Stupid World

[oneofsix]

Yeah maybe one day

Then again, just maybe



With a bit of modernisation....

[mashman]

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.

Sorry, missed this post.

1) Kind of my point for looking at alternatives to power generation. Go and have a look at the state of Haiti after their earthquake 3 years ago and see all of the standing water. Why isn't it being used? Why was a distillation plant not erected slap bang in the middle of the camp? Wonder what happened to all of those vehicles that were fucked? Dumped on a pile somewhere most likely when they quite possibly could have been converted. Granted not efficiently, but given that you're using something that "can't" be used, then why not use it?

2) Aye, there is a potential for a big bang, although I'd take the chance if I needed water. That and you can mitigate that with safety measures surely?

3) They would, I agree. Does it take less power to generate a spark to explodify gas than it does to create a persistent enough supply to power something to boil water?

4) Via the exchange you outlined in point 2.

Fair points on the conversion steps, but how many electrical motors do you see just lying around in a disaster zone?

[Fergus]

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?

Energy has inherent value, it can provide heat and work etc, when no money exists it would still have value. There is no need to measure energy with money.
When the energy required to extract and refine oil exceeds the energy gained (ie a net loss) it becomes a waste of energy (or money, or time or resources or any measure of value) and it will stop happening. Common sense is it not?

I know this has been said many times in different way already but 5th times a charm...

"Free hydrogen does not occur naturally in quantity, but can be generated by steam reformation of hydrocarbons, water electrolysis or by other methods.[3] Hydrogen is thus an energy carrier (like a battery), not a primary energy source (like coal)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

... 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.

Many people make hydrogen and run cars on it, the first one was in 1807..... No one has created a free energy/perpetual motion machine...Oh, except for Meyer, a convicted fraudster.

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

What is the biggest 'lie' there is?
That I need proof before I believe a claim? As opposed to your 'faith' in free energy? Your 'faith' that Science is 'wrong'?

http://rohitbandaru.files.wordpress....1069478803.png

[bogan]

Sorry, missed this post.

1) Kind of my point for looking at alternatives to power generation. Go and have a look at the state of Haiti after their earthquake 3 years ago and see all of the standing water. Why isn't it being used? Why was a distillation plant not erected slap bang in the middle of the camp? Wonder what happened to all of those vehicles that were fucked? Dumped on a pile somewhere most likely when they quite possibly could have been converted. Granted not efficiently, but given that you're using something that "can't" be used, then why not use it?

2) Aye, there is a potential for a big bang, although I'd take the chance if I needed water. That and you can mitigate that with safety measures surely?

3) They would, I agree. Does it take less power to generate a spark to explodify gas than it does to create a persistent enough supply to power something to boil water?

4) Via the exchange you outlined in point 2.

Fair points on the conversion steps, but how many electrical motors do you see just lying around in a disaster zone?

You're still not getting it. Hydrogen is a horrendously inefficient fuel to make, and use in combustion engines. You think what meager power supplies they have left in a disaster area should be squandered to make one of the most inefficient water distillation plants around?

[Fergus]

Sorry, missed this post.

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.

1) Kind of my point for looking at alternatives to power generation. Go and have a look at the state of Haiti after their earthquake 3 years ago and see all of the standing water. Why isn't it being used? Why was a distillation plant not erected slap bang in the middle of the camp? Wonder what happened to all of those vehicles that were fucked? Dumped on a pile somewhere most likely when they quite possibly could have been converted. Granted not efficiently, but given that you're using something that "can't" be used, then why not use it?

2) Aye, there is a potential for a big bang, although I'd take the chance if I needed water. That and you can mitigate that with safety measures surely?

3) They would, I agree. Does it take less power to generate a spark to explodify gas than it does to create a persistent enough supply to power something to boil water?

4) Via the exchange you outlined in point 2.

5)but how many electrical motors do you see just lying around in a disaster zone?

2) Why take the chance? Why not use traditional water purification? what advantage does your method have?

3) You don't just need a spark, you also need the energy required to convert water to hydrogen in the first place...

4) the process in 2 is:
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen from dirty water) -> heat nrg (combustion).
Then the pure water in the combustion gases is condensed

compare with 4)
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen) -> heat nrg (combustion) -> mechanical nrg (mower shaft) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

The only thing they have in common is that they are both monumentally wasteful way of distilling water...


5)I have no idea, but I predict it'll be about a billion times more than there are hydrogen generation plants lying around in that disaster zone?
I know nothing about disaster relief but I'd guess water purification systems are brought into the area after the fact, rather than being found 'lying around' the disaster zone.

It takes over eleven times the energy to distill water via your 'turn it into rocket fuel then burn it and catch the water out of the exhaust gas' rather than the usual 'boil water and condense the steam' method.

From what I can tell they don't even use distillation (probably because of the high energy/litre cost). They use cool things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeStraw

[mashman]

Energy has inherent value, it can provide heat and work etc, when no money exists it would still have value. There is no need to measure energy with money.
When the energy required to extract and refine oil exceeds the energy gained (ie a net loss) it becomes a waste of energy (or money, or time or resources or any measure of value) and it will stop happening. Common sense is it not?

I know this has been said many times in different way already but 5th times a charm...

"Free hydrogen does not occur naturally in quantity, but can be generated by steam reformation of hydrocarbons, water electrolysis or by other methods.[3] Hydrogen is thus an energy carrier (like a battery), not a primary energy source (like coal)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy


Many people make hydrogen and run cars on it, the first one was in 1807..... No one has created a free energy/perpetual motion machine...Oh, except for Meyer, a convicted fraudster.


What is the biggest 'lie' there is?
That I need proof before I believe a claim? As opposed to your 'faith' in free energy? Your 'faith' that Science is 'wrong'?

http://rohitbandaru.files.wordpress....1069478803.png

There may well be no need to measure the value of money, but that doesn't stop "us" from doing it and charging for it, and for the tin foil hatted amongst us, repressing technology's that can use it more efficiently... and if/when oil does become to expensive to get it out of the ground etc... they can fuck around with the costings from groundfloor to the pump to make it still just about the most profitable enterprise in the world. So common sense has fuck all to do with it where you can just revalue energy in financial terms.

I UNDERSTAND THAT HYDROGEN HAS TO BE GENERATED. Perhaps that'll make things clear, although I doubt it coz you guys seem very hung up on it.

Now perpetual motion

I'm still waiting for the answer in regards to which uses more energy, the getting the oil (including every single component required for the operation, donkey's, rigs, drills, transporation etc...) out of the ground v's splitting hydrogen from water.

Did I mention free energy somewhere? coz I don't remember having said that. ... unless we're talking financially that is

[mashman]

You're still not getting it. Hydrogen is a horrendously inefficient fuel to make, and use in combustion engines. You think what meager power supplies they have left in a disaster area should be squandered to make one of the most inefficient water distillation plants around?

I got it. Chill man.

[unstuck]

Yeah maybe one day

Yep I hear what you are saying, I was not thinking of steam, because of the need to have a boiler or some other heating. Without wood or coal to heat your boiler basically you are fucked. I was meaning water on its own, without having to turn it into something else first. I know what I mean anyway, Iam not crazy, I am not crazy.......... Just a little special.

[avgas]

Yeah .. but that is not the same as splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen .. and then burning the hydrogen

It takes a lot of energy to split water .... so much that it doesn't actually produce any extra energy -as Mashie points out above ... so the energy you use to split the water might as well be used as it comes (as it were) instead of wasting it to split water

Burning pre-existing monatomic is different ( or is it not monatomic hydrogen it burns?)

No doubt. But how does this toy work?

W can and do make bigger versions of that toy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

The second paragraph answers restates what I was said and, I think, answers your question:

Not the same - kids can't play with flammable objects. As far as I know this takes water.

So how does the kids toy work?
(key point here is electrical charge not explosive one - which both of you seem to have missed........but would you give kids explosive toys????)

[Ocean1]

I'm still waiting for the answer in regards to which uses more energy, the getting the oil (including every single component required for the operation, donkey's, rigs, drills, transporation etc...) out of the ground v's splitting hydrogen from water. :

You've had it, several times. As of a few years ago the energy budget for extracting and refining petroleum based fuels was under 5% of the total energy produced. The cost of splitting hydrogen from water depends on the method but it's likely to take 10 to 40 times as much energy to produce.

Happy?

[mashman]

2) Why take the chance? Why not use traditional water purification? what advantage does your method have?

3) You don't just need a spark, you also need the energy required to convert water to hydrogen in the first place...

4) the process in 2 is:
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen from dirty water) -> heat nrg (combustion).
Then the pure water in the combustion gases is condensed

compare with 4)
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen) -> heat nrg (combustion) -> mechanical nrg (mower shaft) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

The only thing they have in common is that they are both monumentally wasteful way of distilling water...


5)I have no idea, but I predict it'll be about a billion times more than there are hydrogen generation plants lying around in that disaster zone?
I know nothing about disaster relief but I'd guess water purification systems are brought into the area after the fact, rather than being found 'lying around' the disaster zone.

It takes over eleven times the energy to distill water via your 'turn it into rocket fuel then burn it and catch the water out of the exhaust gas' rather than the usual 'boil water and condense the steam' method.

From what I can tell they don't even use distillation (probably because of the high energy/litre cost). They use cool things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeStraw

2) It's just a method that a guy floated a few years ago online. He was demonstrating it with a lawnmower engine, although he was using pre-prepared hydrogen. I was trying to find his vid series (10 parts, he also ran his car on citrus) but can't find it. He must be another spammer . I'm looking at it from the point of view where you can walk into a camp carrying what you need and setting the thing up without the need of electricity (from a grid/generator), or something to burn, or access to heating elements etc... a start until bigger and better things can be built, well, as long as the country can pay for bigger and beter things to be built.

3) True. Hence the dynamo, solar cell etc...

4) Fair enough, but if they do provide water and cost less to nothing to implement and people need water, then wasteful, from an energy perspective, isn't really a consideraiton as long as the resources required to fo the job are there and relatively sustainable.

5) As I said above, efficiency was never my question, other than the question I keep posing and not getting an answer to, ya know, the one that asks how efficient it is to get the black stuff out of the ground and turn it into fuel (in an engine that doesn't use most of the energy) v's splitting hydrogen from water.

Cool filtration system

[MisterD]

the question I keep posing and not getting an answer to, ya know, the one that asks how efficient it is to get the black stuff out of the ground and turn it into fuel

The thing you're not factoring in, is that the "black stuff" we pull out of the ground doesn't just make petrol and diesel. There's heating oil, propane and butane, a bunch of different solvents, all the lubricants in your bike, the tyres on it, anything plastic...

[bogan]

Did I mention free energy somewhere? coz I don't remember having said that. ... unless we're talking financially that is

Not directly, but that is what you were talking about, even if your scientific illiteracy prevented you from seeing that.

2) It's just a method that a guy floated a few years ago online. He was demonstrating it with a lawnmower engine, although he was using pre-prepared hydrogen. I was trying to find his vid series (10 parts, he also ran his car on citrus) but can't find it. He must be another spammer . I'm looking at it from the point of view where you can walk into a camp carrying what you need and setting the thing up without the need of electricity (from a grid/generator), or something to burn, or access to heating elements etc... a start until bigger and better things can be built, well, as long as the country can pay for bigger and beter things to be built.

3) True. Hence the dynamo, solar cell etc...

4) Fair enough, but if they do provide water and cost less to nothing to implement and people need water, then wasteful, from an energy perspective, isn't really a consideraiton as long as the resources required to fo the job are there and relatively sustainable.

5) As I said above, efficiency was never my question, other than the question I keep posing and not getting an answer to, ya know, the one that asks how efficient it is to get the black stuff out of the ground and turn it into fuel (in an engine that doesn't use most of the energy) v's splitting hydrogen from water.

Cool filtration system

2) How is bringing in pre-prepared hydrogen different to bringing in petrol?

3) Yes, but at about a quarter of other energy transfer mediums

4) We don't have a plentiful energy supply, therefor efficiency is of great importance

5) I has been answered numerous times, its vastly more efficient to bring out petrol, as it results in a net gain instead of a net loss.

[MisterD]

I was meaning water on its own, without having to turn it into something else first.

The point being that water has some very useful properties, it's an excellent solvent, has a high heat capacity, you can't compress it, it's liquid at sensible temperatures etc etc. It doesn't, however, have a store of chemical energy, which given that we're whatever% composed of the stuff, is probably a Good Thing.

Water, as you may have noticed, is generally one of the products of hydrocarbon combustion...

[Fergus]

No doubt. But how does this toy work?


Not the same - kids can't play with flammable objects. As far as I know this takes water.

So how does the kids toy work?
(key point here is electrical charge not explosive one - which both of you seem to have missed........but would you give kids explosive toys????)

If you bothered to read the link you would see in the first paragraph that hydrogen is often used to create electricity rather than heat in something called a 'fuel cell'.
Here is an article explaining how the toy works.
The energy stored, enough to move a small plastic car just 100m, so not much hydrogen involved...probably not much risk of spontaneous explosion
Much less energy than say, a cap gun or a couple of aa batteries..