mph, he's not, unless it's a highly streamlined specialized bicycle. The finishing sprint in a Tour de France level race sometimes runs up over 50 mph, but those guys are putting out 1500 - 1600 watts for a few seconds to do it. A top track racer in a 200m match sprint can put out over 2000 watts for 10 seconds or so. SignatureRemove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible). >>> http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINSP7366720080613 >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >shape can pedal a bike up to 50MPH and a man is less than 1HP. So I >wouldn't discount it. Don't you even begin to see the difference in wind resistance and rolling friction represented by a bike vs a car? > I dunno Jim? I know I don't have a problem with 1HP traveling at 50MPH > (a bike). Do you have a picture of this horse on a bicycle? Or has HP been redefined? >>>> With gasoline at $4/gal. and electricity at $0.10/kW-hr (residential >>>> rate), even a perfect IC engine would have higher fuel costs. $4 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >It can be done with 36 watts or less. *WHAT* can be done with 36 watts or less? > *WHAT* can be done with 36 watts or less? Electrolysis Jim, apparently. And it seems that's a breakthrough, even though I seem to remember doing it as a kid about 50 years ago. John >> *WHAT* can be done with 36 watts or less? > > Electrolysis Jim, apparently. And it seems that's a > breakthrough, even though I seem to remember doing it as a kid > about 50 years ago. My understanding is two things has advanced since then that has increased efficiency tremendous. One is using a flat wire vs. a round wire (more surface area). Second is using pulses vs. constant current. The 36 watts is coming from the claim of adding Brown's gas to gasoline (through the air intake) can increase gasoline mileage by to 2 to 3 times better. Bold claim! Worst case I have heard of is as little as only an 15% increase. Even at 15% increase as the worst example sounds worth investigating to me. SignatureBill > My understanding is two things has advanced since then that > has increased efficiency tremendous. One is using a flat wire [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 15% increase as the worst example sounds worth investigating > to me. It is possible that the addition of Brown's gas could slightly improve the thermodynamic efficiency of fossil fuel combustion, just as the addition of water vapour or mist can (other things being equal). That's a far cry from running a car on water, and I'd like to see the unbiased evidence. I am very sceptical of claims from the trials by people fitting systems to their own cars and "going for a drive". Once your mind is aware of the possibility of fuel savings, it's actually very difficult for your driving style to be unaffected in favour of fuel-saving behaviour such as more smoothness of acceleration. Lots of snake oil salesmen earn a living from the results of this psychological anomaly. John >> *WHAT* can be done with 36 watts or less? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >John I guess that's the answer, but then my next question would be, "How *MUCH* electrolysis? The answer being 36 watts worth, I suppose. ;-) This is all too reminiscent of the Uncle Remus story about the Tar Baby. I'm leaving it in your capable hands. > With gasoline at $4/gal. and electricity at $0.10/kW-hr (residential rate), > even a perfect IC engine would have higher fuel costs. $4 buys 40 kW-hr, > which is 40 X 3600 BTU = 144,000 BTU. One gallon of gas contains 120,000 > BTU. So at 100% efficiency for both, the battery-electric has 6/7th the > energy cost (approximately). Actual IC cars get 20% or less and battery- > electrics 80% -- or do they? I believe IC cars get closer to 40% efficiency [excluding air and road resistance]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.