Remember me
▼ Content

Gravity fed electrical generation system



Page 11 of 16<<<910111213>>>
11-05-2019 19:34
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4519)
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___
★★★★★
(5513)
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
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4519)
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___
★★★★★
(5513)
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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20146)
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

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-05-2019 22:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20146)
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

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-05-2019 23:20
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4519)
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
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13302)
HarveyH55 wrote: Not going to split hair on terminology,

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


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
★★★☆☆
(480)
What ever you say Michael.
12-05-2019 02:08
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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
★★★☆☆
(480)
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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20146)
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

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-05-2019 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20146)
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

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-05-2019 22:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20146)
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

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 12-05-2019 22:19
13-05-2019 00:01
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20146)
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

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-07-2022 16:50
James_
★★★★☆
(1180)
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.



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.
16-07-2022 19:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13302)
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.

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%.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

.
17-07-2022 03:54
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
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 way it SHOULD work, is that there is a difference in the specific weight of water vs gas (hydrogen and oxygen). Since weight and density of the water should always push it below the gas, the gas will be pushed up the hill. At the top of the hill, the gas is turned into water again, and gravity pulls it towards the center of the earth more than the gas. Since the mass of the water is held within the pipe, the weight pushes the water through the small opening at the bottom, turning the turbine.

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. The addition of water from the multiple turbines should result in more than 60% of the energy lost in electrolyzing the water.


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.
That is unfortunately true. Once again, we know the science behind all the parts and they should add together to produce the electricity.


So, the process starts with a certain quantity X of electrical energy. Great.
Yes, you start off with a loss, but it should be made up with quickly.


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.
No, the result is that you produce the amount needed PLUS extra you can use or sell. 40% (or 60%, or even 80%) would go to produce the electricity you need to start with, then the rest would be additional.


... but you'd still have to buy one-and-two-thrids of the electricity you wish to produce, so as to sufficiently electrolyze water.
No, you do not buy it, you only buy what you need to charge the system, then IF the science is right (I am not a physicist), then the entire system should produce a minimum of 110% of the energy it needs to run.


I think the problem is obvious, and that problem has nothing to do with US legal protection.
The problem is, I do not have the money to build this. Nor do I have the computer modeling skills to determine if it has a decent chance to work. All I have is a theory and would like to find out from someone with the real knowledge to tell me if it can or does work.


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.
Yes, I would like to have some interest from someone that has the knowledge I do not have. I do not expect people without the knowledge to say they do not see it happening.


How about you just go ahead and finish it and make a video of your wheel clearly making a few complete rotations.
This is not a wheel. I have seen the video that was suggested and it has NOTHING to do with my idea.
17-07-2022 04:06
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
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.
First off, I did not post that vidoe. I do not have any clue who that is. It has zero to do with my idea.

Secondly, I have done nothing to destroy ANYONE'S life. I have never called anyone the ultimate ANYTHING, let alone a fraud. IF you have a problem with the other person, so be that. I am not him.
17-07-2022 04:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13302)
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.

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.

This system overall is ill-conceived.

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

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?

We know the science behind toaster ovens, televisions and flushable toilets. You cannot just create any system you want by simply connecting a toaster oven with a television and a flushable toilet, despite knowing the science behind all of them. Knowing the science of certain systems won't transform anyone into an omnipotent engineer with those components.

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

You should be more careful with the word "should." You just committed a shoulda-woulda-coulda error.

No, the loss should not be made up quickly because it cannot be made up. The 2nd law of thermodynamics explains why you can't even break even. The system described is violating physics and cannot work.

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

Not possible. Once again, I will point you to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't get around it.

Forgive me for pointing it out, but you aren't very adept in science, and you clearly are not an engineer. I highly recommend you learn a little more of each before you allow someone to con you into believing an urban legend of this type.

Once again, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Learn it. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

.
17-07-2022 05:36
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
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.
I do not think you understand what I am trying to do.


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.

Let me ask you this. Do dams produce electricity? How, once the water goes down, it can not produce electricity right? So why does the dam continue to produce electricity?

Edit: I do know the answer, but I am trying to make a point.
Edited on 17-07-2022 05:37
17-07-2022 05:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13302)
dehammer wrote:I do not think you understand what I am trying to do.

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 pointed you in the direction of the 2nd law of thermodynamics so that you could become smarter on the matter and understand why this hair-brained idea of yours cannot work. You did not perform any research. You chose to remain totally stupid on the matter.

So be it.

Your idea is stupid. It cannot work. It violates physics. When the day arrives that you actually want to understand why, you will become an expert on the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... and then you will understand.

At the moment, you are babbling gibberish and I tried to help you.

I will answer any questions you might have in your research of the 2nd law of thermodynamics but I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to help you if you won't help yourself.

dehammer wrote:It is not arbitrary.

Yes, it most certainly is. Go learn what the word "arbitrary" means.

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

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

Let me ask you this: Are there things that produce electricity? Does this mean that any stupid idea you concoct will produce more energy than it requires to operate?

You suck at science and you aren't going to get any smarter insisting that you are correct when you are incorrect.

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

.
17-07-2022 06:25
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
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.

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.


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.

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.

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

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.
Edited on 17-07-2022 06:26
17-07-2022 07:02
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
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.

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

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

In nature, the difference between steam and water causes the steam to rise up in the atmosphere.
In my system, the difference between gas (hydrogen and oxygen) causes it to rise up the pipe.

In nature, once the water reaches a certain level, the energy is released by being absorbed by co2 and released as infrared energy which leaves the planet. The steam is turned into water, i.e. rain or snow.
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.

In nature, the rain (or snow) falls on mountains, and is channeled into streams and then rivers, and finally is dumped into a lake.
In my system, the water runs out of the motor or cell, and into a big pipe.

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.
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.

In nature, the water goes into a river, which may dump into another lake, or the ocean.
In my system, it dumps into another pipe and turns another generator turbine. Then another and another until it reaches the bottom.

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

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

SO, if my system can not work due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, neither can dams. We know dams work, so why is this different? 99% of the energy added to nature system does nothing. 100% of the energy added to this will do something. Nature is less than 1% efficient, yet it gets the job done. This might be 10% efficient, or better.

The real question is, how big does it have to be to work. IF you continually add energy from gravity to the system, at some point it has to work. The only question is, would it be small enough to produce enough energy to be worth it.
17-07-2022 07:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13302)
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.

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:No, I am not discounting any possibilities,

Yes, you most certainly are. You are totally discounting the possibility that your hair-brained idea is a hair-brained idea, and that it cannot work because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You are so desperate in your delusion that you won't dare learn the principles of thermodynamics that explain why your stupid idea cannot work.

So be it.

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

You have succeeded in making that the case.

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

OK. So why don't you take advantage of that and learn from me?

dehammer wrote:Obviously you have no idea.

Obviously I do, and you know I do because I have been trying unsuccessfully to explain it to you. It is you who has intentionally ignored everything I have written.

So be it.

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

I did not. I will, however, add that you cannot read for comprehension any better than you can design valuable complex systems that adhere to the laws of physics.

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

Incorrect. The underlying principle in the dam's generation of electricity is evaporation. Perhaps you've heard of it.

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

You have to have the rainfall or it cannot work.

Here's where we stand:

1) You are an idiot.
2) You English reading proficiency is very poor.
3) Your stupid idea cannot work
4) You intend to remain totally clueless on all of the fundamental aspects of this topic
5) You mistakenly believe that babbling nonsense equates to brilliance.
6) I believe there are certain species of ants that are more intelligent than you are.



Let me know when something changes.

.
17-07-2022 07:32
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
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". You do not bother to read anything about the science because all you want to do is insult. You can not debate science because you have a very closed mine and think you are smarter than everyone else, but you are wrong. 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.

Just like nature, this is not an enclosed system. ALL you can see is closed systems and refuse to see reality.
Edited on 17-07-2022 07:33
17-07-2022 08:14
duncan61
★★★★★
(2012)
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.There will still be petrol for a long time yet.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.To make this with solar I would need 8 solar panels cost unknown.On the freeway here in Perth there are Emergency phones with a small solar panel on a pole.I have an invertor for my jeep but the 13.5V DC from the outlet will only give about 110W AC.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 as IBDm is correct in that every time you switch power source you lose a quantity.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 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.Keep working on it.It will be the future
17-07-2022 08:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13302)
dehammer wrote:I did read and all I got was "im smarter than you because I say I am smarter".

Like I said, your English comprehension sucks.

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

At this point, yes, all I will do is insult you. I tried to help you but you are too much of a moron so I'll just mock your silly crap and have a good time.

Let me know when someone successfully uses your "idea" to generate more energy than it consumes.

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

You really are an idiot. Science is not something that can be debated. Your hair-brained crap doesn't somehow become feasible by framing your "argument" better.

I gave you the correct answer. You opted to take the science-denial position.

So be it.

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

That's because I'm smarter than everyone else.

dehammer wrote: ... but you are wrong.

In what way? You suck at science so I am interested to find out how you explain knowing that I am mistaken.

This should be good.

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

I already understand the laws of thermodynamics, thank you. You, however, do not. Frankly, I think that you avoid the laws of thermodynamics because secretly you realize that you are too stupid to learn them.

So, please keep babbling about how you can create energy out of nothing.


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

Too funny! That one made me laugh.

One thing you're missing by being too stupid to learn the laws of thermodynamics is how to define a system. There really isn't much hope for you so just keep babbling about your hair-brain du jour.
17-07-2022 15:24
James_
★★★★☆
(1180)
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. Generating hydrogen has a loss of energy as well as converting hydrogen into water again.
Hydroelectric energy generation will not produce more energy than the pressure head the hydrogen membranes can generate. More loss. An outside source of electrons is required.
It's common knowledge that it takes 2 electrons to generate 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen element. And they each have different pipes they rise up through. This is because one is attracted to a cathode while the other is attracted to an anode.
And then when hydrogen and oxygen become bound they release 2 electrons. The heat emitted from this is waste heat.
What matters next is the cost per kWh for the electricity to power the process. Currently desalination costs $2 to $9 per 1,000 gallons of potable water. From a river water costs about $1.50 per 1,000 gallons.
This then becomes what is the flow rate of water past the generator. That would determine the output required from the hydrogen membranes. Then you'd know what that cost might be, ie., as with solar panels, what surface area is required and what is the cost per square foot?
Still, have my own problems to deal with. If my build works out I will mention your thread but will not involve myself with desalination. I can't talk about the Navy because I'd be using it as a crutch and this was a part of it.
With Lake Mead as an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NOGiBwhQ8A yet for such desalination to be feasible it might require a better membrane. If so then that would require research.
Edited on 17-07-2022 16:22
17-07-2022 19:21
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
IBdaMann wrote: I will do is insult you.
Obviously that's all you have, Michael. Why bother post since you have no knowledge of real science.
17-07-2022 19:48
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
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.
Edited on 17-07-2022 19:52
17-07-2022 20:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20146)
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?


Some do. They are essentially solar powered.
dehammer wrote:
How, once the water goes down, it can not produce electricity right?

Water does not produce electricity simply by being water.
dehammer wrote:
So why does the dam continue to produce electricity?

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

And what point is that????!? No, you cannot reduce entropy for any reason at any time. You cannot just set aside the 2nd law of thermodynamics even for a moment.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-07-2022 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20146)
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.

Personally, I have my doubts that you are. Ants at least know enough to build and maintain a nest.
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.

Psychoquackery. No, you can't cancel science this way.
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.

You cannot add two systems. You cannot compare two different systems as the same system. You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
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.

You are attempting to compare two different systems as the same system. False equivalence fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
SO BRAINIAC How does a system work when nothing can be added and the energy has to be lost, never gained.

You cannot compare two different systems as the same system.
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.

What makes you think he created the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you are obviously so desperate to ignore??????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-07-2022 21:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13302)
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

A fourth-grader passing by pointed out to me that you need to say "10,000 cubic feet" instead of 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.

A fifth-grader passing by just told me that if you halve the cross section area of the pipe, you would only need half as much hydrogen to achieve the desired results.

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.

A sixth-grader that just glanced over my shoulder mentioned that that is how equilibriums work.

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.

Another fifth-grader just noticed your emphasis on "pure oxygen" and asked me if you think that hydrogen can be combined with anything other than oxygen to make water.

What should I tell her?

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

I'm getting a bunch of comments from eighth-graders that you are violating thermodynamics with your double coulda-shoulda-woulda error. What should I tell them?

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.

Another girl just pointed out that your system has changed the form of the energy eight times by this point, each time losing at least 40%. She did some quick math and discovered that your system simply consumes more than 98% of the energy and leaves less than 2% for saving the world. Apparently, according to her, your system doesn't generate anything, it simply consumes practically all of energy involved to no benefit.

What should I tell her?

dehammer wrote:Even at worse case situation,

Do you mean the case of realizing that thermodynamics cannot be circumvented?

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.

Some kid just asked me why you keep making coulda-should-woulda errors.

What do I tell him?


By the way, I found the prototype for your system. It looks interesting, but they wouldn't let me break it open and try it out.




.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
17-07-2022 21:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20146)
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.

It is. The Earth is a system. The Sun-Earth-space combination is a different system. Water flowing through a dam is a system. The Sun-Earth-dam combination is a different system.
dehammer wrote:
This is in fact, a smaller version of what nature does.

No, it isn't. Nature doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics (as far as we know). No, you cannot falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics that way!!
dehammer wrote:
In nature, the sun adds energy to water at the base.
In my system, electricity adds energy to water at the base.

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

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

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

CO2 does not destroy energy. It is not possible to create or destroy energy. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. What is this 'certain level'???!? There is no sequence. You cannot set aside the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law for ANY length of time.
dehammer wrote:
and released as infrared energy which leaves the planet.

There is no such thing as 'infrared energy'. Infrared refers to a frequency of light, not an energy.
dehammer wrote:
The steam is turned into water, i.e. rain or snow.

What steam???????!?
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.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. If you extract work from your device, you LOSE energy. Friction and conversion of energy also extract work. You LOSE energy.
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.

A lake is just a buffer for a stream or river.
dehammer wrote:
In my system, the water runs out of the motor or cell, and into a big pipe.

You are still trying to compare two different systems as the same system. False equivalence fallacy.
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.

You have insufficient water.
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.

Insufficient water. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
dehammer wrote:
In nature, the water goes into a river, which may dump into another lake, or the ocean.

All water eventually returns to the sea or evaporates.
dehammer wrote:
In my system, it dumps into another pipe and turns another generator turbine. Then another and another until it reaches the bottom.

The longer the pipe, the more resistance. That is lost energy.
dehammer wrote:
In nature, the ocean water starts the cycle over when the sun's energy turns it in to steam once again.

The Sun does not boil the oceans. No steam.
dehammer wrote:
In my system, the water is once again turned into hydrogen and oxygen and goes through the system again.

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

False equivalence fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
We know dams work, so why is this different?

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

Argument from randU fallacy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
dehammer wrote:
100% of the energy added to this will do something.

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

Argument from randU fallacy. Efficiency is measured how?????!? What do you mean by 'efficient'??????!?
dehammer wrote:
This might be 10% efficient, or better.

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

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

Gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
The only question is, would it be small enough to produce enough energy to be worth it.

