Gravity fed electrical generation system

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: It's the impurities in water that conducts electricity.

Absolutely correct. This is the origin of the word "electrolytes." (notice that I didn't write "what it has evolved to mean.")

James___ wrote: If water is purified using reverse osmosis, you can stand in it and someone could drop a live electrical wire into it and nothing would happen.

... except that by standing in the water one would be introducing large amounts of impurities.

Wouldn't that be the way to ruin a practical joke on someone, i.e. think nothing is going to happen because the water has been purified prior to dropping in the electrical wire? I bet they'd crap their pants over that one!

HarveyH55 wrote:
Pure water is a poor conductor, but you can pass current through it. It's not the voltage that causes the shock, it's how much current that flows through the skin.

Copper isn't the best conductor either, it's just cheap, plentiful, and easy to form into wire.

Not sure what gypsy music has to do with all this, except maybe the folk that listen to it, tend to play it obnoxiously loud, so everybody can enjoy it in the neighborhood.

Electrolysis is used for several other things, besides just splitting water. You can deposit a thin layer of one metal over another (plating). You can use it to remove layers of oxidation and corrosion from metals as well, few chemical reactions can be started/controlled with it as also. Same basic process, just depends on the voltage, current, and materials used. You can throw pretty much anything together, and achieve some results, as a demonstration, short term solution. If you want keep using the setup for a while, you need to chose your materials, voltage, and current carefully. The electrolyte and concentration also has a lot to do with how long your electrodes will last.

Might consider looking up the Stanley Meyers fuel cell. He was a scamster, but he got a lot of people believing, that just couldn't let go. Been a lot of work, trying to produce fuel from water, using electricity. The basic belief, is that if they can improve the fuel cell, they could run their car entirely with water.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I've done electrolysis many times, a little copper plating, a little rust removal. The copper plating didn't work out as well as I had hoped, base metal was lead/tin I had cast. Likely not as clean as needed. The rust removal was from my metal detecting days, works pretty good, but takes a long time. Found that it can take off too much, and you can lose detail (part number) that you were hoping to improve. Never achieved completely rust-free either. I'm no expert, and generally use things I have on hand, so don't really expect perfect results, nor do I generally need it to be perfect either, just need it to work, mostly. I don't seek perfection, not that important to me, nor am I obsessed with fine details of everything, as some people.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Pure water is a poor conductor, but you can pass current through it. It's not the voltage that causes the shock, it's how much current that flows through the skin.

Copper isn't the best conductor either, it's just cheap, plentiful, and easy to form into wire.

Not sure what gypsy music has to do with all this, except maybe the folk that listen to it, tend to play it obnoxiously loud, so everybody can enjoy it in the neighborhood.

Electrolysis is used for several other things, besides just splitting water. You can deposit a thin layer of one metal over another (plating). You can use it to remove layers of oxidation and corrosion from metals as well, few chemical reactions can be started/controlled with it as also. Same basic process, just depends on the voltage, current, and materials used. You can throw pretty much anything together, and achieve some results, as a demonstration, short term solution. If you want keep using the setup for a while, you need to chose your materials, voltage, and current carefully. The electrolyte and concentration also has a lot to do with how long your electrodes will last.

Might consider looking up the Stanley Meyers fuel cell. He was a scamster, but he got a lot of people believing, that just couldn't let go. Been a lot of work, trying to produce fuel from water, using electricity. The basic belief, is that if they can improve the fuel cell, they could run their car entirely with water.

How do you think they get platinum-alumnide onto rotor parts, babbitt onto bearings, etc? You've never worked with the process, have you?

This is for you Harvey, bet you'd really like to be "cutting the rug" with them;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fcjc9TCEjw

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I've done electrolysis many times, a little copper plating, a little rust removal. The copper plating didn't work out as well as I had hoped, base metal was lead/tin I had cast. Likely not as clean as needed. The rust removal was from my metal detecting days, works pretty good, but takes a long time. Found that it can take off too much, and you can lose detail (part number) that you were hoping to improve. Never achieved completely rust-free either. I'm no expert, and generally use things I have on hand, so don't really expect perfect results, nor do I generally need it to be perfect either, just need it to work, mostly. I don't seek perfection, not that important to me, nor am I obsessed with fine details of everything, as some people.

