Stupid World

[mashman]

Its extraction vs creation. Hydrogen is essentially a chem neutral reaction, you finish off with the same compound you have at the start. Which is the same as a battery, in that the maximum energy you can get out of it, is what you put into it. But in practice putting energy into it is inefficient (50%), and using it in an engine to get the work out of it is less efficient (30-40%), resulting a net loss across the process. Not only is it not a viable fuel source, it is not a viable energy storage or transportation system either. It's like charging a battery in line with a lightbulb, no matter how much energy you put throw at it, you can never put all of it into the battery as the light glows and wastes it whenever you try.

Extracting and burning petrol is not chem neutral, you end up with compounds different from what you started. This reaction is exothermic, so energy is released during the transformation. This is a fuel, there's no way to reuse the final products like with hydrogen. The energy involved in getting the petrol out is not tied to how much energy the petrol has in it, which is far greater than that required to get it, making it a viable energy source.

Fair enough... I'm looking at it from the point of view of, how much energy does the drill and donkey use to suck the oil out of the ground? How much fuel does it take to transport the oil? i.e. the total power requirement (including building "rigs", man power etc...) that goes into producing the petrol.

[mashman]

And look where that has got us...lightbulbs, TV, faxes, computers, space travel etc

All of which would have happened without a financial system

[mashman]

No, I'm too lazy for that sorta carry-on

heh, furry muff. Looks like the Republicans want him back... so many secrets and as a one guy put it "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide. OK, declassify everything."

[Fergus]

Where does the energy required to produce the H2 will come from? (I'd assume energy is in short supply in disaster areas...)

what use does a disaster zone have for H2?

What advantage does this have over traditional water purification methods that require far less energy like boiling, distillation etc?

Why do you want to create an explosive gas when the goal is to purify water?

1)Dynamo, battery, solar cell, home made wind turbine, combination of all of those and anything else people decide to use. I remember hearing somewhere that they generated power using washing machines in rivers in Sarajevo?

2)To clean the water. It's already in the water and it should be nice and clean coming out of the other side.

3)When you run out of things to burn, you run out. Maybe the dynamo, battery cell etc... would be able to boil the water for long enough to produce the water required, would love to do the experiment.

4)To run a wee mower engine or similar to purify the water.

1) You don't think people aren't using that energy already? for lighting? refrigeration? cooking? Hospitals? In any disaster, I think it's safe to assume energy will be in short supply..

2)Hydrogen doesn't 'clean water', It's an explosive gas FFS . Maybe you're getting at is this: Creating h2 from dirty water then burning the h2 and condensing the water vapour from the combustion products? Which would effectively be distillation and result in pure, clean water..... The most complicated, dangerous, energy intensive distillation process ever. This would literately be making rocket fuel in a disaster area.

3) Who mentioned burning anything? If the electrical energy sources are capable of producing a useful amount of hydrogen they would obviously be capable of heating water..

4) wait.. so now a hydrogen powered mower is what will purify the water? how does one purify via mechanical means?

So this is the energy flow:
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen) -> heat nrg (combustion) -> mechanical nrg (mower shaft) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

Why so many redundant steps? Why not simply?
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> mechanical nrg (electric motor) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

[Fergus]

Fair enough... I'm looking at it from the point of view of, how much energy does the drill and donkey use to suck the oil out of the ground? How much fuel does it take to transport the oil? i.e. the total power requirement (including building "rigs", man power etc...) that goes into producing the petrol.

Does it not seems like common sense to assume it would only be done if there was an overall net gain?

unless of course it's all for a bit of a laugh? Maybe they were all bored that day?

Aye, that fulla. As bats as he was he was pretty good when it came to ze spliting of his elements from what I've seen.

What Have you seen? Does the following tend to paint him in a bad light?

"Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996"

"If the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1][2] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine"

"To date, no peer review studies of Meyer's devices have been published in the scientific literature. An article in journal Nature described Meyer's claims as one more "water as fuel" myth"

"His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed"


Do you believe all those quotes are fabrications and he actually created a perpetual motion machine that mankind has lost forever?
Does it not strike you as odd that the single observed instance in history that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo were violated was by a man who was convicted of "gross and egregious fraud" and made to refund the investors of the project?
If the fundamental laws of science have been violated doesn't that cast doubt on the entire body of scientific knowledge? How can you sleep at night knowing that everyone on earth is living a lie?

[Oscar]

All of which would have happened without a financial system

You can't know that.
You certainly can't prove it.

[mashman]

Does it not seems like common sense to assume it would only be done if there was an overall net gain?

unless of course it's all for a bit of a laugh? Maybe they were all bored that day?

And how would sir be measuring that today? Financially: Is it really much more expensive to split hydrogen that it is to drag barrels of black shit out of the ground? Historically: It was the first stuff we used, so why not continue using it? Logistically: If we start shifting to a fuel where any tom, dick and harry can produce themselves, what about all of the jobs in the "industry" that will be lost? Likely more ways of measuring it, but it's an old fuel and I realise that there's more to replacing a fuel than just saying, "hey, that will work".

What Have you seen? Does the following tend to paint him in a bad light?

"Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996"

"If the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1][2] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine"

"To date, no peer review studies of Meyer's devices have been published in the scientific literature. An article in journal Nature described Meyer's claims as one more "water as fuel" myth"

"His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed"


Do you believe all those quotes are fabrications and he actually created a perpetual motion machine that mankind has lost forever?
Does it not strike you as odd that the single observed instance in history that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo were violated was by a man who was convicted of "gross and egregious fraud" and made to refund the investors of the project?
If the fundamental laws of science have been violated doesn't that cast doubt on the entire body of scientific knowledge? How can you sleep at night knowing that everyone on earth is living a lie?

... I reckon he was able to make Hydrogen on demand to run his vehicle. Everything else is theater and window dressing to appease the great gods of finance, I mean law, I mean Science.

ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... you're already living the biggest lie there is, one more isn't going to make my sleepless nights any more sleepless

You can't know that.
You certainly can't prove it.

Why can't I? If man had not have decided to go to the moon, they wouldn't have gone. If man had not have conceived the idea of light/electricity etc... there wouldn't have been thousands of attempts to make a lightbulb. If man had not have conceived of the TV, it may never have been built. But they all happened (apart from the moon landings ). The reason being, because they were curious to see if it could be done. So that's how I can say that they would have happened.

I highly doubt it was a case of, hmmmmm, I've got some money, let me see if I can make some more by inventing something that noone has ever invented before. Tis the same reason we made spears, built traps, run cars on an element of water etc... it ain't all for the love of money.

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=mashman;1130561305 How much fuel does it take to transport the oil? i.e. the total power requirement (including building "rigs", man power etc...) that goes into producing the petrol.[/QUOTE]

Who cares, when it runs out - it runs out....

[Scuba_Steve]

Yep, systematically ignoring unempirical, unfalsifiable, unrepeatable rubbish since way back..

And look where that has got us...lightbulbs, TV, faxes, computers, space travel etc


Dead right

(BTW most of your examples are engineering problems, not science..)

Yet it was the "science" saying some of these could never exist. Science is assumption, guestimation, estimation, & all round guess work. Alot of discoveries have been through fuckups & random events.

Science is NOT an absolute, so saying stuff like cars cannot run on water is closed minded, while I have seen no proof of the ability yet, I'm not willing to rule out the possibility in the future; thinking like that would have never seen the lightbulb or AC power

[Oscar]

Why can't I? If man had not have decided to go to the moon, they wouldn't have gone. If man had not have conceived the idea of light/electricity etc... there wouldn't have been thousands of attempts to make a lightbulb. If man had not have conceived of the TV, it may never have been built. But they all happened (apart from the moon landings ). The reason being, because they were curious to see if it could be done. So that's how I can say that they would have happened.

I highly doubt it was a case of, hmmmmm, I've got some money, let me see if I can make some more by inventing something that noone has ever invented before. Tis the same reason we made spears, built traps, run cars on an element of water etc... it ain't all for the love of money.

Who said man went to the moon for the love of money?
I certainly never said that.

However, it would be difficult to envisage it happening without the financial might and resources of the USA (or the USSR for that matter).

You said it would have happened anyway without a financial system.
It is a stupid thing to say, as you simply can't prove that.

[Fergus]

Yet it was the "science" saying some of these could never exist.

Wnere does science ever say lightbulbs etc could never exist? can you provide any links?

You really have no idea what science is or does

[oneofsix]

Wnere does science ever say lightbulbs etc could never exist? can you provide any links?

You really have no idea what science is or does

Fuck you are dumb or can't read. He didn't say science currently says they couldn't exist but that it did. Just like it said there couldn't be snow on Kilimanjaro and laughed the explorer that originally presented the fact out of the room. Science by its nature is a system of cock-ups however honoured men don't like admitting being wrong.

[mashman]

Who said man went to the moon for the love of money?
I certainly never said that.

However, it would be difficult to envisage it happening without the financial might and resources of the USA (or the USSR for that matter).

You said it would have happened anyway without a financial system.
It is a stupid thing to say, as you simply can't prove that.

Sorry, did I put words into your mouth. There's a switch.

I don't find it difficult to envisage at all. Oooo, look, Moon, I reckon we can get there, now what do I need... make shopping list of people and components, see if they fancy joining the project, et la.

I can prove it, in fact I just did above... however you're denying me the ability to prove it through your fear that someone as stupid as me can prove you wrong. It's in every single one of your posts and it tickles me so.

[Scuba_Steve]

Wnere does science ever say lightbulbs etc could never exist? can you provide any links?

You really have no idea what science is or does

The lightbulb was called by "scientists" at the time "an impossible fantasy"... I know exactly what science is do you??? (hint my sig says it perfectly)

[MisterD]

Any way I still think we will be able to use water to propel vehicles one day.

Yeah maybe one day