Remember me
▼ Content

Gravity fed electrical generation system



Page 11 of 11<<<91011
11-05-2019 19:34
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
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!



What? Don't you shower or bathe? It's funny in a way how little you guys have learned about things. Maybe thinking gives you guys A HEADACHE? ROFLMAO!!!!
11-05-2019 19:54
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
Might be the same guy, his was a dune buggy. He sold his fuel cell/plans, as a way to improve gas mileage, and gave the impression, that it would be possible to run completely with water, and his fuel cell technology. He was able to convince a lot of people that they could save a whole lot of money on gas, which generated a lot of interest with people operating fleets of vehicles. Just changing your driving habits, can improve your fuel economy quite a bit, so it was really difficult to test to see if there was any actual value. Stanley made a lot of money, from people who lack the education, skills, or the means to buy quality materials. Basically, the folks who bought the plans, did the best they could, with what they could find/afford, and of course failed, or failed to see any improvement. So, a lot of other folks, found a market, and made some money too. The internet is full of functional units, ready made. But, there are thousands of people looking for help to get theirs working, or working as they expected.
11-05-2019 19:57
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
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
11-05-2019 20:30
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
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.
11-05-2019 21:57
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
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.
11-05-2019 22:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
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


Electrolysis is not electroplating. Redefinition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2019 22:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
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.


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2019 23:20
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
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. You hook the part to be plated to the cathode, use a sacrificial anode, made of the metal you wish to deposit. The electrolyte is generally a salt of the metal your plating with. It's still passing electricity though an electrolyte, electrolysis... An accurate description, although perhaps not as technical as some prefer, or politically correct. Neither of which are high priorities...
11-05-2019 23:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
HarveyH55 wrote: Not going to split hair on terminology,

My daughter agrees. Apparently split ends are not worth it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-05-2019 01:13
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
What ever you say Michael.
12-05-2019 02:08
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
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.


Inversion phallucy. You might get your wish though. I just don't want you to get your hopes up because I care about you.
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.
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.
Besides, if Seattle fell then the evil government that you don't like would also fail and then people would be free and not forced to live and work in a society that has rules and laws to follow.
Kind of why so many people migrated to the US, they didn't like having rules to follow so came here.
That's why you're such a REAL AMERICAN Isn't.


@dehamner, they like playing. Of course I think I TN and IBdaMann are lovers, but hey, America is a free country, right?
12-05-2019 03:10
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
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.

Edited on 12-05-2019 03:13
12-05-2019 22:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
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.

It is not the same basic setup.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You hook the part to be plated to the cathode, use a sacrificial anode, made of the metal you wish to deposit.

Not always. Often the material to be plated is in the electrolyte itself.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The electrolyte is generally a salt of the metal your plating with.

For those cases where you are plating from the electrolyte itself, this is true.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's still passing electricity though an electrolyte, electrolysis... An accurate description,

WRONG. Batteries are not electrolysis either, yet they pass electricity through an electrolyte. Same with fuel cells. Passing electricity through an electrolyte is NOT the same as the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen.
HarveyH55 wrote:
although perhaps not as technical as some prefer, or politically correct.

Politics have nothing to do with it. Fuel cells, batteries, corrosion, electroplating, and electrolysis are completely different things, each for a different purpose, even though they ALL have electrical charges moving through an electrolyte.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2019 22:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
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.


...deleted non-English portion...
James___ wrote:
You might get your wish though. I just don't want you to get your hopes up because I care about you.
What wish is that?
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.
Seattle is not on the Pacific plate, and is not affected by the Pacific plate.
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.

Seattle is built on silt deposits from Mt Rainier (Mt Tahoma). New York city is built on solid bedrock.
James___ wrote:
Besides, if Seattle fell then the evil government that you don't like would also fail
That it would. The Seattle city council would no longer be able to maintain control, and they would quickly be voted out of office in favor of those that can handle the reconstruction properly.
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.
Republics are not anarchies, dude.
James___ wrote:
Kind of why so many people migrated to the US, they didn't like having rules to follow so came here.
No, they came here for lots of different reasons. Some like to sponge off the welfare system, complete with all its rules and regulations. Others came to start their own dream of building their own business and owning their own home and being free to worship their God if they so choose.
James___ wrote:
That's why you're such a REAL AMERICAN Isn't.


True Scotsman fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'real' American, other than living in America.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2019 22:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
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.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-05-2019 22:19
13-05-2019 00:01
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
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.
Attached image:


Edited on 13-05-2019 00:47
13-05-2019 07:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
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.


Wow. Your random disconnected thoughts are getting worse.


The Parrot Killer
Page 11 of 11<<<91011





Join the debate Gravity fed electrical generation system:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Fed researcher warns climate change could spur financial crisis027-03-2019 15:50
Climate is the Earth's Operating System(OS) and we definitely need to protect it.2423-12-2018 21:46
Define 'gravity'324-06-2018 18:48
Next Generation Solar2404-05-2018 00:50
James Hansen's Lecture: Global Climate Change: Can the Next Generation Avert a Catastrophe?3214-12-2017 20:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact