Gravity fed electrical generation system

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Technology > Gravity fed electrical generation system

Page 1 of 16

Gravity fed electrical generation system25-04-2019 05:44
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	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.
25-04-2019 18:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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. Spam. This device is a perpetual motion machine. 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
25-04-2019 19:53
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	So your saying that the hoover dam is a perpetual motion machine? A perpetual motion machine has no input or output. This has both. The input is gravity, just like the hoover dam. The output is electricity, just like the hoover dam. The only difference is that this uses electricity and SPECIFIC gravity to replace solar. Imagine this. You have a 10000 foot mountain near an ocean. On the opposite side of the mountain is a desert. You electrolysis water and turn it into hydrogen and oxygen. IF there is nothing to contain them they will just spread out in the atmosphere like all gases. BUT if there is a pair of tubes with NO atmosphere, they will begin to fill it. Water will find its on level, meaning that it will always fill the lowest part of a system. Gases will fill any contain that you give them from bottom to top. The more gas the more the pressure. Lighter gases will rise to the top of the container. That is why when you have a hot air balloon, it doesn't have to be sealed. The hot air rises to the top of the balloon then fills it out. Because the hotter air is lighter than regular air, the balloon will rise into the atmosphere. In much the same way, the hydrogen and oxygen rises to the pipe. It doesn't matter how high the pipes are, if you continue to put more hydrogen and oxygen in them, eventually, they will fill up. MEANING that if the pipes are to the top of a 10000 foot mountain, that will have the gas available at the top. This does not mean the pressure in the pipe will be equal at the top as the bottom, but it does mean that if you put 100 psi at the bottom, you will have the majority of it at the top. Note that 1 atmosphere is only 32 psi at sea level. Then you burn the gas at the top of the mountain and it becomes water. To be precise its water plus heat, which is where a lot of the energy used to sperate it is lost. A modern hydrogen fuel cell can recover 60% of that energy. Now this is where you are likely not seeing the truth. There is a difference in the SPECIFIC gravity of water and the gases. As a result when you change the form (water to gases) you can use gravity as an energy source by increasing the potential energy of the water. When it is at the top of the mountain it has all that potential energy. Then you use gravity to pull it down and put pressure on the turbine. This converts the potential energy into electricity. I do not the exact distance that would be best. I would guess it would be about 250 foot. IF this is true, then you have 40 lengths to create electricity in. Edited on 25-04-2019 20:17
25-04-2019 20:28
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	Please do not post if you can not think it though. It requires some of the electricity that it generates from gravity to run it.
25-04-2019 20:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: Please do not post if you can not think it though. It requires some of the electricity that it generates from gravity to run it. It requires more electricity than is provided from the gravity to run it, dude. It is YOU that is not thinking things through. Perpetual motion machines violate the laws of thermodynamics. 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

25-04-2019 21:06
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Been trying to visualize this, but not really seeing how it overcomes the many places energy is lost. You'll need electricity to separate the water, quite a lot to make enough gas to fill a couple of very long tubes. You're going to lose some energy to heat during electrolysis. Would be interesting to see if it wouldn't be more economical, to simply pump the water. You need to provide a spark, to burn the gasses, which I'd guess would power a generator, where you would get electricity, water, and more heat (which is more energy lost). The steam/water vapor, would need to condense, for gravity to use it to turn a turbine, to generate more electricity. You'd need a good volume of water, to generate much electricity this way. There is some mechanical losses, at the turbine, also some friction, more heat loss. This is just an over unity scheme, where you get more energy out, then you put in to get it started. Nothing works that way, Laws of Physics are pretty clear. The electrolysis part will be troublesome, the electrodes don't last for ever. Pure water is a poor conductor, need to add an electrolyte. Salt water is brutal, not to mention the minerals are left behind, and will change the reaction rate. You'd have to actively monitor and adjust the current, or burn it up quick. Generally, a device is only as efficient as it's weakest component. You are talking about 40-60%, which I've got a hunch 40% to be generous. Considering you need to transmit the electricity. For DC currents, the wire will take sum, due to the resistance. You'll lose some converting to AC, but you can transmit further, with less lost. in the 1970s, there was an oil crisis, and a huge push for alternatives. If this idea even remotely held promise, it would have been built. People were scared, and wanted a backup plan real bad.
25-04-2019 22:01
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	HarveyH55 wrote: You'll need electricity to separate the water, quite a lot to make enough gas to fill a couple of very long tubes. Yes, there would be a lot of energy needed but it would not have to be done all from the beginning. Lets start with the beginning. You would not want to have the pipes all the way to the top of the 10000 foot tall mountain. Would you run the pipes all the way without valves? No, you would not. As I said the break even point it at around 400 to 575 feet. You bring in electricity to electrolysis the water to fill the pipes for 750 feet. At this point you put the fuel cell there. You also carry the water to that point to get it started. At this point you have a turbine at the bottom, at 250 feet and at 500 feet. You also lay your pipe to the 1000 foot mark. The way they keep the gas from escaping it to put a ball the size of the pipe. As the pressure of the gas increases it pushes the ball to the 1000 foot mark. The reason it is putting more gas out, is that it only takes the 575 foot to balance and everything from beyond that is producing more energy than you need. Since you are not removing this, it goes to produce more hydrogen and oxygen. When the ball gets to the top, you move your fuel cell up to the 1000 mark and repeat. You're going to lose some energy to heat during electrolysis. When they state that the efficiency of the hydrogen fuel cell is 60% that is saying that if you take x amount of hydrogen and run it through the fuel cell, then electrolyze water, you will have 60% of the hydrogen you started with. That takes into account ALL the losses. Would be interesting to see if it wouldn't be more economical, to simply pump the water. No, because you would only get about 50% of the energy back. It would take energy to pump something against gravity and due to all the losses you would lose at least half of the energy. In addition, you have friction with the pipe, both with the water falling and the water rising. The same is true of this system. There is a loss due to the gas flowing upwards, and the water flowing downwards due to friction. The fuel cell is only 60% efficient meaning that by itself it can only produce 60% of the hydrogen it needs to run. The 40% could be made up in about 300 feet, but then there is also the loss due to friction to take into account. I have no doubt that in the real world there would be more losses that I have not taken into account which is why there is such a wide range in the height requirement. That said, it does not require infinite energy to electrolysis the water, which means that it can be recovered from gravity. You need to provide a spark, to burn the gasses, which I'd guess would power a generator, where you would get electricity, water, and more heat (which is more energy lost). The steam/water vapor, would need to condense, for gravity to use it to turn a turbine, to generate more electricity. You'd need a good volume of water, to generate much electricity this way. This is why I talk about using fuel cells instead of boilers and motors. While it might be more efficient with a small system to use a motor, or a boiler, and in both cases there are systems to capture SOME of the loss heat, it is better in a larger system to use a hydrogen fuel cell and try to capture some of the loss heat. You might gain an extra 5% of energy, but it might just go into power the condenser. Either way, yes you would lose some of the energy from heat. There is some mechanical losses, at the turbine, also some friction, more heat loss. Again, this is accounted for with the range of height needed to break even. ...where you get more energy out, then you put in to get it started. Quite the contrary. You are claiming that gravity is not an energy. IF gravity is not useable as an energy source, dams such as Hoover can not possibly produce energy. Yet they do. Nothing works that way, Laws of Physics are pretty clear. Quite agree. The difference is you only see electricity as a separate type of energy, and are ignoring the most basic energy source: GRAVITY. The electrolysis part will be troublesome, the electrodes don't last for ever. Pure water is a poor conductor, need to add an electrolyte. Salt water is brutal, not to mention the minerals are left behind, and will change the reaction rate. You'd have to actively monitor and adjust the current, or burn it up quick. Minor details. No motor is going to work for ever without maintenance. Generally, a device is only as efficient as it's weakest component. You are talking about 40-60%, which I've got a hunch 40% to be generous. If you research hydrogen fuel cells, they use the 60% efficiency figure. IF you notice I have separated that out as one side and added extra for many other losses. Considering you need to transmit the electricity. For DC currents, the wire will take sum, due to the resistance. You'll lose some converting to AC, but you can transmit further, with less lost. Again, this would not be greater than the energy produced. in the 1970s, there was an oil crisis, and a huge push for alternatives. If this idea even remotely held promise, it would have been built. People were scared, and wanted a backup plan real bad. By 1979, the oil crisis was a forgotten bad dream. I don't know if you lived though it or not as I did, but the crisis happened in the early 1970's, and this was at the end. By the late 1970's people were talking about global warming. The problem was their solution was to give power to a small group, via giving the government total control over the energy sectors and people giving up their rights and freedoms. People laughed at them. But that was not the entire plot. They have spent the last 50 years teaching propaganda to children so that the children now believe their only chance is to give up their freedoms and right. This was put out at a time when there was a reason to get off fossil fuels AND time to do it before their predicted dooms day. Now they are telling us that if we do not do something in the next few years it will be too late. Here is something that can be done, but no one wants it. It is a lot cheaper than nuclear, with no waste. It is cheaper and more reliable than wind or solar, and again, no waste. IF done correctly, such as the example I have given before, about the desert, the water could be used to turn a desert into farmland. Yet again, instead of doing something about the supposedly looming disaster, they simply demand we give up our rights and freedoms instead of fixing the problems.
25-04-2019 23:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: You'll need electricity to separate the water, quite a lot to make enough gas to fill a couple of very long tubes. Yes, there would be a lot of energy needed but it would not have to be done all from the beginning. You are denying Kirchoff's law here. Wups. dehammer wrote: Lets start with the beginning. You would not want to have the pipes all the way to the top of the 10000 foot tall mountain. Would you run the pipes all the way without valves? No, you would not. Valves add more resistance to the flow. The resistance of a pipe, any pipe, is dependent on it's diameter (fatter pipes are less resistant) and length (resistance sums per foot). Inserting valves does not reduce the total resistance. It increases it. dehammer wrote: As I said the break even point it at around 400 to 575 feet. There is no break even point. The device is a perpetual motion machine. Length of pipe is irrelevant. dehammer wrote: You bring in electricity to electrolysis the water to fill the pipes for 750 feet. Where from? You said this thing produces power, not requires power to run it! dehammer wrote: At this point you put the fuel cell there. Why not? Anywhere you put it, it is the same. dehammer wrote: You also carry the water to that point to get it started. That takes energy, dude. Where's THAT energy coming from? dehammer wrote: At this point you have a turbine at the bottom, at 250 feet and at 500 feet. Why not? Again, anywhere you put it, is the same perpetual motion machine. dehammer wrote: You also lay your pipe to the 1000 foot mark. The way they keep the gas from escaping it to put a ball the size of the pipe. As the pressure of the gas increases it pushes the ball to the 1000 foot mark. Now you want to plug the pipe with a ball??? What do you think that will do to the resistance presented by the pipe? dehammer wrote: The reason it is putting more gas out, is that it only takes the 575 foot to balance There is no balance. You are creating energy out of nothing. So far, all that you have described consumes energy, it doesn't produce it. dehammer wrote: and everything from beyond that is producing more energy than you need. From where? dehammer wrote: Since you are not removing this, it goes to produce more hydrogen and oxygen. It doesn't produce enough to keep your magickal machine going. dehammer wrote: When the ball gets to the top, you move your fuel cell up to the 1000 mark and repeat. That takes energy. Where's THAT energy coming from?? dehammer wrote: When they state that the efficiency of the hydrogen fuel cell is 60% that is saying that if you take x amount of hydrogen and run it through the fuel cell, then electrolyze water, you will have 60% of the hydrogen you started with. That takes into account ALL the losses. Assuming this random number, where does the rest of the hydrogen come from to keep the thing going? You will run out of hydrogen! dehammer wrote: No, because you would only get about 50% of the energy back. It would take energy to pump something against gravity and due to all the losses you would lose at least half of the energy. But it does show you can't just create energy out of nothing that way. The same is true of your magickal machine. dehammer wrote: In addition, you have friction with the pipe, both with the water falling and the water rising. Correct. That friction produces heat, which is energy lost from the machine. dehammer wrote: The same is true of this system. There is a loss due to the gas flowing upwards, and the water flowing downwards due to friction. The fuel cell is only 60% efficient meaning that by itself it can only produce 60% of the hydrogen it needs to run. Fuel cells don't produce hydrogen. They consume hydrogen. dehammer wrote: The 40% could be made up in about 300 feet, Distance is not energy! dehammer wrote: but then there is also the loss due to friction to take into account. Correct. So far, you are consuming a lot of energy, to run this magickal machine. dehammer wrote: I have no doubt that in the real world there would be more losses that I have not taken into account which is why there is such a wide range in the height requirement. Height is irrelevant. It takes more energy to produce the required hydrogen and oxygen to run the machine, regardless of height. dehammer wrote: That said, it does not require infinite energy to electrolysis the water, which means that it can be recovered from gravity. No, it doesn't take infinite energy. No one ever said it did. It does, however, take MORE energy to produce the hydrogen and oxygen than you will get by running it through a fuel cell. dehammer wrote: This is why I talk about using fuel cells instead of boilers and motors. Makes no difference. dehammer wrote: While it might be more efficient with a small system to use a motor, or a boiler, and in both cases there are systems to capture SOME of the loss heat, it is better in a larger system to use a hydrogen fuel cell and try to capture some of the loss heat. You might gain an extra 5% of energy, but it might just go into power the condenser. Either way, yes you would lose some of the energy from heat. You have a condenser now?? What does it do?? dehammer wrote: Quite the contrary. You are claiming that gravity is not an energy. Gravity is not energy. It is a force. dehammer wrote: IF gravity is not useable as an energy source, dams such as Hoover can not possibly produce energy. Yet they do. WRONG. Hoover dam works because it is solar power. It is nothing more than a way to tap the power of the Sun. dehammer wrote: If you research hydrogen fuel cells, they use the 60% efficiency figure. IF you notice I have separated that out as one side and added extra for many other losses. Solar cell efficiency ratings are for the cell itself. It does not require any attachments or devices to be added to obtain this rating. You do not know how this rating is determined or what it actually means. dehammer wrote: Again, this would not be greater than the energy produced. Yes it would. You can't create energy out of nothing. dehammer wrote: By 1979, the oil crisis was a forgotten bad dream. I don't know if you lived though it or not as I did, but the crisis happened in the early 1970's, and this was at the end. Yup. About the time people started patenting these wacko ideas. dehammer wrote: By the late 1970's people were talking about global warming. The problem was their solution was to give power to a small group, via giving the government total control over the energy sectors and people giving up their rights and freedoms. People laughed at them. Attempting to implement socialism is no laughing matter. dehammer wrote: But that was not the entire plot. They have spent the last 50 years teaching propaganda to children so that the children now believe their only chance is to give up their freedoms and right. That is the entire plot. It still is the entire plot. dehammer wrote: This was put out at a time when there was a reason to get off fossil fuels Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. As far as fuels we do use, such as coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, or hydrogen, their use is determined by the open market. YOU don't get to dictate what fuel is used. dehammer wrote: AND time to do it before their predicted dooms day. Another 'dooms day' prophet. A dime a dozen. dehammer wrote: Now they are telling us that if we do not do something in the next few years it will be too late. And you actually believe them?? dehammer wrote: Here is something that can be done, but no one wants it. No, it doesn't work. It's a perpetual motion machine of the first order. Also, YOU seem to want it. Go build one and get it to work. dehammer wrote: It is a lot cheaper than nuclear, Nuclear fission produces actual usable power. dehammer wrote: with no waste. Nuclear power need not produce any dangerous waste at all. It is possible to use the 'waste' nuclear fuel in another specially designed reactor. The waste from that reactor is no longer toxic. It can be disposed of in any landfill. Considering that you are talking literally about few dozen pounds, it's not a problem. It's actually better to sell the stuff though. There's a market for it. Depleted uranium can be used to make armor piercing shells, counterbalance weights for aircraft, etc. dehammer wrote: It is cheaper and more reliable than wind or solar, and again, no waste. Solar panels waste real estate for the power they produce. Windmills DO have a waste. It's the air after the propeller. It is disturbed in flow and cannot drive another propeller until additional wind mixes with it. dehammer wrote: IF done correctly, such as the example I have given before, about the desert, the water could be used to turn a desert into farmland. Wait...what? You're using that water for electrolysis! Now you're going to create matter out of nothing as well?? dehammer wrote: Yet again, instead of doing something about the supposedly looming disaster, What looming disaster? Oh, that's right, you believe in the doom and gloom prophets. dehammer wrote: they simply demand we give up our rights and freedoms instead of fixing the problems. There is no problem other than the continued attempts to implement socialism. 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
26-04-2019 00:30
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	Into the Night wrote:Snip I was going to respond, but you are trolling. You do not want to think about anything. I could explain this to you but you are insisting that it is a perpetual motion machine. "a device inherently impossible under the law of conservation of energy that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from external sources" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetual%20motion%20machine As I have explain REPEATEDLY this does have an external source of energy, gravity. I guess you are one of the ones pushing to destroy capitalism and democracy.
26-04-2019 02:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: Into the Night wrote:Snip I was going to respond, but you are trolling. You do not want to think about anything. Someone that points out the physics you are ignoring is not 'trolling'. I think about a lot of things. I don't bother with trying to make perpetual motion machines work. dehammer wrote: I could explain this to you but you are insisting that it is a perpetual motion machine. Because it is. dehammer wrote: "a device inherently impossible under the law of conservation of energy that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from external sources" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetual%20motion%20machine Close enough. That is what your magickal machine is doing. dehammer wrote: As I have explain REPEATEDLY this does have an external source of energy, gravity. Gravity is not energy. It is a force of nature. dehammer wrote: I guess you are one of the ones pushing to destroy capitalism and democracy. Irrelevance fallacy. That has nothing to do with your machine. However, I will answer your comment anyway: I will certainly fight democracy. It is unstable and inevitably leads to a dictatorship or oligarchy. I support a republic. The United States is a federated republic. It is not a democracy. Republics have constitutions. Democracies do not. There are currently no surviving democracies existing in the world today. I also support capitalism. It is the only economic system that creates wealth. I abhor communism and fascism. They can only exist by stealing wealth. 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 26-04-2019 02:37
26-04-2019 03:13
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	Gravity is not energy. It is a force of nature. Then why do experts describe the effects of gravity as the method by which hoover dam creates electricity? "Water flows through large pipes inside a dam and turns a large wheel called a turbine. The turbine turns a shaft which rotates a series of magnets past copper coils and a generator to produce electricity. This converts the energy of falling water into mechanical energy to drive the generator."https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
26-04-2019 03:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: Gravity is not energy. It is a force of nature. Then why do experts describe the effects of gravity as the method by which hoover dam creates electricity? "Water flows through large pipes inside a dam and turns a large wheel called a turbine. The turbine turns a shaft which rotates a series of magnets past copper coils and a generator to produce electricity. This converts the energy of falling water into mechanical energy to drive the generator."https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html Where is all that water coming from, dude? You need to answer that question. 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
26-04-2019 03:52
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	No, I don't. Perhaps the water comes from a volcano. There have been volcanos that heat water and force them up natural pipes in mountains. There have been lakes formed when tectonic plates push what was formally a part of the ocean. It doesn't matter. I am certain you are going to insist it is rain, but why cant you use rain every where in the world to form dams? Why cant you use rain on the ocean to produce electricity? Why cant you use rain falling on the great plains to make electricity? Solar does not cause dams to work.
26-04-2019 04:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: No, I don't. Yes you do. You can't just ignore where all that water is coming from. dehammer wrote: Perhaps the water comes from a volcano. Are you seriously suggesting that all the water for Hoover dam comes from a volcano??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! dehammer wrote: There have been lakes formed when tectonic plates push what was formally a part of the ocean. Are you seriously suggesting that all the water for Hoover dam comes from tectonic activity?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! dehammer wrote: It doesn't matter. It does, dude. It does. dehammer wrote: I am certain you are going to insist it is rain, You're getting there. Where does the rain come from? dehammer wrote: but why cant you use rain every where in the world to form dams? Because dams don't use rain. They use water collected from rain. dehammer wrote: Why cant you use rain on the ocean to produce electricity? You can. dehammer wrote: Why cant you use rain falling on the great plains to make electricity? You can. dehammer wrote: Solar does not cause dams to work. I'll ignore the bad wording for now. Yes it does. It is the ONLY source of energy that causes hydroelectric power to work. 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
26-04-2019 05:17
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	What ever your religion says comrade.

26-04-2019 05:53
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	One last commit before I give up on this site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvJHjnELVSM As they tell you, there is only two things they need, a good source of water AND altitude. My invention would have provided plenty of water and plenty of altitude, but no one wants it. I guess there is no way to stop the war that is coming because no one wants to stop the fraud called climate change.
26-04-2019 17:30
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: 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. Spam. This device is a perpetual motion machine. I would think that an individual who knows and understands science as well as you do would consider the science behind the engineering. An O-H bond is about 467 kj/mol so HOH (H2O) is 934 kj/mol to break both bonds. This requires platinum which is rare and as a result is very expensive. That's possibly the major road block to fuel cell technology. What the patent did not mention is that when hydrogen is burned it generates water. The inventor missed a source of energy that this process would allow for. The design in question is actually a hydrogen fuel cell that doesn't use hydrogen generated as a source of energy. For anyone interested in this type of technology, they should first resolve the issue of cost associated with breaking the bonds in an HOH molecule. It seems that reducing this cost is what might allow for this to become an affordable technology.
26-04-2019 19:31
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen does not require platinum and newer hydrogen fuel cells us nickel instead of platinum. I would think nickel would be just as effective for the separation as for the combining. It doesn't matter anyway. I came here expecting to find someone to talk about science, and the trolls won. Edited on 26-04-2019 19:37
26-04-2019 19:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: What ever your religion says comrade. I am not talking about any religion. You are wandering off into irrelevant topics now. 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
26-04-2019 20:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: One last commit before I give up on this site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvJHjnELVSM As they tell you, there is only two things they need, a good source of water AND altitude. My invention would have provided plenty of water and plenty of altitude, but no one wants it. I guess there is no way to stop the war that is coming because no one wants to stop the fraud called climate change. It would not provide water. You are destroying it through electrolysis, remember? It will not prevent any war. It will not cause one either. It will do nothing to stop the Church of Global Warming. Whether the Church of Global Warming starts a war is up to them. Since they do stem from the Church of Karl Marx, it is likely to cause some violent conflict in the future. It already has to some degree. 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
26-04-2019 20:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: 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. Spam. This device is a perpetual motion machine. I would think that an individual who knows and understands science as well as you do would consider the science behind the engineering. There is no science behind the engineering. There is no science in a perpetual motion machine. James___ wrote: An O-H bond is about 467 kj/mol so HOH (H2O) is 934 kj/mol to break both bonds. It's actually quite easy. James___ wrote: This requires platinum which is rare and as a result is very expensive. It does not require platinum or any other precious metal. James___ wrote: That's possibly the major road block to fuel cell technology. Oxy-hydrogen fuel cells don't make hydrogen. They consume it. James___ wrote: What the patent did not mention is that when hydrogen is burned it generates water. Nope. The hydrogen is consumed by the fuel cell. James___ wrote: The inventor missed a source of energy that this process would allow for. No, the inventor did not do his math. James___ wrote: The design in question is actually a hydrogen fuel cell that doesn't use hydrogen generated as a source of energy. Oxy-hydrogen fuel cells use hydrogen as their source of energy. James___ wrote: For anyone interested in this type of technology, they should first resolve the issue of cost associated with breaking the bonds in an HOH molecule. It's easy. All you need is a flashlight battery, a couple of wires, and a glass of water. James___ wrote: It seems that reducing this cost is what might allow for this to become an affordable technology. Flashlight batteries are cheap. You can buy them at Walmart. You can get a glass to put water there too. You can even buy the wire there (look in the automotive section). That's all you need to break H2O bonds. 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
26-04-2019 20:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen does not require platinum and newer hydrogen fuel cells us nickel instead of platinum. I would think nickel would be just as effective for the separation as for the combining. It doesn't matter anyway. I came here expecting to find someone to talk about science, and the trolls won. Fuel cells don't make hydrogen. They consume hydrogen. You twits are conflating fuel cells with electrolysis. You are not talking about science. If you want to go away and sulk, that's your problem. There are plenty of kiddie-pool forums you can go to. They lock out anyone that talks about science. 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
26-04-2019 20:34
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	IF you weren't an obvious troll, I'd tell you to read the guy above and to read what I said with a little though. You obvious do not care about reality. so don't bother.
26-04-2019 20:45
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Into the Night wrote: dehammer wrote: One last commit before I give up on this site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvJHjnELVSM As they tell you, there is only two things they need, a good source of water AND altitude. My invention would have provided plenty of water and plenty of altitude, but no one wants it. I guess there is no way to stop the war that is coming because no one wants to stop the fraud called climate change. It would not provide water. You are destroying it through electrolysis, remember? It will not prevent any war. It will not cause one either. It will do nothing to stop the Church of Global Warming. Whether the Church of Global Warming starts a war is up to them. Since they do stem from the Church of Karl Marx, it is likely to cause some violent conflict in the future. It already has to some degree. There has already been violence, although the protests sort of confuse me some. In France, they protested, burned and looted over a carbon tax on commercial vehicle fuel. Few months later, their are protesting the government isn't doing enough to combat the CO2 monster... Wonder if the IPCC employs professional protesters, like Bernie did in the 2016 presidential campaign? I've never protested, rioted, or looted, but a little curious about what sort of pay scale they have, benefits, health care, bail bonds they offer. Do you get to keep your loot, or do the split it up after the event? I guess that the basic chanter, would get paid the least. Vandals and rock throwers, would like get a premium for the high risk of tear gas and rubber bullets. Still makes no sense, to protest global warming, in the middle of a miserable winter... Anyway, a patent isn't proof that it's a good idea, only that you own the idea, for a while anyway, and not in China. This one from 1979, had plenty of time to be examined by people with the cash, and much better education than anyone here. I'm positive, that if it had even the slight chance, of being even a little useful, it likely would have been built, or at least the idea sold for further study (grant money). If the idea of global warming can generate billions in grants, this wouldn't a problem getting a few million, on a maybe. I went through the electrolysis craze years ago on an electronics forum. It was kind of why I stopped using that site. People seemed to just flock there, looking for help and solve problems, that couldn't be solved. Seems this fellow named Stan Meyers use to sell kits, books, videos, of how to save at the pump, by burning the hydrogen/oxygen from an electrolysis cell, powered by the alternator in your car. Your batter is only need to start the car, and recharges quickly, the other electronics and ignition don't use that much. There's a surplus being generated, in theory, just going to waste. Stan Meyers also claimed to have converted a car to run entirely of the electrolysis cell, no gasoline needed. Then he mysteriously disappeared, apparently murdered by big oil. Any how, he sold his idea to a lot of people, some cities, police departments, school bus fleets... And nobody could see any real difference in fuel consumption. It was mostly a little amusing at first, but it real got disruptive. They couldn't get much help by starting their own threads, so the just jumped in any place with a quick question, the eventually killed the real topics. Then of course, most that new to forums sort of do that anyway, before learning how to start threads, or use the search functions. I've seen a lot of what you can and can't do with electrolysis, and too many failures, searching for magic cures.
26-04-2019 20:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: IF you weren't an obvious troll, I'd tell you to read the guy above and to read what I said with a little though. You obvious do not care about reality. so don't bother. I thought so. You turn to spewing useless insults and claiming 'reality', when you can't even define what 'reality' is. Fortunately, I have studied philosophy. I know the definition of 'reality' and why it has that definition. You are using it as another meaningless buzzword. You don't know what 'reality' even is. Indeed, you don't even know what a 'troll' is. That's just another meaningless buzzword to you. 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 26-04-2019 21:28
26-04-2019 21:00
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	I know what reality is. The reality is you refuse to discuss REAL science.
26-04-2019 21:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Into the Night wrote: dehammer wrote: One last commit before I give up on this site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvJHjnELVSM As they tell you, there is only two things they need, a good source of water AND altitude. My invention would have provided plenty of water and plenty of altitude, but no one wants it. I guess there is no way to stop the war that is coming because no one wants to stop the fraud called climate change. It would not provide water. You are destroying it through electrolysis, remember? It will not prevent any war. It will not cause one either. It will do nothing to stop the Church of Global Warming. Whether the Church of Global Warming starts a war is up to them. Since they do stem from the Church of Karl Marx, it is likely to cause some violent conflict in the future. It already has to some degree. There has already been violence, although the protests sort of confuse me some. In France, they protested, burned and looted over a carbon tax on commercial vehicle fuel. Few months later, their are protesting the government isn't doing enough to combat the CO2 monster... There have been protests by the Church of Global Warming, and protests by those who fight it. That's part of what is probably confusing to you. They are different protestors. HarveyH55 wrote: Wonder if the IPCC employs professional protesters, like Bernie did in the 2016 presidential campaign? Yes...yes they do. These people organize the protests and build the fervor for the useful idiots to come out and join the party. HarveyH55 wrote: I've never protested, rioted, or looted, but a little curious about what sort of pay scale they have, benefits, health care, bail bonds they offer. Depends on the value of the protest to be organized. It tends to be a cash business. Benefits and health care are generally not provided. Bail bonds might be, though. HarveyH55 wrote: Do you get to keep your loot, or do the split it up after the event? The protest organizers keep their loot. It's their pay. The protestors themselves are unpaid. They are simply useful idiots the protest organizers can stir into a fervor. HarveyH55 wrote: I guess that the basic chanter, would get paid the least. Zero. HarveyH55 wrote: Vandals and rock throwers, would like get a premium for the high risk of tear gas and rubber bullets. Also zero. The protest organizers are the ones that are paid. Religious fanatics do not need to be paid. Their religion is all they need. They are useful idiots the protest organizers can use. HarveyH55 wrote: Still makes no sense, to protest global warming, in the middle of a miserable winter... It doesn't have to make sense. The idea is to push Marxism. That is a year-round job. HarveyH55 wrote: Anyway, a patent isn't proof that it's a good idea, only that you own the idea, for a while anyway, and not in China. That's the truth! I have seen some hilariously funny patents! HarveyH55 wrote: This one from 1979, had plenty of time to be examined by people with the cash, and much better education than anyone here. I'm positive, that if it had even the slight chance, of being even a little useful, it likely would have been built, or at least the idea sold for further study (grant money). It probably was built. Like so many perpetual motion machines, they are built either by someone hired to do so, or the patent owner may tinker with it trying to get it to work himself. In either case the machine remains 'defective' until someone gives up on it. HarveyH55 wrote: If the idea of global warming can generate billions in grants, this wouldn't a problem getting a few million, on a maybe. The Church of Global Warming does not want to solve the so-called 'crisis'. They want to keep it going so they can justify implementing Marxism. That is the true goal. It never was about 'saving the planet'. HarveyH55 wrote: I went through the electrolysis craze years ago on an electronics forum. It was kind of why I stopped using that site. People seemed to just flock there, looking for help and solve problems, that couldn't be solved. Seems this fellow named Stan Meyers use to sell kits, books, videos, of how to save at the pump, by burning the hydrogen/oxygen from an electrolysis cell, powered by the alternator in your car. Yeah. Another example of the type of machine being discussed here. HarveyH55 wrote: Your battery is only need to start the car, and recharges quickly, the other electronics and ignition don't use that much. Starting the car will draw about 50-100 amps for a few seconds (why you don't want to just crank the starter a long time!). This short burst of high amperage is quickly recharged by the alternator, which puts out around 60 amps for most cars. Modern cars have to run the computer (which requires about 1/2 an amp), the ignition system (which typically requires about 2 amps per cylinder), engine sensors (about 4 amps), and your instrumentation (typically a few hundred millamps). This is the minimum electrical load, once the battery is recharged. If you use the heater, that fan will draw another 5 amps at full speed. If you use the air conditioner, the compressor clutch will draw about 2 amps, but the compressor will load the engine down on its own. You can feel the loss of acceleration when you turn that on. The A/C also runs when you are using the defroster. Beyond that, loads for entertainment systems, GPS, interior and exterior lighting, etc. are designed to put no more than an 80% load on that 60 amp alternator when everything is turned on. Sticking a magick electrolysis device and a fuel cell or hydrogen burner into the car only adds to the total load of the engine. It produces no usable power. HarveyH55 wrote: There's a surplus being generated, in theory, just going to waste. Stan Meyers also claimed to have converted a car to run entirely of the electrolysis cell, no gasoline needed. Obviously, a bogus claim. HarveyH55 wrote: Then he mysteriously disappeared, apparently murdered by big oil. He failed at his magick device, probably ripped off the wrong people somewhere, and probably decided to fake his own murder. He then went and lived happily under a false name in the Caribbean for all we know. HarveyH55 wrote: Any how, he sold his idea to a lot of people, some cities, police departments, school bus fleets... And nobody could see any real difference in fuel consumption. That's when the lawsuits probably started rolling in. Faking your own murder is certainly one way to try to get out of it. HarveyH55 wrote: It was mostly a little amusing at first, but it real got disruptive. They couldn't get much help by starting their own threads, so the just jumped in any place with a quick question, the eventually killed the real topics. Then of course, most that new to forums sort of do that anyway, before learning how to start threads, or use the search functions. I've seen a lot of what you can and can't do with electrolysis, and too many failures, searching for magic cures. So have I. I use electrolysis in my business, for making some circuit boards. It's a handy way to make some mordant that is a lot cleaner than ferric chloride. That process makes cupric chloride, which doesn't stain like ferric chloride does. Makes a better mordant too. All I need for that is some copper strips in a glass of salt water and a car battery charger. The chlorine comes from the salt. Electroplating is also a wonderful chemical process that is useful for protecting or beautifying many different metals. One very useful process allows electroplating onto a non-metal by using a conductive polymer film on the anode. 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
26-04-2019 21:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: I know what reality is. The reality is you refuse to discuss REAL science. Then define both 'reality' and 'science'. Let's see you try. 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
26-04-2019 21:39
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: dehammer wrote: IF you weren't an obvious troll, I'd tell you to read the guy above and to read what I said with a little though. You obvious do not care about reality. so don't bother. I though so. You turn to spewing useless insults and claiming 'reality', when you can't even define what 'reality' is. Fortunately, I have studied philosophy. I know the definition of 'reality' and why it has that definition. You are using it as another meaningless buzzword. You don't know what 'reality' even is. Indeed, you don't even know what a 'troll' is. That's just another meaningless buzzword to you. This is ITN and his Labrador just living the life in Seattle. His dog's at home and that could be Litesong driving. YLsong also lives in Seattle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhzgY-EadHA This is why he knows so much about thermodynamics and atmospheric gases. He also knows his shїt (pronounced shyit). Edited on 26-04-2019 21:56
26-04-2019 22:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: dehammer wrote: IF you weren't an obvious troll, I'd tell you to read the guy above and to read what I said with a little though. You obvious do not care about reality. so don't bother. I though so. You turn to spewing useless insults and claiming 'reality', when you can't even define what 'reality' is. Fortunately, I have studied philosophy. I know the definition of 'reality' and why it has that definition. You are using it as another meaningless buzzword. You don't know what 'reality' even is. Indeed, you don't even know what a 'troll' is. That's just another meaningless buzzword to you. This is ITN and his Labrador just living the life in Seattle. His dog's at home and that could be Litesong driving. YLsong also lives in Seattle. Don't have a Labrador. Litebeer lives in Lake Stevens, not Seattle. He was one of two people I know that actually managed to get banned here. Both were banned for spamming. 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

27-04-2019 00:15
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: dehammer wrote: IF you weren't an obvious troll, I'd tell you to read the guy above and to read what I said with a little though. You obvious do not care about reality. so don't bother. I though so. You turn to spewing useless insults and claiming 'reality', when you can't even define what 'reality' is. Fortunately, I have studied philosophy. I know the definition of 'reality' and why it has that definition. You are using it as another meaningless buzzword. You don't know what 'reality' even is. Indeed, you don't even know what a 'troll' is. That's just another meaningless buzzword to you. This is ITN and his Labrador just living the life in Seattle. His dog's at home and that could be Litesong driving. Lsong also lives in Seattle. Don't have a Labrador. Litebeer lives in Lake Stevens, not Seattle. He was one of two people I know that actually managed to get banned here. Both were banned for spamming. What's your point? Ever hear of an invention called the auto-mobile? It runs on something called petrol. You can buy petrol by the litre. You should try it sometime. I know, I'm ruining your buzz man!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hib4n9RmFrQ
27-04-2019 00:31
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	How do I delete thread, post I made and quotes from them. This site is only about and for trolling.
27-04-2019 01:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: How do I delete thread, post I made and quotes from them. This site is only about and for trolling. Nah. This site is about the climate debate. See the title of the forum. All that you've posted and all that we've posted is part of the permanent record here. You can't just delete it. Frankly I don't of any forum software that does allow deleting the posts of others (unless of course you are a moderator or forum owner). 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 27-04-2019 01:34
27-04-2019 02:19
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	Its SUPPOSED to be about climate change, but no one cares about anything real. I came here expecting science, and found nothing but trolls. Its no wonder that it only takes 50 post to be ranked 45 highest poster. No person that comes her for real discussion would stick around. Edited on 27-04-2019 02:21
27-04-2019 02:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: Its SUPPOSED to be about climate change, but no one cares about anything real. You still haven't define 'reality'. Guess you don't know what it is after all. dehammer wrote: I came here expecting science, You still haven't defined 'science'. Guess you don't know what it is after all. dehammer wrote: and found nothing but trolls. I showed you the science that you were ignoring. Science isn't a troll. dehammer wrote: Its no wonder that it only takes 50 post to be ranked 45 highest poster. No person that comes her for real discussion would stick around. Quitter. You don't want a discussion. You want to push your magick perpetual motion machine and not have a discussion about 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
27-04-2019 02:46
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	dehammer wrote: How do I delete thread, post I made and quotes from them. This site is only about and for trolling. ITN isn't a troll. That implies that a male and a female homo sapien procreated by engaging in reproductive science. It can not be proven that ITN is a home erectus or even a homo sapien. We can say that ITN "is". But what is "is" exactly? Philosophy does not allow for birth coming from mating between a male and a female of any homo erectus which according to scientists is a bipedal hominid. And if "person" cannot be defined then we cannot say that ITN is a "person". And since "is" refers to nothing specific then "is" has no definition or meaning. After all, even a dung beetle "is" so in a very real sense, ITN could be "isn't" because they both refer to something that lacks any specific values and/or traits by which "it" n might be defined. And in conclusion "it" n might be a nothing seeking to define "it" n self.
27-04-2019 03:46
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	Seriously? You have a guy that claims that the hoover dam is a solar power plant and you call that science?
27-04-2019 05:02
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	dehammer wrote: Seriously? You have a guy that claims that the hoover dam is a solar power plant and you call that science? I don't worry about isn't too much. I have an American brother like him. It's sad in a way. I've had Americans tell me that they're handicapped because they have an easy life. Most people don't get the joke of global warming. Even if CO2 is causing it, we can't risk lowering CO2 emissions without creating a bigger problem. Maybe you can consider that? CFC's and F-gases are decreasing the amount of gases that contribute to the Chapman cycle. NOAA says that CO2 is preventing a further decline in the amount of gases in the Chapman cycle. And others say crop failure is possible if the amount of gases in the Chapman cycle are reduced. So what do you think?
27-04-2019 05:42
dehammer ★★★☆☆ (480)	Wouldn't it be interesting if they discovered that the reason the ozone holes exist is that co2 fell so much during the last 50 million years. We never found out what the holes looked like before we put cfc's into the atmosphere. Maybe they had nothing to do with the holes. The holes have decreased in sizes at the same rate the co2 is going up. We do know that co2 increase has caused an increase in the greening of the planet by 17% in 33 years and an increase in food production of 16% in the same period.
27-04-2019 15:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	dehammer wrote: Seriously? You have a guy that claims that the hoover dam is a solar power plant and you call that science? Actually, it is. Hoover dam, like every other hydroelectric power plant, is solar power. You still don't get where all that falling water comes from, do you? 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 1 of 16

Join the debate Gravity fed electrical generation system:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Gravity	10	30-03-2024 02:38
Gravity Has Energy Debate	33	03-02-2024 17:02
The USA electricity system - Hourly billing.?	108	02-02-2024 20:52
The Weather, Climate Change Are Revealing The Truth Of This Corrupt Society System	50	10-01-2023 16:48
Russia just hacked the US emergency alert system, and in more important news the FBI is	0	01-09-2022 13:50