Remember me
▼ Content

Gravity fed electrical generation system



Page 12 of 16<<<1011121314>>>
17-07-2022 22:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
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.

Who is 'Michael'??? IBdaMann has never given his actual name. He has clearly stated the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics which you 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 22:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
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.

So you are proposing to pump hydrogen up a 10,000 ft mountain in a pipe. Gotit.
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.

Apparently you don't realize hydrogen has mass, and therefore weight. Your system won't generate sufficient hydrogen.
dehammer wrote:
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.

Making up numbers won't help you.
dehammer wrote:
The heat emitted from this is waste heat.
There are methods that can recover PART of that waste, but lets ignore it for now.

No, you can't ignore waste heat.
dehammer wrote:
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.

Insufficient hydrogen.
dehammer wrote:
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).

Repeating yourself won't make this work.
dehammer wrote:
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.

What water?????!? You burned away the hydrogen! You can't use the hydrogen twice!!!
dehammer wrote:
Anything beyond that would be excess energy.

Insufficient energy.
dehammer wrote:
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.

Not possible. See the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing, and you can't reduce entropy.
dehammer wrote:
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.

Making up numbers is not helping you. Argument from randU 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
17-07-2022 22:52
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote: Some do. They are essentially solar powered.
You can define it that way, but that is not really correct. The way the dams get their power is from the weight of the headwater pushing the turbine. That means it is getting its power from electricity.

Water does not produce electricity simply by being water.
No, it produces electricity by flowing past a turbine, and the pressure of the water is what causes the turbine to turn.
The Sun.
So your saying that it can have the same effect on the moon as it does on earth? The moon gets more energy from the sun. Does that mean it gets the same energy if we build an enclosed dam?
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 point is, this, just like nature's own system is not enclosed. You have energy input and output.

In nature, the sun's energy heats the water causing it to rise into the atmosphere. There co2 cools it releasing the energy back to space.
In my system, the energy to move the water comes from the difference in specific weight of water vs hydrogen gas. Water is dense, so if falls. Take a normal bottle of water and take half of it out. Shake it up or heat it up or what ever you want to do, the water always goes back to the bottom of the bottle and gas always goes to the top.

IF you have two tubes, one full of water and the other hydrogen gas, setting side by side, and you connect them top and bottom, you will soon have two tubes, both filled half with water and half with hydrogen gas.

IF at the bottom, you have a turbine, as the water flows into the second tube, it will run the turbine, until they equalize.

IF you add a third pipe and it starts off with oxygen, and you connect the two gases, and run them through a fuel cell, it will make more water, and then you use that to make more hydrogen and oxygen.

IF the pipe holding the water is 10000 feet, there will be a lot of resistance from the pipe. That is why I separated it in 250 feet lengths. Any distance beyond that and the resistance begins to remove any benefit of the increased height. Anything above 550 feet and you get no gain from increasing the height. So I added more turbines to get more energy from the weight of the water.
17-07-2022 23:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Some do. They are essentially solar powered.
You can define it that way, but that is not really correct. The way the dams get their power is from the weight of the headwater pushing the turbine. That means it is getting its power from electricity.

Water is not electricity.
dehammer wrote:
Water does not produce electricity simply by being water.
No, it produces electricity by flowing past a turbine, and the pressure of the water is what causes the turbine to turn.

Where is the water coming from? How did it get there?
dehammer wrote:
The Sun.
So your saying that it can have the same effect on the moon as it does on earth? The moon gets more energy from the sun. Does that mean it gets the same energy if we build an enclosed dam?

To dam what? No liquid water on the Moon.
dehammer wrote:
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 point is, this, just like nature's own system is not enclosed.

Attempt to define system by void.
dehammer wrote:
You have energy input and output.

You cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside your chosen system. The system must remain closed. You cannot compare two different systems as if they are the same system.
dehammer wrote:
In nature, the sun's energy heats the water causing it to rise into the atmosphere. There co2 cools it releasing the energy back to space.

CO2 doesn't cool anything. Water vapor is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
In my system, the energy to move the water comes from the difference in specific weight of water vs hydrogen gas.

No. You cannot pump water by using gas in the same height column as the water is.
dehammer wrote:
Water is dense, so if falls.

And will fill both columns until they contain the same level of water.
dehammer wrote:
Take a normal bottle of water and take half of it out.

A bottle of water isn't flowing.
dehammer wrote:
Shake it up or heat it up or what ever you want to do, the water always goes back to the bottom of the bottle and gas always goes to the top.

The water will be at the bottom of any container, compared to gas. That is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
IF you have two tubes, one full of water and the other hydrogen gas, setting side by side, and you connect them top and bottom, you will soon have two tubes, both filled half with water and half with hydrogen gas.

Okay.
dehammer wrote:
IF at the bottom, you have a turbine, as the water flows into the second tube, it will run the turbine, until they equalize.

They are ALREADY EQUALIZED. Flow is zero.
dehammer wrote:
IF you add a third pipe and it starts off with oxygen, and you connect the two gases, and run them through a fuel cell, it will make more water, and then you use that to make more hydrogen and oxygen.

Nope. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot reduce entropy...ever.
dehammer wrote:
IF the pipe holding the water is 10000 feet, there will be a lot of resistance from the pipe. That is why I separated it in 250 feet lengths. Any distance beyond that and the resistance begins to remove any benefit of the increased height. Anything above 550 feet and you get no gain from increasing the height. So I added more turbines to get more energy from the weight of the water.

Physics errors:
1) You can't ignore Kirchoff's law either. Forty lengths of 250 feet of pipe has the same resistance as one 10000 length of the same diameter pipe.
2) There is no magick barrier at 550 feet for potential energy.
3) You are attempt to use water and gas twice.
4) You cannot decrease entropy...ever.
5) You cannot create or destroy energy...ever.


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 23:29
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:What makes you think he created the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you are obviously so desperate to ignore??????!?
Never said he did, but the fact that he very obviously does not understand it shows that all he is doing is throwing out wasted words.

I am not ignoring it at all.

What that laws says that in any enclosed system, the energy will gradually decrease over time. It does not matter if you are talking about a perpetual motion machine, a solar system, or a universe, the answer is the same. Eventually all energy will be lost to entropy.

So, IF you build a car, according to YOUR supposed understanding of it, it will stop moving as soon as you stop adding energy to it, right. So if you have it on a hill it will stop at the bottom even if it has gas?

No, as long as you continue to add energy to the system, it will continue to run. This system runs because you add gas and burn it. Of course, as soon as the car runs out of gas, it does come to a stop.

The system I an using is adding energy FROM GRAVITY. Just like energy that is stored in water above a lake, i.e. potential energy, can create electricity as it flows through a dam, so can water flowing down a pipe 250-350 feet above a turbine.

P = m x g x Hnet x η

Assuming you have a 75% efficiency system (common small hydro system) and if you multiple the head (250 feet) by .9, you get a net head of 225 feet.

Now if you have 3000 liters per second (1 liter weighs 1kg) you get 3000 kg/s

Now remember that gravity on earth is 9.81m/s

So power would be 3,000 x 9.81 x 225 x 0.751 = 4972900 W = 4970 kW FOR ONE TURBINE.

If you have 40 of these running from the top to the bottom, you add 198 MEGAWATTS to the system per second. In an hour, it would produce 712,800mw hours. The energy needed to electrolyze the water would be 540000mw. IF you gained 60% of that back from a hydrogen fuel cell, the energy cost would be 216000mw, for a gain of 496800mw.

OF course 3000 liters per second would be massive, and a 10000 foot drop would be expensive to build on. But once it was build, it would produce power for a very long time, with only a small amount of money needed for maintenance.

So go ahead and prattle on about enclosed systems, and ignore reality. You have shown yourself to understand little of actual science.

Anyone can throw around words, but understanding them is something else entirely.
17-07-2022 23:35
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
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.

Who is 'Michael'??? IBdaMann has never given his actual name. He has clearly stated the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics which you ignore.
I just assumed with the obvious lack of understanding of real science, that he was the vaulted
Michael Mann of the infamous (and completely debunked) Mann climate graph.

Especially since when I mentioned the name before he got totally upset that I did not consider him to be a real scientist.

Honestly though, it was just an insult I threw out at him. Michael Mann is such a joke.
Edited on 17-07-2022 23:57
17-07-2022 23:43
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:
What water?????!? You burned away the hydrogen! You can't use the hydrogen twice!!!
I will try to use small words and sentences for you.

IF the hydrogen fuel cell was 10000 feet above the base (we are talking about a hypothetical vertical mountain here), and the water came out the fuel cell, the water would be 10000 feet up.

Now if the pipe dropped 250 feet, the base of that pipe would be at 97500 feet.

IF it had a turbine at the base of that pipe, the turbine would have a head water of 250 feet.

IF it came out of the turbine and into a second pool, which was connected to a second pipe, that was 250 feet long that pipe would also have a head water of 250 feet. IF the second pipe had another turbine at 95000 feet, it would also produce electricity.

IF you had 38 more units of pools, pipe and turbine, the water would go down 10000 feet over several hours.
17-07-2022 23:48
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
Into the Night wrote:
Physics errors:
1) You can't ignore Kirchoff's law either. Forty lengths of 250 feet of pipe has the same resistance as one 10000 length of the same diameter pipe.
2) There is no magick barrier at 550 feet for potential energy.
3) You are attempt to use water and gas twice.
4) You cannot decrease entropy...ever.
5) You cannot create or destroy energy...ever.


Obviously you are not paying attention.
1)yes, the resistance is the same, flow of the water against the pipe causes it to lose the pressure lower.
2)YOU are forgetting the 2nd law.
3) yes, I am using the water FOURTY TIMES because the higher you go, the more energy you lose to friction. I only use the gas once.
4) so adding gasoline to a car does not get it to move again?
5) I am not creating or destroying energy, only using what is there.

Allow me to give you a real life example.

The Columbia River watershed has SIXTY dams in it. According to your fake logic, only the first dam could make electricity, but MOST of them do. In fact, the primary purpose of most of them was to produce electricity.

So, either all but one of those dams does not produce electricity, or your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is full of cow droppings.
Edited on 17-07-2022 23:54
18-07-2022 00:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12231)
dehammer wrote:I am not ignoring it at all.

You are avoiding the laws of thermodynamics at all costs. You have no understanding of thermodynamics.

dehammer wrote:What that laws says that in any enclosed system, the energy will gradually decrease over time.

The 1st law says exactly the opposite. In any closed system, the amount of energy remains exactly the same.

dehammer wrote:It does not matter if you are talking about a perpetual motion machine, a solar system, or a universe, the answer is the same. Eventually all energy will be lost to entropy.

The amount of energy remains the same. Energy can never be created or destroyed.

dehammer wrote:So, IF you build a car, according to YOUR supposed understanding of it, it will stop moving as soon as you stop adding energy to it, right.

When the car runs out of fuel, the engine just doesn't keep performing work.

dehammer wrote:So if you have it on a hill it will stop at the bottom even if it has gas?

You are apparently confused over potential energy.

dehammer wrote:The system I an using is adding energy FROM GRAVITY.

Gravity is not energy. You haven't explained how you will generate SUFFICIENT energy to make a perpetual motion machine other than claiming that it somehow magically will happen.

You specify many things but you don't specify how you will generate sufficient energy to perpetually fuel the tubines and to provide additional energy to save the planet and humanity.

This is where you broadcast that you are scientifically illiterate.

dehammer wrote:Just like energy that is stored in water above a lake, i.e. potential energy, can create electricity as it flows through a dam, so can water flowing down a pipe 250-350 feet above a turbine.

Citing the first law of thermodynamics and stating that energy can change form does not automatically enable you to therefore defy the first law of thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing.

dehammer wrote:So power would be 3,000 x 9.81 x 225 x 0.751 = 4972900 W = 4970 kW FOR ONE TURBINE.

The bottom line is that your design calls for your turbines to power themselves, i.e. perpetual motion machines.

Not possible.

dehammer wrote:So go ahead and prattle on about enclosed systems, and ignore reality.

So your ticket to circumventing the laws of thermodynamics is to declare your contraption "an open system" and voila! ... suddenly you are no longer constrained by thermodynamics?

Smooth!

dehammer wrote:You have shown yourself to understand little of actual science.

You are a petty, bitter loser who needs to cling to fantasy to feel important and thmart. Your life must suck.

dehammer wrote:Anyone can throw around words, but understanding them is something else entirely.

You are SOOOOOOOOO wise. You must sit on a mountain wearing a robe.

Your hair-brained idea will never be considered by anyone. It will never be funded. It will never be built.

It can never work.

You are wasting your time ... and you know it ... because your fantasy is all that's important to you, not learning any science that might burst your fantasy bubble.

.

.
18-07-2022 00:48
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
IBdaMann wrote:snip.
So once again, ALL you can do is pretend you have a clue what one thing says. According to you, once the lake has water in it, it can not be used for anything else since water can not create electricity.

I imagine all those people studying dams are laughing their heads off at you. Go back to your fake graph micheal.
18-07-2022 03:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12231)
dehammer wrote: According to you, ...

That's very good. You specifically omit my words and then misrepresent what I wrote.

That's all you have. You are compelled to lash out at those who put your fragile fantasy in jeopardy. You avoid all science that puts your fragile fantasy in jeopardy. This is why your contraption doesn't adhere to science and why it can never work.

When I get a chance, I'm going to show your "idea" to actual engineers so they can have a laugh. It's more likely they will wince and feel sorry for you, but if any express any manner of hope for you or your brain fart, I'll let you know post-haste.

dehammer wrote:I imagine all those people studying dams are laughing their heads off at you.

We shall see soon enough at whom they will be laughing. Stay tuned.


Go back to your drawing board, Bill.
18-07-2022 03:51
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1911)
An electrolyzer is a system that uses electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen in a process called electrolysis.Thats what we call it here
18-07-2022 04:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12231)
duncan61 wrote:An electrolyzer is a system that uses electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen in a process called electrolysis.Thats what we call it here

That is what dehammer is describing. His "idea" is to have electricity power an electrolysis device to produce hydrogen. The hydrogen would be used as fuel for a turbine to create electricity for the electrolysis to make hydrogen for the turbine to make electricity for the electrolysis to make hydrogen for the turbine to make electricity for the electrolysis to make hydrogen for the turbine to make electricity for the electrolysis to make hydrogen for the turbine to make electricity for the electrolysis to make hydrogen for the turbine to make electricity for the electrolysis to make hydrogen for the turbine to make electricity for the electrolysis to make hydrogen for the turbine to make electricity for the electrolysis to make hydrogen for the turbine to make electricity for the electrolysis ... in a perpetual motion machine that saves humanity and the planet by violating the laws of thermodynamics, much in the same way James__ is planning to save the world with his Bessler wheel that will generate electricity for the human population merely by someone getting it started with a gentle push.

dehammer is simply clinging to a fantasy because apparently it is all he has. He does not appreciate any discussions involving actual science or math that blow holes in his fantasy.

So be it.




.
18-07-2022 04:24
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
IBdaMann wrote:
dehammer wrote: According to you, ...

That's very good. You specifically omit my words and then misrepresent what I wrote.

That's all you have. You are compelled to lash out at those who put your fragile fantasy in jeopardy. You avoid all science that puts your fragile fantasy in jeopardy. This is why your contraption doesn't adhere to science and why it can never work.

When I get a chance, I'm going to show your "idea" to actual engineers so they can have a laugh. It's more likely they will wince and feel sorry for you, but if any express any manner of hope for you or your brain fart, I'll let you know post-haste.

dehammer wrote:I imagine all those people studying dams are laughing their heads off at you.

We shall see soon enough at whom they will be laughing. Stay tuned.


Go back to your drawing board, Bill.
No, I specifically threw it back in your face what your claims would actually mean.

As I said, REAL people of knowledge laugh at your stupidity.
18-07-2022 04:30
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
IBdaMann wrote:
The hydrogen would be used as fuel for a turbine to create electricity
No, the process produces hydrogen to run the hydrogen powered fuel cell. The purpose of turning it into hydrogen is so that it can move UP the pipe. The power to run the electrolysis comes form the dams.

As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about.
18-07-2022 05:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12231)
dehammer wrote:As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about.

As usual, lashing out instead of performing due diligence and researching the necessary science.

Why do you think it is that wealthy venture capitalists aren't lining up to fund your fantasy? Any ideas? Did the world suddenly lose all desire to make a profit? Did the world suddenly lose all interest in energy generation?

Hmmmm .... I wonder what it could be ....

.
18-07-2022 07:59
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
IBdaMann wrote:
As usual, lashing out instead of performing due diligence and researching the necessary science.

Why do you think it is that wealthy venture capitalists aren't lining up to fund your fantasy? Any ideas? Did the world suddenly lose all desire to make a profit? Did the world suddenly lose all interest in energy generation?

Hmmmm .... I wonder what it could be ....

.
I do not know of any wealthy venture capitalist. Perhaps they are not lining up because they do not bother with forums that are filled with immature posters that can only tear down ideas because their minds are not big enough to see reality. People with money can not build on ideas they never hear about and no one is going to bother going through the trash you post pretending you have a brain.

You talk about doing due diligence when you can not even be bothered to try to understand what people post. Because YOUR perpetual motion machine failed, you try to destroy anything else.

Come on Michael, everyone knows you are a total failure. Do you have to keep proving that?
Edited on 18-07-2022 08:12
18-07-2022 12:21
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1911)
Andrew Twiggy forest has invested a huge pile of his money into Hydrogen generation.I did a hot plate for a chap who worked for FMG and they have 25 Hydrogen powered cars.I saw it in person.When they run low they drop them off at BOC Kewdale and grab a full one.Dehammer could you explain what you are trying to do as I do not quiet understand yet and have a week of from dealing with Gaslighter no 1 IBDm
18-07-2022 17:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12231)
duncan61 wrote:Andrew Twiggy forest has invested a huge pile of his money into Hydrogen generation.

How much of his money did he invest on hydrogen-powered perpetual motion machines?

duncan61 wrote:I did a hot plate for a chap who worked for FMG and they have 25 Hydrogen powered cars.

How many of those cars never need any sort of fuel or energy because they generate all they need on their own and generate additional energy that can be either sold for a profit or devoted to save humanity?

duncan61 wrote:Dehammer could you explain what you are trying to do as I do not quiet understand yet and have a week of from dealing with Gaslighter no 1 IBDm

Excellent question. I look forward to the answer you receive.
18-07-2022 18:36
James_
★★★★☆
(1047)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
As usual, lashing out instead of performing due diligence and researching the necessary science.

Why do you think it is that wealthy venture capitalists aren't lining up to fund your fantasy? Any ideas? Did the world suddenly lose all desire to make a profit? Did the world suddenly lose all interest in energy generation?

Hmmmm .... I wonder what it could be ....

.
I do not know of any wealthy venture capitalist. Perhaps they are not lining up because they do not bother with forums that are filled with immature posters that can only tear down ideas because their minds are not big enough to see reality. People with money can not build on ideas they never hear about and no one is going to bother going through the trash you post pretending you have a brain.

You talk about doing due diligence when you can not even be bothered to try to understand what people post. Because YOUR perpetual motion machine failed, you try to destroy anything else.

Come on Michael, everyone knows you are a total failure. Do you have to keep proving that?



For what you're proposing, do you understand the technology?
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1504262
This should help you to understand the basics of what you're pursuing.
https://phys420.phas.ubc.ca/p420_03/shane/title.htm
The H+ion would be a proton with an extra electron. I think it is just H. The OH hydroxil would have 7 electrons when it should have 9. I think it's possible that the anode is doing the actual splitting because of its charge. It takes energy to break a covalent bond. And then it can supply 2 electrons to the HO hydroxil.
If you understand the process then maybe you could do a presentation? You could explain how much water per square meter of the surface area of membrane can generate how many water molecules per second. And then convert this into gallons per minute.
And then explain how the hydrogen will be generated, you know,how much will it cost. Then the cost of the water generating station. And then the hydroelectric power plant.
And then what will it cost to produce anywhere from 1 kWh to 1 MWh of electricity.
That's what investors want to see. If you want their money then you need to show them something.
You should be able to find the information that you need online. As an example;
There are 3.04×10^26 atoms of H in 1 gal of water
Then if you divide that by 2 then multiply by 6 you'll have the number of oxygen atoms, 9.12x10^26.

Then if you consider something like Avogadro's number which is 6.02×10^23.
Then if you know the surface area of the membrane and it's relationship to reactions per second then you could use some science in your presentation.
I kind of hate to say this but the basic science seems to be missing. And it is what investors want or if you want someone to take an interest in your idea, show them something.

p.s., with Avogadro's number, it is referring to atoms and not elements. And if a person is not interested in creating a detailed outline to present to potential investors then it is up to them to build it. After all, it is their idea.

With generating hydrogen and oxygen, when 1 hydrogen element is split from H2O
then it would be attracted to the cathode simply because it is following the current
from the anode.
And since H2O's elements would be neutral if it had 2 more electrons, why it might be attracted to the anode where it is split. And because it becomes a gas, which has the greater force? The attraction of the anode or the buoyancy of the gas?
This information should help you dehammer. It is up to you to understand your own idea. And if my historical project works and I mention the work that you're pursuing, I wouldn't be able to be involved with it because it's your idea. You'd need to present it. Maybe you could learn how to do a presentation? That information is available online. What gives people's ideas value is the work that THEY put into it.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/create-a-presentation-in-powerpoint-422250f8-5721-4cea-92cc-202fa7b89617

Linux is free and this is a mini "how to";
https://shallowsky.com/linux/LinuxPresentations.html

Linux free download;
https://www.libreoffice.org/download/download/

Empower yourself by learning to use tools to give your ideas more meaning.
Edited on 18-07-2022 19:09
18-07-2022 19:29
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
James_ wrote:For what you're proposing, do you understand the technology?
Yes I do.


If you understand the process then maybe you could do a presentation?
I have tried to explain it. The initial part loses energy, but the gain from the rest makes it up. Other commenters seem to think I am trying to use the energy loss part of it to make it keep going.

The two links you gave me only discuss the energy loss part of the process, totally ignoring the energy gain part of the system.

You could explain how much water per square meter of the surface area of membrane can generate how many water molecules per second.
As I have said repeatedly, I an not someone with a high degree of knowledge. That was the reason I came here initially, hoping that someone else would share their knowledge and aid me on this.

Instead, to this point all I get is immature kids telling me that the energy loss part of the system is a energy loss. IF you want to try to discuss it, talk about the entire system, not JUST the half that is an energy loss. I know the first half is an energy loss.

In nature, the first half of the system is the suns energy heats the water, then cools the water via co2 infrared radiation, meaning it is also a energy loss. There is no real gain at this point.

BUT when that water is high, it gain potential energy. The same happens in this system. You lose electrical energy BUT you gain potential energy.


how much will it cost.
Once again, I tell you that I do not know EVERYTHING. I do not know how to determine how much this will cost. It depends on how large it is, how much the use of the mountain cost, how big the pipes are and such. How many turbines and generators does it need? How much wiring to get the electricity where it needs to go? I have not the slightest ability to know since I have no idea where it will go. I am only talking about the scientific idea.

And then what will it cost to produce anywhere from 1 kWh to 1 MWh of electricity.
How can you know until you have an idea of if it will work, then where it will be put and thousands of more questions.

It is up to you to understand your own idea.
I understand the idea, but the problem is, unlike some people here, I do not claim to know every bit of potential knowledge in the universe. There are huge gaps in my knowledge and I was under the impression that this forum was about discussing scientific ideas, rather than discussing insults the way others do.

Some people on this forum throw out scientific jargon as if they understand it, but they make it clear they do not. Unfortunately, their insults crowd this forum and make it hard to have a decent discussion with someone that actually uses their grey matter for something other than ear warmers.
18-07-2022 22:26
James_
★★★★☆
(1047)
dehammer wrote:
James_ wrote:For what you're proposing, do you understand the technology?
Yes I do.


If you understand the process then maybe you could do a presentation?
I have tried to explain it. The initial part loses energy, but the gain from the rest makes it up. Other commenters seem to think I am trying to use the energy loss part of it to make it keep going.

The two links you gave me only discuss the energy loss part of the process, totally ignoring the energy gain part of the system.

You could explain how much water per square meter of the surface area of membrane can generate how many water molecules per second.
As I have said repeatedly, I an not someone with a high degree of knowledge. That was the reason I came here initially, hoping that someone else would share their knowledge and aid me on this.

Instead, to this point all I get is immature kids telling me that the energy loss part of the system is a energy loss. IF you want to try to discuss it, talk about the entire system, not JUST the half that is an energy loss. I know the first half is an energy loss.




I never said anything about energy loss. I like an idiot threw out scientific jargon.
What was it my good friend AB Hammer told me? I can't expect anybody to build my wheel for me. I have to build it myself. And if it works then I will get credit for getting it work and that's because I did it and not someone else.
And as I mentioned, if my perpetual motion machine works, I will mention your thread. And then you can maybe talk to engineers about it? That'd be the first step in building it. You'd probably need their support.
Edited on 18-07-2022 22:52
18-07-2022 23:37
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(480)
James_ wrote:I like an idiot threw out scientific jargon.
I was very specific about it was others being the idiots. I did not want to name names, but all you have to do is look above and you will see where all they can do is throw out the jargon about laws of thermodynamics as if they understood what that means. They think that using those terms is a way of ending any conversation with them appearing to be geniuses.

I have to build it myself.
Unfortunately, as I am a disabled vet, I can not build this myself.

if my perpetual motion machine works,
This is not a perpetual motion machine.

In a perpetual motion, by definition, no energy goes in or out. IF you have BOTH energy in and energy out, it is not an enclosed system and thus not a perpetual motion machine.

Look at a real water wheel compared to a water wheel perpetual motion machine.
In the real world, you have something like a river flowing under the wheel, although some of them have water from upstream turning it. You then have a use for the potential energy created by the turning axil. Most cases in history, it was used to turn a grinding wheel to grind flour.

In a perpetual motion version, the wheel turns a pump that brings water to the top, which then turns the wheel and again turns the pump. Entropy will eventually stop the system.

What is unsaid in the first one, is that the sun heats water, which then goes into the atmosphere as clouds, and then falls as rain or snow.

This means there is an input (solar) and an output (circular motion of the axil).

The first half, i.e. the sun warming the ocean, is an energy loss.
The second half (water flowing past the wheel) is an energy gain from gravity's effects.

The same goes for my system.

The first half is an energy loss (loses 40% or more).
The second half is an energy gain (gains a minimum of 60%) from gravity's effects.

As I said, IF you look above our post, you will see people that do not even look at the second half and declare it dead because of a little bit of jargon they have heard.

IF you would like to help me with it, I would like to hear more questions and answers to questions I have.
Edited on 18-07-2022 23:38
18-07-2022 23:45
James_
★★★★☆
(1047)
dehammer wrote:
Unfortunately, as I am a disabled vet, I can not build this myself.



I'm a disabled Vet. I don't use that as an excuse not to learn or to work.
You see, you have now created a problem. You see my good friend AB Hammer has it bad. He can barely walk and doesn't have a car to drive. So if you think you have problems just know that his are worse. And he told me that I should use him as an example as someone who will never ask for help because that's not what real men do.
And yet you wouldn't want credit for thinking of using hydrogen fuel cell technology for desalination? Unless you do the work that's the only thing I can do for you and mention your thread. After all I don't know you so why should I take your word for it? And since I don't know you, I have my own life to live with people who I know who they are and not some random stranger on the internet.
Edited on 18-07-2022 23:48
18-07-2022 23:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:What makes you think he created the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you are obviously so desperate to ignore??????!?
Never said he did,

Yes you did, liar.
dehammer wrote:
but the fact that he very obviously does not understand it shows that all he is doing is throwing out wasted words.

LIF. You are describing yourself.
dehammer wrote:
I am not ignoring it at all.

Yes you are. You are ignoring both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
dehammer wrote:
What that laws says that in any enclosed system, the energy will gradually decrease over time.

Nope. Not what the law says.

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where ' e' is entropy, and 't' is time.

dehammer wrote:
It does not matter if you are talking about a perpetual motion machine, a solar system, or a universe, the answer is the same. Eventually all energy will be lost to entropy.

You cannot destroy or create energy. Entropy is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
So, IF you build a car, according to YOUR supposed understanding of it, it will stop moving as soon as you stop adding energy to it, right.

You cannot create energy.
dehammer wrote:
So if you have it on a hill it will stop at the bottom even if it has gas?

It will stop wherever you stop it.
dehammer wrote:
No, as long as you continue to add energy to the system, it will continue to run.

You cannot create energy.
dehammer wrote:
This system runs because you add gas and burn it.
Of course, as soon as the car runs out of gas, it does come to a stop.

Eventually.
dehammer wrote:
The system I an using is adding energy FROM GRAVITY.

Gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
Just like energy that is stored in water above a lake, i.e. potential energy, can create electricity as it flows through a dam, so can water flowing down a pipe 250-350 feet above a turbine.

Gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
P = m x g x Hnet x η

Random equations won't help you.
dehammer wrote:
Assuming you have a 75% efficiency system (common small hydro system) and if you multiple the head (250 feet) by .9, you get a net head of 225 feet.

Now if you have 3000 liters per second (1 liter weighs 1kg) you get 3000 kg/s

Now remember that gravity on earth is 9.81m/s

Gravity is not a speed.
dehammer wrote:
So power would be 3,000 x 9.81 x 225 x 0.751 = 4972900 W = 4970 kW FOR ONE TURBINE.

If you have 40 of these running from the top to the bottom, you add 198 MEGAWATTS to the system per second.

You cannot create energy.
dehammer wrote:
In an hour, it would produce 712,800mw hours. The energy needed to electrolyze the water would be 540000mw. IF you gained 60% of that back from a hydrogen fuel cell, the energy cost would be 216000mw, for a gain of 496800mw.

198Mw * 40 is not 712.8mw.
Watts is not watt-hours. Unit error.
dehammer wrote:
OF course 3000 liters per second would be massive, and a 10000 foot drop would be expensive to build on. But once it was build, it would produce power for a very long time, with only a small amount of money needed for maintenance.

TANSTAAFL. Perpetual motion machines of the 2nd order don't work.
dehammer wrote:
So go ahead and prattle on about enclosed systems, and ignore reality. You have shown yourself to understand little of actual science.

LIF. You are describing yourself. You can't project YOUR problems on anybody else.
dehammer wrote:
Anyone can throw around words, but understanding them is something else entirely.

LIF. Word games.


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 18-07-2022 23:53
18-07-2022 23:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What water?????!? You burned away the hydrogen! You can't use the hydrogen twice!!!
I will try to use small words and sentences for you.

IF the hydrogen fuel cell was 10000 feet above the base (we are talking about a hypothetical vertical mountain here), and the water came out the fuel cell, the water would be 10000 feet up.

No hydrogen. You to pump it 10,000 ft up. You'll need oxygen too.
dehammer wrote:
Now if the pipe dropped 250 feet, the base of that pipe would be at 97500 feet.

IF it had a turbine at the base of that pipe, the turbine would have a head water of 250 feet.

IF it came out of the turbine and into a second pool, which was connected to a second pipe, that was 250 feet long that pipe would also have a head water of 250 feet. IF the second pipe had another turbine at 95000 feet, it would also produce electricity.

IF you had 38 more units of pools, pipe and turbine, the water would go down 10000 feet over several hours.

Denial of Kirchoff's law. All series resistances sum into one resistance.

You still are ignoring the hydrogen you have to make and get pumped up to 10,000 ft.


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
18-07-2022 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Physics errors:
1) You can't ignore Kirchoff's law either. Forty lengths of 250 feet of pipe has the same resistance as one 10000 length of the same diameter pipe.
2) There is no magick barrier at 550 feet for potential energy.
3) You are attempt to use water and gas twice.
4) You cannot decrease entropy...ever.
5) You cannot create or destroy energy...ever.


Obviously you are not paying attention.
1)yes, the resistance is the same, flow of the water against the pipe causes it to lose the pressure lower.

So why have multiple generating stations?
dehammer wrote:
2)YOU are forgetting the 2nd law.

LIF. You can't project YOUR problems on me or anybody else. An inversion is a fallacy, dude.
dehammer wrote:
3) yes, I am using the water FOURTY TIMES because the higher you go, the more energy you lose to friction.

Paradox. You cannot accept and deny Kirchoff's law at the same time.
dehammer wrote:
I only use the gas once.

That has friction in the pipe too. How are you pumping the hydrogen up the mountain? How are you generating sufficient hydrogen. Your system doesn't produce sufficient power.
dehammer wrote:
4) so adding gasoline to a car does not get it to move again?

No.
dehammer wrote:
5) I am not creating or destroying energy, only using what is there.

You are attempting to destroy energy into nothing, and you are attempting to create energy out of nothing. Not possible.
dehammer wrote:

Allow me to give you a real life example.

The Columbia River watershed has SIXTY dams in it.

The Columbia river has 14 dams on it.
dehammer wrote:
According to your fake logic,

There is no such thing as 'fake logic'. Buzzword fallacy. Logic is not science or engineering. Redefinition fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
only the first dam could make electricity, but MOST of them do.

Word stuffing. I never said any such thing.
dehammer wrote:
In fact, the primary purpose of most of them was to produce electricity.

No. The primary purpose was to control the river and provide irrigation water.
dehammer wrote:
So, either all but one of those dams does not produce electricity, or your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is full of cow droppings.

Word stuffing. No, you cannot get away with putting words in anyone's mouth. LIF


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 19-07-2022 00:09
19-07-2022 00:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
duncan61 wrote:
An electrolyzer is a system that uses electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen in a process called electrolysis.Thats what we call it here


Okay. You have defined this word. Remember that YOU defined it.


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
19-07-2022 00:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
dehammer wrote: According to you, ...

That's very good. You specifically omit my words and then misrepresent what I wrote.

That's all you have. You are compelled to lash out at those who put your fragile fantasy in jeopardy. You avoid all science that puts your fragile fantasy in jeopardy. This is why your contraption doesn't adhere to science and why it can never work.

When I get a chance, I'm going to show your "idea" to actual engineers so they can have a laugh. It's more likely they will wince and feel sorry for you, but if any express any manner of hope for you or your brain fart, I'll let you know post-haste.

dehammer wrote:I imagine all those people studying dams are laughing their heads off at you.

We shall see soon enough at whom they will be laughing. Stay tuned.


Go back to your drawing board, Bill.
No, I specifically threw it back in your face what your claims would actually mean.

As I said, REAL people of knowledge laugh at your stupidity.

Word stuffing, liar.


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
19-07-2022 00:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The hydrogen would be used as fuel for a turbine to create electricity
No, the process produces hydrogen to run the hydrogen powered fuel cell. The purpose of turning it into hydrogen is so that it can move UP the pipe. The power to run the electrolysis comes form the dams.

As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about.


Hydrogen isn't going to move up the pipe unless you pump it.
You are not producing enough power to make sufficient hydrogen. Oh...you STILL need to pump it up the mountain.

Discard of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and Kirchoff's law.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't decrease entropy.
* You can't ignore friction in a pipe, any pipe. That includes the one carrying hydrogen.


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
19-07-2022 00:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
As usual, lashing out instead of performing due diligence and researching the necessary science.

Why do you think it is that wealthy venture capitalists aren't lining up to fund your fantasy? Any ideas? Did the world suddenly lose all desire to make a profit? Did the world suddenly lose all interest in energy generation?

Hmmmm .... I wonder what it could be ....

.
I do not know of any wealthy venture capitalist. Perhaps they are not lining up because they do not bother with forums that are filled with immature posters that can only tear down ideas because their minds are not big enough to see reality.

Insult fallacies. Buzzword fallacy. The word 'reality' to you is just a meaningless buzzword you are using as some kind of proof. I asked you to define 'reality'. You never did.
dehammer wrote:
People with money can not build on ideas they never hear about and no one is going to bother going through the trash you post pretending you have a brain.

Insult fallacies.
dehammer wrote:
You talk about doing due diligence

He is correct for asking you to do so.
dehammer wrote:
when you can not even be bothered to try to understand what people post.

He understands what you are posting, despite your buzzwords. Indeed, he understands it far better than you yourself, as do I.
dehammer wrote:
Because YOUR perpetual motion machine failed, you try to destroy anything else.

He isn't building a perpetual motion machine and never tried to.
dehammer wrote:
Come on Michael, everyone knows you are a total failure.
Do you have to keep proving that?

Who is Michael?? Do you have an imaginary person you talk to as well?


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
19-07-2022 00:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
duncan61 wrote:
Andrew Twiggy forest has invested a huge pile of his money into Hydrogen generation.I did a hot plate for a chap who worked for FMG and they have 25 Hydrogen powered cars.I saw it in person.When they run low they drop them off at BOC Kewdale and grab a full one.


Hydrogen cars are popular in the SDTC as well, especially in the southern portion. There are a few issues about them:

1) ALL the hydrogen must be manufactured. That makes it expensive.
2) Shipping liquid hydrogen is even more dangerous than shipping gasoline.
3) There are very few hydrogen filling stations. Hydrogen cars are lined up for their chance at the pump. Often wait times stretch into 3-4 hours.
4) Fueling the car is slow. It's also quite capable of freezing the nozzle to the car, taking up to a half hour to thaw. You can't use heaters to hasten the process. Hydrogen is a dangerous fuel.
5) The fuel tanks on a hydrogen car have to be built extremely tough. These tanks must withstand 4000psi. Because of the dangerous pressures involved, these tanks MUST be inspected and pressure tested yearly in most jurisdictions. This takes the car out of service while the tank is inspected, pressure tested, drained, and vacuumed so it can accept hydrogen again EACH YEAR.
6) The power produced by the fuel cell isn't instant. It takes a bit of time for the fuel cell to 'spool up', so to speak. Batteries are used to assist in acceleration until the fuel cell can come up to handle that demand (including recharging said batteries).
7) The power produced by the fuel cell is excessive during deceleration or coasting. The only way to get rid of that power without damaging the fuel cell is to use a large resistor (which MUST be mounted away from that hydrogen tank!). Most hydrogen car designs use a water cooled resistor and a small radiator assembly to dissipate the thermal energy.
8) They are more expensive than a gasoline car of the same size.
9) Cross country use is not very practical due to the limited number of refueling stations and typical long wait times at stations that do exist.

If your investor wants to deal with all that, it's HIS wallet, not mine. A fool and his money are soon parted.
duncan61 wrote:
Dehammer could you explain what you are trying to do as I do not quiet understand yet and have a week of from dealing with Gaslighter no 1 IBDm

He is trying to generate more energy than he is using through the use of a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.

I see you are still claiming that you are insane. Perhaps you had better cease using that 'gaslighter' term. It doesn't mean what you think it means.


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 19-07-2022 00:41
19-07-2022 00:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
James_ wrote:For what you're proposing, do you understand the technology?
Yes I do.


If you understand the process then maybe you could do a presentation?
I have tried to explain it. The initial part loses energy, but the gain from the rest makes it up. Other commenters seem to think I am trying to use the energy loss part of it to make it keep going.

The gain won't make it up. You can't create energy out of nothing. You can't reduce entropy.
TANSTAAFL.
dehammer wrote:
The two links you gave me only discuss the energy loss part of the process, totally ignoring the energy gain part of the system.

You are describing yourself again.
dehammer wrote:
You could explain how much water per square meter of the surface area of membrane can generate how many water molecules per second.
As I have said repeatedly, I an not someone with a high degree of knowledge.

Obviously.
dehammer wrote:
That was the reason I came here initially, hoping that someone else would share their knowledge and aid me on this.

You have to justify building a perpetual motion machine first.
dehammer wrote:
Instead, to this point all I get is immature kids telling me that the energy loss part of the system is a energy loss.

It is. You deny the energy loss part of the system is energy loss??????!?
dehammer wrote:
IF you want to try to discuss it, talk about the entire system, not JUST the half that is an energy loss. I know the first half is an energy loss.

Take your own advice. LIF. It is YOU that is talking about only half the system and ignoring the other.
dehammer wrote:
In nature, the first half of the system is the suns energy heats the water, then cools the water via co2 infrared radiation,

CO2 does not cool water or anything else.
dehammer wrote:
meaning it is also a energy loss.

No. That's an energy GAIN.
dehammer wrote:
There is no real gain at this point.

The water is heated. That is an energy GAIN.
dehammer wrote:
BUT when that water is high, it gain potential energy.

and not usable.
dehammer wrote:
The same happens in this system. You lose electrical energy BUT you gain potential energy.

...and not usable.
dehammer wrote:
how much will it cost.
Once again, I tell you that I do not know
EVERYTHING. I do not know how to determine how much this will cost. It depends on how large it is, how much the use of the mountain cost, how big the pipes are and such. How many turbines and generators does it need? How much wiring to get the electricity where it needs to go? I have not the slightest ability to know since I have no idea where it will go. I am only talking about the scientific idea.

You are discarding science. There is no scientific idea coming from you. You are discarding the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and Kirchoff's law.
dehammer wrote:
And then what will it cost to produce anywhere from 1 kWh to 1 MWh of electricity.
How can you know until you have an idea of if it will work, then where it will be put and thousands of more questions.

It will not produce enough electricity to make the hydrogen required to make the electricity.
dehammer wrote:
It is up to you to understand your own idea.
I understand the idea, but the problem is, unlike some people here, I do not claim to know every bit of potential knowledge in the universe.

No is claiming they know the entire universe. Word stuffing.
dehammer wrote:
There are huge gaps in my knowledge and I was under the impression that this forum was about discussing scientific ideas,

Science isn't ideas. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Discarding theories of science is not discussing science at all.
dehammer wrote:
rather than discussing insults the way others do.

LIF. You are describing yourself again.
dehammer wrote:
Some people on this forum throw out scientific jargon as if they understand it,

Science isn't jargon. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You can't falsify the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics that way!
dehammer wrote:
but they make it clear they do not.

LIF
dehammer wrote:
Unfortunately, their insults crowd this forum and make it hard to have a decent discussion with someone that actually uses their grey matter for something other than ear warmers.

LIF

You can't lay YOUR problems on anyone else, dude.


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
19-07-2022 01:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
dehammer wrote:
James_ wrote:I like an idiot threw out scientific jargon.
I was very specific about it was others being the idiots. I did not want to name names, but all you have to do is look above and you will see where all they can do is throw out the jargon about laws of thermodynamics as if they understood what that means.

LIF. You are describing yourself again.
dehammer wrote:
They think that using those terms is a way of ending any conversation with them appearing to be geniuses.

LIF. You are describing yourself again.
dehammer wrote:
I have to build it myself.
Unfortunately, as I am a disabled vet, I can not build this myself.

Ah. So you're a whiner, like James is.
dehammer wrote:
if my perpetual motion machine works,
This is not a perpetual motion machine.

It is a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.
dehammer wrote:
In a perpetual motion, by definition, no energy goes in or out.

Not the definition of perpetual motion or perpetual motion machine.
dehammer wrote:
IF you have BOTH energy in and energy out, it is not an enclosed system

It is.
dehammer wrote:
and thus not a perpetual motion machine.

It is.
dehammer wrote:
Look at a real water wheel compared to a water wheel perpetual motion machine.

You cannot use a water wheel to run a water wheel to pump water back up for the first one. That is a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order.
dehammer wrote:
In the real world, you have something like a river flowing under the wheel, although some of them have water from upstream turning it. You then have a use for the potential energy created by the turning axil. Most cases in history, it was used to turn a grinding wheel to grind flour.

In a perpetual motion version, the wheel turns a pump that brings water to the top, which then turns the wheel and again turns the pump. Entropy will eventually stop the system.

It will never start.
dehammer wrote:
What is unsaid in the first one, is that the sun heats water, which then goes into the atmosphere as clouds, and then falls as rain or snow.

This means there is an input (solar) and an output (circular motion of the axil).

Your machine does not use the Sun. False equivalence fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
The first half, i.e. the sun warming the ocean, is an energy loss.

That is energy GAIN.
dehammer wrote:
The second half (water flowing past the wheel) is an energy gain from gravity's effects.

That is energy LOSS.
dehammer wrote:
The same goes for my system.

Nope. Your system does not use the Sun to power it.
dehammer wrote:
The first half is an energy loss (loses 40% or more).
The second half is an energy gain (gains a minimum of 60%) from gravity's effects.

Argument from randU fallacy. Making up numbers won't help you. Gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
As I said, IF you look above our post, you will see people that do not even look at the second half and declare it dead because of a little bit of jargon they have heard.

Lie. YOU are ignoring the first half. You can't generate enough electricity to generate sufficient hydrogen to keep generating the electricity. It takes MORE energy to produce the hydrogen then you get from your fuel cell and falling water.

TANSTAAFL.

* You can't create energy out of nothing. You can't ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics.
* You can't reduce entropy. You can't ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* You can't create additional energy out of separating. You can't ignore Kirchoff's law.


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
19-07-2022 01:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18983)
James_ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Unfortunately, as I am a disabled vet, I can not build this myself.



I'm a disabled Vet. I don't use that as an excuse not to learn or to work.

Lie.
James_ wrote:
You see, you have now created a problem. You see my good friend AB Hammer has it bad. He can barely walk and doesn't have a car to drive. So if you think you have problems just know that his are worse. And he told me that I should use him as an example as someone who will never ask for help because that's not what real men do.

You are BOTH asking for help, liar.
James_ wrote:
And yet you wouldn't want credit for thinking of using hydrogen fuel cell technology for desalination? Unless you do the work that's the only thing I can do for you and mention your thread. After all I don't know you so why should I take your word for it? And since I don't know you, I have my own life to live with people who I know who they are and not some random stranger on the internet.

Electrolysis IS desalination. Remember the salt left behind is a problem.


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
19-07-2022 01:46
James_
★★★★☆
(1047)
dehammer, as far as your idea goes, I never commented one way or the other if it could work.
And it is something that you will not be involved with when it comes to doing the work.
Let's play the what if game. What if it could actually work, what then? It'd only have any value if people wanted to talk with you about it. You know, TV interviews and public appearances. And then if you were a good Christian you could've said how the Lord had something to do with it. Then everyone would've loved you and you would've been really popular.
And with me, you were doing it for money so you need to be able to do the work. After all, no one is willing to help me and yet I was willing to help you. And with work I want to do, it is to improve the hydrogen generating process. What could make that economical which then might mean cheaper water as well. But you weren't concerned with if the process is economical.
And with what you were suggesting, it would take years of research and development. Why not start with something practical and affordable? If you weren't greedy you might've had a good opportunity, you know, made a name for yourself.
19-07-2022 01:53
James_
★★★★☆
(1047)
Into the Night wrote:

Electrolysis IS desalination. Remember the salt left behind is a problem.


And yet the brine solution could be trucked to settling ponds (for evaporation) in the desert. Then it could be sold as sea salt which it is. Either that or for roads in winter.
19-07-2022 04:25
James_
★★★★☆
(1047)
dehammer, this is my website; http://climate-cycling.com/
With a working perpetual motion machine I'll be able to make it known as well as your thread.
Scientists might not want to work with me or have any interest in this because I am not a scientist. At the same time I cite a few different research papers and do quote them while attributing credit to the authors of those papers.
At the same time I will have other things I can do for work so I won't be dependent on receiving any income from my work. At the same time I might be creating a new field in science but I don't need the fame. I need to be allowed to have a life.
And all of this could help me to leave the U.S. If Americans would've been willing to work with me then things would've been much different. Could you imagine if the church would've helped me to have surgery and then let me continue on with my interests? They would've looked good witnessing Jesus but they said my problem wasn't their problem.
Then again with Bessler's Wheel and the energy shortage in Europe, might turn out to be a valuable discovery. Could you imagine how a group of people working together would look instead of my saying Americans led attacks against me because scientists say that conservation of momentum is not possible because momentum = mv while kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2.
Basically anything that has momentum has energy. Of course people can ignore science and say that conservation of momentum violates the laws of thermodynamics. And yet if successful my atmospheric chemistry experiment would involve conservation of momentum and then if Bessler's Wheel is an economical power source then it might help to improve hydrogen generation.
But I have to go it alone because I live in the U.S.

p.s., edited to add, to pursue generating a flow of water, the surface area of the membrane might need to be the size of a football field. And then the water generated might be so little as to not be practical. This is where a more efficient membrane might be needed for using it for desalination.
At the same time that is a start and is what could encourage more research to be done. It is like with the atmospheric science that I'm pursuing, I understand it. And if I'm right about that then maybe I do know something.
Edited on 19-07-2022 04:39
19-07-2022 05:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12231)
dehammer wrote:Once again, I tell you that I do not know EVERYTHING.

It's funny how quickly that changes the moment someone tries to point out an error in your brain-fart "design." Suddenly you do know EVERYTHING and cannot possibly be mistaken.

What's also funny is that you are here on this site pitching your brain-fart, yet when you were asked why there aren't venture capitalists lining up to bankroll the production of your design (whereby you wouldn't have to do any work), your response was to blame this site as a poor place to pitch something.

Let's recap:

A. You are pitching a perpetual motion machine on Climate-Debate.
B. You think it's totally plausible because you have no understanding of the science (i.e. thermodynamics) that explains why it cannot work.
C. You are simply living out a desperate fantasy of roleplaying a revolutionary, ground-breaking science genius, who is terribly misunderstood and totally underappreciated, who is going to "thave the wuurld!" by creating infinite energy and thereby solve the world's problems.
D. Because your contraption cannot work, the specific details are irrelevant; nonetheless, you imagine you can use the hydrogen from electrolysis to fuel turbines that will produce sufficient electricity to continue the electrolysis and continue the operation of the turbines indefinitely, i.e. a perpetual motion machine.
E. As a bonus, your contraption will magically produce much additional energy beyond what is needed to keep the turbines running in perpetuity. All of this additional energy will be philanthropically distributed to all the planet's people in need. It brings a tear to my eye the extent to which you love your fellow man and how you care so very, very much. You should be awarded an Olympic gold medal for the world record strength of character you have demonstrated. Guiness should log you in the book of records.
F. Because you are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent, you are slow to notice that others recognize your perpetual motion machine right away for what it is, and quickly surmise the fantasy you are roleplaying. You are doomed to an existence of not understanding why your brain-fart won't work or why nobody is rushing to be associated with it.

You should hire a cameraman to follow you around and capture on video the moment you have your epiphany and suddenly realize all of this. You'll want to include that video in the list of lessons you teach your grandchildren when you explain "Kids, don't do what I have done." You'd probably get a lot of subscribers and get monetized.

.
19-07-2022 06:02
James_
★★★★☆
(1047)
A link to research being done on using fuel cell technology to generate both power and drinking water. This is where lowering the cost of energy could allow for more research and development.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319910024146
Page 12 of 16<<<1011121314>>>





Join the debate Gravity fed electrical generation system:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
Many Big Ideas For Global Currencies Using Rules In The Current World Financial System010-08-2022 09:51
How The New Global World Economic Financial System Will Be130-07-2022 19:47
▲ 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