I like the details myself. Do you know how many people think that a greenhouse is warm because those gases trap heat and not the barrier?
And yet scientists say that the stratospheric cooling is to be expected with how much the troposphere has warmed. And at the same time the stratospheric ozone-layer is depleted. The stratospheric ozone-layer is a part of the barrier that limits how much heat enters the troposphere.
People just don't find that interesting. I mean what if there was something to it? Yet people debate CO2 because it's handy.

Electrolysis is not electroplating. Redefinition fallacy.

The Parrot Killer

HarveyH55 wrote: Not going to split hair on terminology,

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I've done electrolysis many times, a little copper plating, a little rust removal. The copper plating didn't work out as well as I had hoped, base metal was lead/tin I had cast. Likely not as clean as needed. The rust removal was from my metal detecting days, works pretty good, but takes a long time. Found that it can take off too much, and you can lose detail (part number) that you were hoping to improve. Never achieved completely rust-free either. I'm no expert, and generally use things I have on hand, so don't really expect perfect results, nor do I generally need it to be perfect either, just need it to work, mostly. I don't seek perfection, not that important to me, nor am I obsessed with fine details of everything, as some people.

I like the details myself. Do you know how many people think that a greenhouse is warm because those gases trap heat and not the barrier?
And yet scientists say that the stratospheric cooling is to be expected with how much the troposphere has warmed. And at the same time the stratospheric ozone-layer is depleted. The stratospheric ozone-layer is a part of the barrier that limits how much heat enters the troposphere.
People just don't find that interesting. I mean what if there was something to it? Yet people debate CO2 because it's handy.

Ozone is not a thermal barrier.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Electrolysis is not electroplating. Redefinition fallacy.

The Parrot Killer

Not going to split hair on terminology, it's the same basic setup, call it what you want.

HarveyH55 wrote:
You hook the part to be plated to the cathode, use a sacrificial anode, made of the metal you wish to deposit.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The electrolyte is generally a salt of the metal your plating with.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's still passing electricity though an electrolyte, electrolysis... An accurate description,

HarveyH55 wrote:
although perhaps not as technical as some prefer, or politically correct.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
I've done electrolysis many times, a little copper plating, a little rust removal. The copper plating didn't work out as well as I had hoped, base metal was lead/tin I had cast. Likely not as clean as needed. The rust removal was from my metal detecting days, works pretty good, but takes a long time. Found that it can take off too much, and you can lose detail (part number) that you were hoping to improve. Never achieved completely rust-free either. I'm no expert, and generally use things I have on hand, so don't really expect perfect results, nor do I generally need it to be perfect either, just need it to work, mostly. I don't seek perfection, not that important to me, nor am I obsessed with fine details of everything, as some people.

I like the details myself. Do you know how many people think that a greenhouse is warm because those gases trap heat and not the barrier?
And yet scientists say that the stratospheric cooling is to be expected with how much the troposphere has warmed. And at the same time the stratospheric ozone-layer is depleted. The stratospheric ozone-layer is a part of the barrier that limits how much heat enters the troposphere.
People just don't find that interesting. I mean what if there was something to it? Yet people debate CO2 because it's handy.

Ozone is not a thermal barrier.

James___ wrote:
You might get your wish though. I just don't want you to get your hopes up because I care about you.

James___ wrote:
Since Sea levels aren't rising because glaciers aren't melting, this won't cause Seattle any problems the next time a big quake hits. They say it isn't overdue and the Pacific plate isn't rising.

James___ wrote:
But if things did happen then they say 60 or 70% of downtown Seattle could fall because it's built on bedrock while New York city is built on a liquification area of wet sand.

James___ wrote:
Besides, if Seattle fell then the evil government that you don't like would also fail

James___ wrote:
and then people would be free and not forced to live and work in a society that has rules and laws to follow.

James___ wrote:
Kind of why so many people migrated to the US, they didn't like having rules to follow so came here.

James___ wrote:
That's why you're such a REAL AMERICAN Isn't.

dehammer wrote:
Im pretty sure that as much as he rewrites science, one of them is Michael Mann. He cant understand real science so he makes up his own science. I think the other one is his lunatic lover James Hansen. He cant get any prediction close to being right.

Into the Night wrote:

dehammer wrote:
Im pretty sure that as much as he rewrites science, one of them is Michael Mann. He cant understand real science so he makes up his own science. I think the other one is his lunatic lover James Hansen. He cant get any prediction close to being right.

Inversion fallacy. The only one attempting to rewrite science is YOU.

You just can't handle the equations being put right in front of ya, can ya? Ya deny 'em just the same. THAT's a fundamentalist religion for ya.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

dehammer wrote:
Im pretty sure that as much as he rewrites science, one of them is Michael Mann. He cant understand real science so he makes up his own science. I think the other one is his lunatic lover James Hansen. He cant get any prediction close to being right.

Inversion fallacy. The only one attempting to rewrite science is YOU.

You just can't handle the equations being put right in front of ya, can ya? Ya deny 'em just the same. THAT's a fundamentalist religion for ya.

Okay Isn't. if you have a nickel bag, a dime bag and you smoke 2 jays, how much do you have left over? Just trying to stick to what you know. After all, you've already shown that https://photos.app.goo.gl/2iED9WdZ1PuY7QyHA is like the smoke that you blow.

Just having some fun. I have a math program on my computer that I wrote that with. It's the Stefan-Boltzmann formula. all it states is that something emits what it absorbs. With the Earth itself, it can only emit energy it absorbs.
If we accept current science then all energy in the atmosphere is because of either solar radiation or refracted solar radiation. Yet how does refraction change the way that solar radiation interacts with gaseous molecules in our atmosphere?
To say something changes means nothing. Neither you Isn't nor IBNotDaMann have ever said how refraction as calculated by P = eб AT^4 equal specific wavelengths of light. And do atmospheric gases have a greater influence on certain frequencies of refracted solar radiation?
With me, I'd say since the Earth's rotation is slowing just the slightest amount that it is releasing more heat content. But that's getting into astrophysics and what could be heating the oceans but we won't discuss that because ITN is busy blowing smoke.

dehammer wrote:
In april of 1979, a patent was submitted and accepted by the US patent office that described a method of making electricity from gravity. Every part of the system was proven, only the putting them together resulted in the patent.

On the bottom was an electrolysis device to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. This is a proven process.

At the top was an engine, boiler or a hydrogen fuel cell. The efficiency of these were between 35% and 40%, although improvements since then have pushed it up to 60%. This means that the power needed to electrolyze the water was only 40% (now 60%) recovered.

In between the two was a large distance, about 575 feet or greater. The reason for this was at the bottom of the column of water was a generator, which would produce electricity from the pressure. Again this was a proven fact. The math was there.

IF you had a height greater than 575, such as on a mountain or the side of a 600 foot or greater building, you could produce more electricity than the system needed to run. This electricity could be sold to eventually pay for the system.

In case you don't know, there is one flaw in this system and the way it was set up is not the greatest. The reason is that the person that patented it did not invent it. It no longer matters who invented that one since it is beyond the point that it can be protected under US law.

I doubt I will ever have the money to build this, so here is the flaw he left out. (if you build it, please allow me some gain from it

, say 10% ownership) It was never intended to be a single stage device. The reason it loses efficiency is that there is drag on the side of the pipe the greater the height. If you break up the line by having a second turbine and tank, you basically reset that part.

For instance if you built it with a turbine at 200 feet, and at the bottom, you would reduce the height needed to about 400 to 450 feet.

The uses of this would be many.

For instance if you put one in an enclosed tube in the ocean, say with 3 turbines 250 feet apart, and at the top, you had a unit to electrolysis ocean water, you could then liquify the hydrogen and transport it to places like California where there are driving hydrogen fueled cars.

If you put it near an ocean and ran the hydrogen up the side of a mountain, say near santa Barbara California or San Diego California, where the ridge is about 1300 feet above sea level, and you had 4 turbines between the mountain and the city, you could produce a lot of electricity during the day time AND the "waste" would be PURE drinking water, something those cities need. At night, they could produce hydrogen with the extra electricity, or they could fill tanks that would water farms along the way.

You could even use it to irrigate the Sahara Desert. Imagine how many people we could feed if the Sahara was farmland.

James_ quoted dehammer: In april of 1979, a patent was submitted and accepted by the US patent office that described a method of making electricity from gravity.

James_ quoted dehammer:Every part of the system was proven, only the putting them together resulted in the patent.

James_ quoted dehammer:On the bottom was an electrolysis device to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen.

James_ quoted dehammer:This means that the power needed to electrolyze the water was only 40% (now 60%) recovered.

James_ quoted dehammer:IF you had a height greater than 575, such as on a mountain or the side of a 600 foot or greater building, you could produce more electricity than the system needed to run. This electricity could be sold to eventually pay for the system.

James_ quoted dehammer:In case you don't know, there is one flaw in this system

James_ quoted dehammer:I doubt I will ever have the money to build this, so here is the flaw he left out.

James_ wrote: I might be finished with my build this week. And if it works as the prototype suggests it will, then I will make this thread known.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you dig up the patent, I bet it doesn't make electricity from gravity (i.e. convert a force to energy) but instead converts electricity into chemical potential energy and then into electrical energy ... losing 40%.

The final result doesn't have to have a rational thought's chance in Swan's mind of working in order to receive a patent.

So, the process starts with a certain quantity X of electrical energy. Great.

So the end result of this patent is to produce 60% of the initial X amount of electrical energy. I can think of easier ways to accomplish this.

... but you'd still have to buy one-and-two-thrids of the electricity you wish to produce, so as to sufficiently electrolyze water.

I think the problem is obvious, and that problem has nothing to do with US legal protection.

James__, have you ever heard of an "urban legend"? This is the Neiman Marcus Cookie Recipe urban legend repackaged. Instead of a "famous cookie recipe" being released to the public for free, this is a "powerful invention" that is being released to the public for free. Both are attempts to garner broad interest in a recipe.

How about you just go ahead and finish it and make a video of your wheel clearly making a few complete rotations.

James_ wrote:
dehammer also posts online as ab hammer or on YouTube as abthehammer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueh2sJXHmG0

I might be finished with my build this week. And if it works as the prototype suggests it will, then I will make this thread known. Then dehammer can talk about his invention and how as an American he thinks someone should build it for him.
Because this could be considered as his invention I will have nothing else to do with it. Some might say it's like the intermittent wiper. That used different inventions to create a new invention.
Of course any energy it generates would need to be used for generating hydrogen first. And with this, people will find it ironic that he tried destroying my life because he's an American and an American Christian. His post calling me the world's ultimate fraud is still posted online. And yet I'll be helping to make his invention known because as Americans tell me, I am not an American.

dehammer wrote:As I understand it, the amount of energy you RECOVER from burning the gas will result in 40% of the energy needed to electrolyze the water.

dehammer wrote: Once again, we know the science behind all the parts and they should add together to produce the electricity.

dehammer wrote:Yes, you start off with a loss, but it should be made up with quickly.

dehammer wrote:No, the result is that you produce the amount needed PLUS extra

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]
This is exactly the problem in this case, and in general this problem is called the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This system will generate less work than the energy it consumes from the original electricity source. Thusly, any scenario you devise whereby this system powers other systems would be drastically improved by eliminating this system entirely and simply powering the other systems with the original electricity source.

Every time energy changes form within a closed system, the amount of usable energy decreases. This system makes two very inefficient energy form changes, from electrical energy to chemical energy back to electrical energy, which accomplish nothing more than to lose a large portion of the original usable energy.

Incorrect. I hate to say it, but this is an amazingly stupid statement. Where did you get the idea that you can accomplish anything by simply connecting any arbitrarily chosen components that each individually do correctly whatever they were designed to do?

dehammer wrote:I do not think you understand what I am trying to do.

dehammer wrote:It is not arbitrary.

dehammer wrote:Let me ask you this. Do dams produce electricity?

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course you are discounting the possibility that I know what I am talking about and that you are a science genius. You are forcing me to emphasize how stupid you are being.

I tried to help you.

Let me ask you this: Do you understand the fundamental difference between a dam and your hair-brained idea?

IBdaMann wrote:
Go do your research, then come back and ask your questions.

.

dehammer wrote:I had thought that you were simply uninformed, but obviously you have no desire to learn anything since you are the only one that has any knowledge in the universe.

dehammer wrote:No, I am not discounting any possibilities,

dehammer wrote: ...but obviously you do not think I am as smart as an ant.

dehammer wrote:No, you just wanted to tout how smart you were and how no one could be as smart as you.

dehammer wrote:Obviously you have no idea.

dehammer wrote:YOU said that the second law of thermodynamics prevented people from adding two systems together and having them work.

dehammer wrote:SO, since the dam works by pressure from the lake feeding the generator,

dehammer wrote:SO, WITHOUT adding another system, such as rainfall, how does a dam work.

IBdaMann wrote:You are an idiot. You didn't even read my post. You didn't like what I wrote so you immediately discounted it. You have not researched what I told you you needed to know.

Your obvious intent is to remain stupid on the matter.

dehammer wrote:I did read and all I got was "im smarter than you because I say I am smarter".

dehammer wrote:You do not bother to read anything about the science because all you want to do is insult.

dehammer wrote:You can not debate science because you have a very closed mine

dehammer wrote: ...and think you are smarter than everyone else,

dehammer wrote: ... but you are wrong.

dehammer wrote: IF you ever open your mind to the passivity that others have the same intelligence or better, then get back to me.

dehammer wrote:Just like nature, this is not an enclosed system.

IBdaMann wrote: I will do is insult you.

James_ wrote:
[quote]Not that it's any of my concern but the pressure head of water has to be separate from the gasses being generated. hydrogen fuel cell systems are only about 60% efficient.

The heat emitted from this is waste heat.

This then becomes what is the flow rate of water past the generator.

dehammer wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

This is exactly the problem in this case, and in general this problem is called the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This system will generate less work than the energy it consumes from the original electricity source. Thusly, any scenario you devise whereby this system powers other systems would be drastically improved by eliminating this system entirely and simply powering the other systems with the original electricity source.

Every time energy changes form within a closed system, the amount of usable energy decreases. This system makes two very inefficient energy form changes, from electrical energy to chemical energy back to electrical energy, which accomplish nothing more than to lose a large portion of the original usable energy.

I do not think you understand what I am trying to do.

You are trying to reduce entropy, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

dehammer wrote:

Incorrect. I hate to say it, but this is an amazingly stupid statement. Where did you get the idea that you can accomplish anything by simply connecting any arbitrarily chosen components that each individually do correctly whatever they were designed to do?

It is not arbitrary.

It is.

dehammer wrote:
Let me ask you this. Do dams produce electricity?

dehammer wrote:
How, once the water goes down, it can not produce electricity right?

dehammer wrote:
So why does the dam continue to produce electricity?

dehammer wrote:
Edit: I do know the answer, but I am trying to make a point.

dehammer wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course you are discounting the possibility that I know what I am talking about and that you are a science genius. You are forcing me to emphasize how stupid you are being.

No, I am not discounting any possibilities, but obviously you do not think I am as smart as an ant.

dehammer wrote:

I tried to help you.

No, you just wanted to tout how smart you were and how no one could be as smart as you.

dehammer wrote:

Let me ask you this: Do you understand the fundamental difference between a dam and your hair-brained idea?

Obviously you have no idea. YOU said that the second law of thermodynamics prevented people from adding two systems together and having them work.

dehammer wrote:
SO, since the dam works by pressure from the lake feeding the generator, unless there is another system involved the dam will quickly drain the water out of the lake and the dam will fail.

SO, WITHOUT adding another system, such as rainfall, how does a dam work. YOU STATED that the system could not work according to that law, since there was no other source of the water. No more energy could be added to the system because of that law.

dehammer wrote:
SO BRAINIAC How does a system work when nothing can be added and the energy has to be lost, never gained.

dehammer wrote:
I had thought that you were simply uninformed, but obviously you have no desire to learn anything since you are the only one that has any knowledge in the universe.

dehammer wrote:IF you produce enough gas, it can fill a pipe that is, let say 10000 feet by 1 square foot. This means the pipe has 10000 square feet

dehammer wrote:...and would take a lot of hydrogen to fill it to the pressure it would need to have the gas at the right pressure to burn.

dehammer wrote:BUT once you had the pipe filled up (charged the system), as long as you put as much hydrogen in at the bottom as you take out at the top, it will keep that pipe full.

dehammer wrote:In this system, the generator at the bottom only runs off the water coming down the final pipe. The water in this pipe would be (for the most part) clear water as it was created by combining pure hydrogen with pure oxygen at the top.

dehammer wrote: This means the amount of energy the turbine would be fed would come from the 250 foot head water.

dehammer wrote: Now you have a second turbine and generator.

This is repeated 4 times ever 1000 feet or 40 sets of turbine/generator at the bottom of 250 foot head waters.

dehammer wrote:Even at worse case situation,

dehammer wrote:IF the amount of hydrogen you got from the fuel cell and electrolysis was only 20%, you should still be able to get the 80% somewhere in that 10000 foot.

dehammer wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Go do your research, then come back and ask your questions.

.

I will try to use small words so that you can understand. The reason that law does not apply is that you are trying to see this as a closed system. In all closed system, it will eventually fail due to the continual loss of energy.

This is NOT a closed system.

dehammer wrote:
This is in fact, a smaller version of what nature does.

dehammer wrote:
In nature, the sun adds energy to water at the base.
In my system, electricity adds energy to water at the base.

dehammer wrote:
In nature, the difference between steam and water causes the steam to rise up in the atmosphere.

dehammer wrote:
In my system, the difference between gas (hydrogen and oxygen) causes it to rise up the pipe.

dehammer wrote:
In nature, once the water reaches a certain level, the energy is released by being absorbed by co2

dehammer wrote:
and released as infrared energy which leaves the planet.

dehammer wrote:
The steam is turned into water, i.e. rain or snow.

dehammer wrote:
In my system, the energy is added to the system by burning the hydrogen and oxygen (either in a motor or a fuel cell) turning it into water.

dehammer wrote:
In nature, the rain (or snow) falls on mountains, and is channeled into streams and then rivers, and finally is dumped into a lake.

dehammer wrote:
In my system, the water runs out of the motor or cell, and into a big pipe.

dehammer wrote:
In a dam, the headwaters (i.e. the distance from the turbine to the top of the water level) creates pressure, which forces water into a small outlet at the base, pushing a turbine blade. This turns a generator rotor and creates electricity.

dehammer wrote:
In my system, the headwaters creates pressure pushing the water at the base though a nozzle directing the water to a turbine, turning the rotor of a generator.

dehammer wrote:
In nature, the water goes into a river, which may dump into another lake, or the ocean.

dehammer wrote:
In my system, it dumps into another pipe and turns another generator turbine. Then another and another until it reaches the bottom.

dehammer wrote:
In nature, the ocean water starts the cycle over when the sun's energy turns it in to steam once again.

dehammer wrote:
In my system, the water is once again turned into hydrogen and oxygen and goes through the system again.

dehammer wrote:
SO, if my system can not work due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, neither can dams.

dehammer wrote:
We know dams work, so why is this different?

dehammer wrote:
99% of the energy added to nature system does nothing.

dehammer wrote:
100% of the energy added to this will do something.

dehammer wrote:
Nature is less than 1% efficient, yet it gets the job done.

dehammer wrote:
This might be 10% efficient, or better.

dehammer wrote:
The real question is, how big does it have to be to work.

dehammer wrote:
IF you continually add energy from gravity to the system, at some point it has to work.

dehammer wrote:
The only question is, would it be small enough to produce enough energy to be worth it.

dehammer wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:You are an idiot. You didn't even read my post. You didn't like what I wrote so you immediately discounted it. You have not researched what I told you you needed to know.

Your obvious intent is to remain stupid on the matter.

I did read and all I got was "im smarter than you because I say I am smarter".

dehammer wrote:
You do not bother to read anything about the science because all you want to do is insult.

dehammer wrote:
You can not debate science

dehammer wrote:
because you have a very closed mine and think you are smarter than everyone else, but you are wrong.

dehammer wrote:
IF you ever open your mind to the passivity that others have the same intelligence or better, then get back to me. Other wise, your just showcasing your insecurity.

dehammer wrote:
Just like nature, this is not an enclosed system.

dehammer wrote:
ALL you can see is closed systems and refuse to see reality.

dehammer wrote:

James_ wrote:
[quote]Not that it's any of my concern but the pressure head of water has to be separate from the gasses being generated. hydrogen fuel cell systems are only about 60% efficient.

Yes, it would be going up a separate pipe. Water goes to the bottom of a container. Gas like hydrogen or oxygen fill up a container as much as possible. IF you produce enough gas, it can fill a pipe that is, let say 10000 feet by 1 square foot. This means the pipe has 10000 square feet and would take a lot of hydrogen to fill it to the pressure it would need to have the gas at the right pressure to burn.

BUT once you had the pipe filled up (charged the system), as long as you put as much hydrogen in at the bottom as you take out at the top, it will keep that pipe full.

By the figure you gave (I have see many claims of much greater, but they seem to be pipe dreams to me

), it would return 60% of the energy needed to add new hydrogen when you burn the fuel at the top.

The heat emitted from this is waste heat.

There are methods that can recover PART of that waste, but lets ignore it for now.

This then becomes what is the flow rate of water past the generator.

In this system, the generator at the bottom only runs off the water coming down the final pipe. The water in this pipe would be (for the most part) clear water as it was created by combining pure hydrogen with pure oxygen at the top.

In the case I mentioned earlier, a hydrogen pipe 10000 feet up the side of a mountain (I know it's a big one, but go with it). The water would come out of the fuel cell, and in to a 250 foot pipe (for this example, lets say its vertical to remove other considerations). At the bottom of the 250 foot drop is a turbine. This means the amount of energy the turbine would be fed would come from the 250 foot head water.

As the water exits the turbine, it enters another enclosed pool on top of another 250 foot high pipe (since we know no mountain would be vertical, lets say this pool goes to the end of the next drop off, once again, removing any other consideration). Now you have a second turbine and generator.

This is repeated 4 times ever 1000 feet or 40 sets of turbine/generator at the bottom of 250 foot head waters.

At some point, you would be producing more energy from these mini dams than the 40% needed to supplement the energy needed to electrolyze the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Anything beyond that would be excess energy. Even if the amount of energy lost to the heat was a large portion of the 40% above the return from the fuel cell, or if it was unrecoverable at all, you still would at some point get more energy from the water pressure than you need to power the system.

Even at worse case situation, IF the amount of hydrogen you got from the fuel cell and electrolysis was only 20%, you should still be able to get the 80% somewhere in that 10000 foot.

duncan61 wrote:
BOC in Australia have 20 Hydrogen plants in construction and as a gasfitter with an auto gas permit I was sent all the tech on how the refilling stations will be set up.It is very similar to the existing LPG outlets.Hydrogen is the way to go.

duncan61 wrote:
There will still be petrol for a long time yet.

duncan61 wrote:
Because of this topic I have done some research.I am in the market for a 2000w generator to use for lighting and refrigeration at my shooting camp and can by a low end unit for under $600.

duncan61 wrote:
To make this with solar I would need 8 solar panels cost unknown.

duncan61 wrote:
On the freeway here in Perth there are Emergency phones with a small solar panel on a pole.

duncan61 wrote:
I have an invertor for my jeep but the 13.5V DC from the outlet will only give about 110W AC.

duncan61 wrote:
Enough to run a small light or recharge devices.If you need grid electric to start the electrolyser it is unlikely to ever return the original start up power

duncan61 wrote:
as IBDm is correct in that every time you switch power source you lose a quantity.

duncan61 wrote:
As much as I like the idea of sticking a pole up with a solar panel and electrolyzing water to make Hydrogen to power a generator

duncan61 wrote:
at the moment you can not beat a petrol gen set that is the size of a small suitcase,Very quiet and extremely reliable and portable.

duncan61 wrote:
Keep working on it.It will be the future