Irrelevant.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-07-2022 21:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20146)
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".

Then you never read it. You are a liar.
dehammer wrote:
You do not bother to read anything about the science because all you want to do is insult.

No, you cannot falsify the 1st or the 2nd laws of thermodynamics by describing yourself! LIF.
dehammer wrote:
You can not debate science

Science is not a debate.
dehammer wrote:
because you have a very closed mine and think you are smarter than everyone else, but you are wrong.

I don't think he has a closed mine. If I were to invest in mining, I would want them to be open and producing.
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.

Word salad. Try English. It works better.
dehammer wrote:
Just like nature, this is not an enclosed system.

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

It is a closed system. Define 'reality'. Betcha can't!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-07-2022 21:58
James_
★★★★☆
(1180)
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.



This is too basic. Blue is water. The other 2 columns hydrogen and oxygen.
Before generating a pressure head 250 feet tall the capacity of membranes need to be known.
For every 32.185 feet in the height of the column = 1 atmosphere or 14.7 psi.
An outside source of energy will be needed. There's a reason hydrogen energy at the moment is only about 60% efficient.
If a pressure head powers a hydroelectric generator it will not create enough hydrogen and oxygen to maintain the pressure head. If that allows a system to be 80% efficient or higher then how does that cost compare to reverse osmosis?
And for any system like this a 20 ft. tall pressure head will show if it is a viable concept or not. Wanting a full scale desalination plant would kill a project like this.
But some people do not support research and development.
And one issue with this is that the gasses generated by the electrolysis process will occupy much more space than water. How would this affect the surface area needed for membranes and the diameter of the pressure head?
But then you'd need to do the math to find out how many many particles (1 mol is standard) occupies how much space as H2O and then as hydrogen and oxygen. Otherwise you'd be creating pressure and then would the hydrogen combust?
And as I've mentioned, I've got my own projects to work on and if my historical project is successful I will mention your suggestion of using such a process for seawater desalination.
Attached image:

17-07-2022 22:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20146)
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.

Hydrogen is a fuel, expensive to produce and difficult to handle. It's available BTU is very low by volume.
duncan61 wrote:
There will still be petrol for a long time yet.

As long as there an Earth. Oil is a renewable fuel.
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.

Shop around. That's too much.
duncan61 wrote:
To make this with solar I would need 8 solar panels cost unknown.

About $5000.
duncan61 wrote:
On the freeway here in Perth there are Emergency phones with a small solar panel on a pole.

Don't need much to run a phone.
duncan61 wrote:
I have an invertor for my jeep but the 13.5V DC from the outlet will only give about 110W AC.

Unit error. Voltage is not watts.
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

There is no such thing as an 'electrolyser'. Try English.
duncan61 wrote:
as IBDm is correct in that every time you switch power source you lose a quantity.

He never said any such thing. It is not possible to destroy energy.
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

You aren't going to get much hydrogen.
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.

That they are, if 2000w is enough for your needs.
duncan61 wrote:
Keep working on it.It will be the future

No, it won't. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot reduce entropy...ever.

Illiteracy: Spaces are required between sentences. There is no such word as 'electrolyzing' or 'electrolyser'. Hydrogen is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized. Spaces are required following commas. The first letter after a comma is not capitalized unless it is a proper noun. Very is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 11 of 16<<<910111213>>>





Join the debate Gravity fed electrical generation system:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Weather, Climate Change Are Revealing The Truth Of This Corrupt Society System5010-01-2023 16:48
Russia just hacked the US emergency alert system, and in more important news the FBI is001-09-2022 13:50
My New Digital Currency System Will Destroy The USD, Euro & Make World Peace014-08-2022 11:29
It Is Perfect Safe To Begin Make Some Big Changes In The World Financial System011-08-2022 07:31
New Bank Type In Banking System To Give Power Back To The People010-08-2022 17:05
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact