Remember me
▼ Content

Solutions anyone?



Page 2 of 2<12
10-04-2019 20:38
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1504)
I'm doing my part on reducing GHG production... I don't eat Taco Bell. Well, was never a huge fan to begin with, prefer mexican, made by an actual mexican woman. Either way, methane production wasn't a huge problem, though I know a few people... My black Lab is getting old, and been producing a lot of methane lately. Think it's because he's been eating a lot of grass lately (not the medicinal/recreational kind). Least he stopped eating dirt, always eating something weird.

I doubt seriously, that mankind produces more GHG than natural sources, but we would never know, since no way to actually measure any of it anyway. Greenhouse effect is BS anyway, since the planet isn't physically enclosed in anything. The atmosphere is free to expand and contract.
10-04-2019 21:12
James___
★★★★☆
(1821)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm doing my part on reducing GHG production... I don't eat Taco Bell. Well, was never a huge fan to begin with, prefer mexican, made by an actual mexican woman. Either way, methane production wasn't a huge problem, though I know a few people... My black Lab is getting old, and been producing a lot of methane lately. Think it's because he's been eating a lot of grass lately (not the medicinal/recreational kind). Least he stopped eating dirt, always eating something weird.

I doubt seriously, that mankind produces more GHG than natural sources, but we would never know, since no way to actually measure any of it anyway. Greenhouse effect is BS anyway, since the planet isn't physically enclosed in anything. The atmosphere is free to expand and contract.



D@mn, it's sad when grown adults don't understand how a greenhouse works.
10-04-2019 22:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm doing my part on reducing GHG production... I don't eat Taco Bell. Well, was never a huge fan to begin with, prefer mexican, made by an actual mexican woman. Either way, methane production wasn't a huge problem, though I know a few people... My black Lab is getting old, and been producing a lot of methane lately. Think it's because he's been eating a lot of grass lately (not the medicinal/recreational kind). Least he stopped eating dirt, always eating something weird.

I doubt seriously, that mankind produces more GHG than natural sources, but we would never know, since no way to actually measure any of it anyway. Greenhouse effect is BS anyway, since the planet isn't physically enclosed in anything. The atmosphere is free to expand and contract.



D@mn, it's sad when grown adults don't understand how a greenhouse works.

A greenhouse works by reducing heat. I've already discussed with you. Did you forget?


The Parrot Killer
10-04-2019 22:27
James___
★★★★☆
(1821)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm doing my part on reducing GHG production... I don't eat Taco Bell. Well, was never a huge fan to begin with, prefer mexican, made by an actual mexican woman. Either way, methane production wasn't a huge problem, though I know a few people... My black Lab is getting old, and been producing a lot of methane lately. Think it's because he's been eating a lot of grass lately (not the medicinal/recreational kind). Least he stopped eating dirt, always eating something weird.

I doubt seriously, that mankind produces more GHG than natural sources, but we would never know, since no way to actually measure any of it anyway. Greenhouse effect is BS anyway, since the planet isn't physically enclosed in anything. The atmosphere is free to expand and contract.



D@mn, it's sad when grown adults don't understand how a greenhouse works.

A greenhouse works by reducing heat. I've already discussed with you. Did you forget?



Nah, we were discussing how your friends are right about there's nothing we can do to harm the environment.
10-04-2019 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm doing my part on reducing GHG production... I don't eat Taco Bell. Well, was never a huge fan to begin with, prefer mexican, made by an actual mexican woman. Either way, methane production wasn't a huge problem, though I know a few people... My black Lab is getting old, and been producing a lot of methane lately. Think it's because he's been eating a lot of grass lately (not the medicinal/recreational kind). Least he stopped eating dirt, always eating something weird.

I doubt seriously, that mankind produces more GHG than natural sources, but we would never know, since no way to actually measure any of it anyway. Greenhouse effect is BS anyway, since the planet isn't physically enclosed in anything. The atmosphere is free to expand and contract.



D@mn, it's sad when grown adults don't understand how a greenhouse works.

A greenhouse works by reducing heat. I've already discussed with you. Did you forget?



Nah, we were discussing how your friends are right about there's nothing we can do to harm the environment.

Where did anybody say that?


The Parrot Killer
11-04-2019 00:20
James___
★★★★☆
(1821)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm doing my part on reducing GHG production... I don't eat Taco Bell. Well, was never a huge fan to begin with, prefer mexican, made by an actual mexican woman. Either way, methane production wasn't a huge problem, though I know a few people... My black Lab is getting old, and been producing a lot of methane lately. Think it's because he's been eating a lot of grass lately (not the medicinal/recreational kind). Least he stopped eating dirt, always eating something weird.

I doubt seriously, that mankind produces more GHG than natural sources, but we would never know, since no way to actually measure any of it anyway. Greenhouse effect is BS anyway, since the planet isn't physically enclosed in anything. The atmosphere is free to expand and contract.



D@mn, it's sad when grown adults don't understand how a greenhouse works.

A greenhouse works by reducing heat. I've already discussed with you. Did you forget?



Nah, we were discussing how your friends are right about there's nothing we can do to harm the environment.

Where did anybody say that?



Not anybody, you. Redirection fallacy. It's sad isn't. Even you don't know how a greenhouse works. You like everyone else has to be either politically correct or politically illiterate. Just another typical American.
11-04-2019 18:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm doing my part on reducing GHG production... I don't eat Taco Bell. Well, was never a huge fan to begin with, prefer mexican, made by an actual mexican woman. Either way, methane production wasn't a huge problem, though I know a few people... My black Lab is getting old, and been producing a lot of methane lately. Think it's because he's been eating a lot of grass lately (not the medicinal/recreational kind). Least he stopped eating dirt, always eating something weird.

I doubt seriously, that mankind produces more GHG than natural sources, but we would never know, since no way to actually measure any of it anyway. Greenhouse effect is BS anyway, since the planet isn't physically enclosed in anything. The atmosphere is free to expand and contract.



D@mn, it's sad when grown adults don't understand how a greenhouse works.

A greenhouse works by reducing heat. I've already discussed with you. Did you forget?



Nah, we were discussing how your friends are right about there's nothing we can do to harm the environment.

Where did anybody say that?



Not anybody, you.

Certainly not by me. You must be hallucinating again.
James___ wrote:
Redirection fallacy. It's sad isn't.

To what? You are still hallucinating.
James___ wrote:
Even you don't know how a greenhouse works.

It works by reducing heat.
James___ wrote:
You like everyone else has to be either politically correct or politically illiterate.

There is nothing political about it. It works by reducing heat.


The Parrot Killer
21-04-2019 08:50
CanIGiveAnIdea
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
is it possible for the whole world to unite and use helicopters to scoop water out of the ocean to lower the rising sea levels?
21-04-2019 10:38
TarickTDSProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Solution.
Food. Reduce meat, preference to locally grown
Clothing. Reduce consumption/fashion
Shelter. Cheaper housing materials & intergrate with food production.
Travel. Work locally, reduce car use drastically.
Other. Avoid other energy intensive products, services and activities.

PS. This solution involves everyones effort. There may be many who do not follow the solution howeverr i think even 70% of the world choosing to live this way would prob solve our issue.
21-04-2019 16:49
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1504)
TarickTDS wrote:
Solution.
Food. Reduce meat, preference to locally grown
Clothing. Reduce consumption/fashion
Shelter. Cheaper housing materials & intergrate with food production.
Travel. Work locally, reduce car use drastically.
Other. Avoid other energy intensive products, services and activities.

PS. This solution involves everyones effort. There may be many who do not follow the solution howeverr i think even 70% of the world choosing to live this way would prob solve our issue.


I tend to believe a good portion of the world population already does follow your suggestions, not entirely by choice, but because of economics. Not everybody is rich, many struggle in the 'middle class', they have the income, the nice house, but carry a lot of debt.

Although, it is possible to live off plant food, it's difficult for humans, takes a lot of work. Most vegetarians and vegans do it to be trendy, don't really understand the nutrition aspects. Suspect many 'cheat' a little, or use a lot of supplements (derived from animals). Basically, they try to copy what others are doing, but only the parts they like or find appealing. They don't realize that some of those not-so-tasty plant foods are necessary for the nutritional value, that they would have gotten from meat. Grazing animals are less picky about their diets. Big difference between surviving on plants, and being healthy.

Cheaper housing and building materials, mean you have more repairs, and likely total destruction with storms or fire. Don't last long, need to move often, and rebuild often. It's pretty obvious when you see places ravaged by hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires. The news usually focuses on the cheaply built areas, but you catch a peek of many buildings still standing, with little damage. Homes that have been standing for decades, even century old buildings survive. My house was built in 1946, not large or fancy. Lived here more than 25 years, with little storm damage, although there have been many hurricanes. Most of the buildings surrounding me, are also decades old, even older than mine, hold up well. The newer, cheaper built homes, usually don't do as well. A mile or so away, there are neighborhoods, which many homes left unlivable, many can be repaired, some need to be removed. It's not because they couldn't use good materials, and construction, but because they can use insurance and disaster relief money, and the less that goes into the home, the more they get to keep. But insurance companies and even the government are asking for documentation, so it's not the scam it's been in the past.

You have to travel some, to get to a stable place of employment. Most people will relocate, to live as close as they can, for a job they feel confident they can keep for a while. Mass transit isn't always practical, or available. There are also a lot of jobs, that require driving. I do agree that there are a lot of people that hop in the car for any reason, or even little or no reason. They could have simply walked a couple blocks, or picked up the phone, waited a day or two, and combined several stops, instead of making several individual trips.

Mostly, it's the rich folks, pushing the socialism/climate change agenda, that don't follow your suggestions, and never will. You don't get rich spending your own money, and that's what this all comes down to. Money for many, is power and control, security and safety. If you don't have money, then you are easier to be controlled. We all want to survive, and will do what it takes to get by. If you have money, you can do what you want, which is easier, if most people are just struggling to survive. You'll notice the focus is usually on the middle class, and bring the poor up to that standard. Unfortunately, it's the middle class picking up the tab, since they have to spend the money they earn. The rich are good at spending other people's money. Basically, the middle class will slip a little, become more dependent on the government, and debt, to maintain their place. Government cuts off the assistance, or the lenders stop extending credit, demand what is owed, then it's back to being poor.

The good thing though, is that with CO2 increasing (mostly a natural process), plants are growing better, producing more food. Easier for more people to raise their own food, which is cheaper and healthier. Sort of a threat to socialism, since food is a basic need, that's getting cheaper and easier for people to satisfy.
21-04-2019 19:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
CanIGiveAnIdea wrote:
is it possible for the whole world to unite and use helicopters to scoop water out of the ocean to lower the rising sea levels?


Where would they put it? How much fuel do you want to spend on your religion?


The Parrot Killer
21-04-2019 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
TarickTDS wrote:
Solution.
Food. Reduce meat, preference to locally grown
Clothing. Reduce consumption/fashion
Shelter. Cheaper housing materials & intergrate with food production.
Travel. Work locally, reduce car use drastically.
Other. Avoid other energy intensive products, services and activities.

PS. This solution involves everyones effort. There may be many who do not follow the solution howeverr i think even 70% of the world choosing to live this way would prob solve our issue.


No, I won't put in the effort. You are not a dictator. You can't tell me what to do.

I will eat what I want, including meat. Yes, I have no problem with killing animals to eat them. I have no problem with killing animals to keep vegetarian food safe either. You don't get to dictate to me what I eat.

I will wear what I want, when I want, subject to any decency laws. You don't get to dictate to me what I can wear.

I will buy or build whatever houses or other buildings I want. You don't get to dictate to me what kind of house I can live in.

I will travel when I want, where I want, using the mode I wish, anytime I want. You don't get to dictate to me whether I can own and use cars, boats, aircraft, trucks, or anything else.

I will use energy when I want, where I want, in the form I want, subject to me paying for my use of it. You don't get to dictate energy markets.

If you want to subject yourself to these things, you are welcome. Be aware, before you get too smug, that even vegetarians depend on killing animals.


The Parrot Killer
21-04-2019 22:33
Cnuk
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
If global warming is happening, and we want to slow ot down... We need to burn MORE fossil fuels...

H20 and co2 COOL the atmosphere to space better than o2. Increasing their concentration at the expense of oxygen will cool the atmosphere more efficiently...
22-04-2019 07:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
Cnuk wrote:
If global warming is happening, and we want to slow ot down... We need to burn MORE fossil fuels...

H20 and co2 COOL the atmosphere to space better than o2. Increasing their concentration at the expense of oxygen will cool the atmosphere more efficiently...


Stefan-Boltzmann. It says that atmospheric composition does not affect average planetary temperature. What can I say; it's science.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-04-2019 03:31
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Common Sense wrote:
If climate change is happening like some believe, what do you propose we do about it?


IF climate change really is a danger, there is a 40 year old patent setting in the US patent office that would have changed us to a hydrogen based society by now if anyone had bothered to invest $100k in it 40 years ago. You could likely do it now if people were willing to start a corporation that sold stock to true believers for $1 a share IPO. IF it could raise 1 million dollars, it could change the world in a couple decades.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899
This is the old patent. I don't have the money to do a better one without an obvious flaw.
25-04-2019 03:53
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1504)
dehammer wrote:
Common Sense wrote:
If climate change is happening like some believe, what do you propose we do about it?


IF climate change really is a danger, there is a 40 year old patent setting in the US patent office that would have changed us to a hydrogen based society by now if anyone had bothered to invest $100k in it 40 years ago. You could likely do it now if people were willing to start a corporation that sold stock to true believers for $1 a share IPO. IF it could raise 1 million dollars, it could change the world in a couple decades.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899
This is the old patent. I don't have the money to do a better one without an obvious flaw.


I didn't read the whole patent, or even thoroughly, but got through enough to know it wouldn't work. It's going to use more energy than it produces. You will alway put more energy into separating water, than can get back from burning the gasses. There are a lot of losses that can't be reduced or eliminated. A patent doesn't mean the idea will work or sell, just protects an idea, giving the inventor time to work out the details.
25-04-2019 05:17
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Common Sense wrote:
If climate change is happening like some believe, what do you propose we do about it?


IF climate change really is a danger, there is a 40 year old patent setting in the US patent office that would have changed us to a hydrogen based society by now if anyone had bothered to invest $100k in it 40 years ago. You could likely do it now if people were willing to start a corporation that sold stock to true believers for $1 a share IPO. IF it could raise 1 million dollars, it could change the world in a couple decades.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899
This is the old patent. I don't have the money to do a better one without an obvious flaw.


It's going to use more energy than it produces. You will alway put more energy into separating water, than can get back from burning the gasses.
You should have read farther. The burning of gases was only intended to get about 40% of the electric power needed at most.

The other 60% would be gained from the water pressure of about 500 feet.

Something you have to remember as well, is that this was from 1979. Hydrogen fuel cells were 40% efficient at that time. Since then the technology has improved to the point that it is 60% efficient. This reduces the height of the water needed to recover to about 400 feet.

Once you pass 400 feet (or 575 feet in the original patent) any extra pressure results in more electricity produced.
Edited on 25-04-2019 05:21
25-04-2019 18:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
dehammer wrote:
Common Sense wrote:
If climate change is happening like some believe, what do you propose we do about it?


IF climate change really is a danger, there is a 40 year old patent setting in the US patent office that would have changed us to a hydrogen based society by now if anyone had bothered to invest $100k in it 40 years ago. You could likely do it now if people were willing to start a corporation that sold stock to true believers for $1 a share IPO. IF it could raise 1 million dollars, it could change the world in a couple decades.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899
This is the old patent. I don't have the money to do a better one without an obvious flaw.


You might want to study the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics too. That's the reason no one has bothered to build such a device (other than home projects).

Did you know there are lots of patents for such devices around? Patent offices don't look at the practical nature of a device. They simply record that someone created a process. They don't bother to determine if that process is practical in any way.


The Parrot Killer
25-04-2019 18:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Common Sense wrote:
If climate change is happening like some believe, what do you propose we do about it?


IF climate change really is a danger, there is a 40 year old patent setting in the US patent office that would have changed us to a hydrogen based society by now if anyone had bothered to invest $100k in it 40 years ago. You could likely do it now if people were willing to start a corporation that sold stock to true believers for $1 a share IPO. IF it could raise 1 million dollars, it could change the world in a couple decades.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899
This is the old patent. I don't have the money to do a better one without an obvious flaw.


I didn't read the whole patent, or even thoroughly, but got through enough to know it wouldn't work. It's going to use more energy than it produces. You will alway put more energy into separating water, than can get back from burning the gasses. There are a lot of losses that can't be reduced or eliminated. A patent doesn't mean the idea will work or sell, just protects an idea, giving the inventor time to work out the details.

Good eye. That's exactly right. It's a perpetual motion machine. One of many that are patented.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-04-2019 18:15
25-04-2019 18:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Common Sense wrote:
If climate change is happening like some believe, what do you propose we do about it?


IF climate change really is a danger, there is a 40 year old patent setting in the US patent office that would have changed us to a hydrogen based society by now if anyone had bothered to invest $100k in it 40 years ago. You could likely do it now if people were willing to start a corporation that sold stock to true believers for $1 a share IPO. IF it could raise 1 million dollars, it could change the world in a couple decades.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899
This is the old patent. I don't have the money to do a better one without an obvious flaw.


It's going to use more energy than it produces. You will alway put more energy into separating water, than can get back from burning the gasses.
You should have read farther. The burning of gases was only intended to get about 40% of the electric power needed at most.

The other 60% would be gained from the water pressure of about 500 feet.

Something you have to remember as well, is that this was from 1979. Hydrogen fuel cells were 40% efficient at that time. Since then the technology has improved to the point that it is 60% efficient. This reduces the height of the water needed to recover to about 400 feet.

Once you pass 400 feet (or 575 feet in the original patent) any extra pressure results in more electricity produced.


Are you forgetting the 'electrolyzer'? That consumes more power than you get from the fuel cell and the falling water combined.

No, this is a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order. It violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
25-04-2019 20:19
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:

Good eye. That's exactly right. It's a perpetual motion machine. One of many that are patented.
It is NOT a perpetual motion machine, because those do not have input or output. This converts gravity to electricity, just like the Hoover dam.
25-04-2019 20:23
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Common Sense wrote:
If climate change is happening like some believe, what do you propose we do about it?


IF climate change really is a danger, there is a 40 year old patent setting in the US patent office that would have changed us to a hydrogen based society by now if anyone had bothered to invest $100k in it 40 years ago. You could likely do it now if people were willing to start a corporation that sold stock to true believers for $1 a share IPO. IF it could raise 1 million dollars, it could change the world in a couple decades.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899
This is the old patent. I don't have the money to do a better one without an obvious flaw.


It's going to use more energy than it produces. You will alway put more energy into separating water, than can get back from burning the gasses.
You should have read farther. The burning of gases was only intended to get about 40% of the electric power needed at most.

The other 60% would be gained from the water pressure of about 500 feet.

Something you have to remember as well, is that this was from 1979. Hydrogen fuel cells were 40% efficient at that time. Since then the technology has improved to the point that it is 60% efficient. This reduces the height of the water needed to recover to about 400 feet.

Once you pass 400 feet (or 575 feet in the original patent) any extra pressure results in more electricity produced.


Are you forgetting the 'electrolyzer'? That consumes more power than you get from the fuel cell and the falling water combined.

No, this is a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order. It violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.
NO, you ignore the fact that it converts gravity to electricity just like the hoover dam.

Unless you call dams using the energy from sun and gravity to be perpetual motion.

IF YOU COULD READ you would see that I address that. A modern fuel cell will gain you 60% of the energy needed to sperate the water into gas. The other 40% is from gravity. That balance point would be between 400 and 575 feet. Anything above that would be extra energy.
25-04-2019 20:27
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Let me try to explain something that seems to go over your heads. This is nothing more than a copy of what nature does.
Nature uses heat from the sun.
This uses electricity.

Nature uses rain/snow to put the water at the top of the mountain.
This uses a hydrogen fuel cell to put it at the top of the mountain.

Both can generate electricity.
In nature, all of it is available, IF you can capture it.
In this a certain amount of the electricity is used to keep the system running.

Please do not post if you are not going to think it though.
25-04-2019 20:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:

Good eye. That's exactly right. It's a perpetual motion machine. One of many that are patented.
It is NOT a perpetual motion machine, because those do not have input or output. This converts gravity to electricity, just like the Hoover dam.


Where is the hydrogen and oxygen coming from? You are forgetting the 'electrolyzer' again.

Hoover dam is solar power.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-04-2019 20:57
25-04-2019 20:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
dehammer wrote:
Let me try to explain something that seems to go over your heads. This is nothing more than a copy of what nature does.
Nature uses heat from the sun.
This uses electricity.

Nature uses rain/snow to put the water at the top of the mountain.
This uses a hydrogen fuel cell to put it at the top of the mountain.

Both can generate electricity.
In nature, all of it is available, IF you can capture it.
In this a certain amount of the electricity is used to keep the system running.

Please do not post if you are not going to think it though.


Where is the hydrogen fuel coming from? It is YOU that is not thinking things through.


The Parrot Killer
25-04-2019 20:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Common Sense wrote:
If climate change is happening like some believe, what do you propose we do about it?


IF climate change really is a danger, there is a 40 year old patent setting in the US patent office that would have changed us to a hydrogen based society by now if anyone had bothered to invest $100k in it 40 years ago. You could likely do it now if people were willing to start a corporation that sold stock to true believers for $1 a share IPO. IF it could raise 1 million dollars, it could change the world in a couple decades.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4284899
This is the old patent. I don't have the money to do a better one without an obvious flaw.


It's going to use more energy than it produces. You will alway put more energy into separating water, than can get back from burning the gasses.
You should have read farther. The burning of gases was only intended to get about 40% of the electric power needed at most.

The other 60% would be gained from the water pressure of about 500 feet.

Something you have to remember as well, is that this was from 1979. Hydrogen fuel cells were 40% efficient at that time. Since then the technology has improved to the point that it is 60% efficient. This reduces the height of the water needed to recover to about 400 feet.

Once you pass 400 feet (or 575 feet in the original patent) any extra pressure results in more electricity produced.


Are you forgetting the 'electrolyzer'? That consumes more power than you get from the fuel cell and the falling water combined.

No, this is a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order. It violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.
NO, you ignore the fact that it converts gravity to electricity just like the hoover dam.

Unless you call dams using the energy from sun and gravity to be perpetual motion.

IF YOU COULD READ you would see that I address that. A modern fuel cell will gain you 60% of the energy needed to sperate the water into gas. The other 40% is from gravity. That balance point would be between 400 and 575 feet. Anything above that would be extra energy.

Fuel cells, no matter how efficient they are, cannot generate more energy than you have to expend to get the hydrogen and oxygen for the fuel cell in the first place.

You can't create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
25-04-2019 21:12
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1504)
Apparently man-made CO2 can create energy out of nothing, the IPCC calls it a 'Greenhouse' gas, and it's very powerful stuff, cause cataclysmic weather, acid oceans, wildfires in California. If there was just some way to use it, instead of water... This could work.
25-04-2019 21:15
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]Common Sense wrote:
Fuel cells, no matter how efficient they are, cannot generate more energy than you have to expend to get the hydrogen and oxygen for the fuel cell in the first place.

You can't create energy out of nothing.
Does the Hoover Dam create energy out of nothing?
25-04-2019 22:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]Common Sense wrote:
Fuel cells, no matter how efficient they are, cannot generate more energy than you have to expend to get the hydrogen and oxygen for the fuel cell in the first place.

You can't create energy out of nothing.
Does the Hoover Dam create energy out of nothing?


No. It's solar power. It harnesses energy coming from the Sun.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-04-2019 22:23
26-04-2019 00:35
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]Common Sense wrote:
Fuel cells, no matter how efficient they are, cannot generate more energy than you have to expend to get the hydrogen and oxygen for the fuel cell in the first place.

You can't create energy out of nothing.
Does the Hoover Dam create energy out of nothing?


No. It's solar power. It harnesses energy coming from the Sun.
No, it harnesses the power of gravity.

Read how its done. What produces power is the generators. What turns the generators is water. What causes the water to have the power to push the turbine is pressure. What causes that pressure is the weight of the water in the column of water above the turbine via the piping.

Solar is responsible for putting the water in the mountains above the dam, but gravity is what makes it work. IF it wasn't for gravity, the rain would not fall and the dam would not turn water into electricity.
26-04-2019 02:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]dehammer wrote:
[quote]Common Sense wrote:
Fuel cells, no matter how efficient they are, cannot generate more energy than you have to expend to get the hydrogen and oxygen for the fuel cell in the first place.

You can't create energy out of nothing.
Does the Hoover Dam create energy out of nothing?


No. It's solar power. It harnesses energy coming from the Sun.
No, it harnesses the power of gravity.

Gravity is not energy. Hydroelectric power is essentially solar power.
dehammer wrote:
Read how its done. What produces power is the generators. What turns the generators is water. What causes the water to have the power to push the turbine is pressure. What causes that pressure is the weight of the water in the column of water above the turbine via the piping.

Where does all that water come from, dude? It doesn't just magically appear you know.
dehammer wrote:
Solar is responsible for putting the water in the mountains above the dam, but gravity is what makes it work. IF it wasn't for gravity, the rain would not fall and the dam would not turn water into electricity.

Where does the water to be put in the mountains come from, dude?

Gravity is not energy.


The Parrot Killer
26-04-2019 02:58
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
So why does the weight of the water above the turbine matter?

"Aug 1, 2018 - 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

Here you see the EXPERTS describe it as a function of gravity.

No where do experts describe dam's ability to produce electricity as a function of gravity.
Edited on 26-04-2019 03:03
26-04-2019 03:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
dehammer wrote:
So why does the weight of the water above the turbine matter?

"Aug 1, 2018 - 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

Here you see the EXPERTS describe it as a function of gravity.

No where do experts describe dam's ability to produce electricity as a function of gravity.


Where is all that water coming from, dude?


The Parrot Killer
26-04-2019 03:38
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Where is all that water coming from, dude?
The sun is not causing the dam to function. Gravity is. IF gravity did not exist would water vapor go into the sky? If gravity did not exist would rain fall?

Solar energy is a tiny weak part of one of the four forces of the universe. Gravity is one of those 4.
26-04-2019 04:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
dehammer wrote:
[quote]Where is all that water coming from, dude?
The sun is not causing the dam to function.
dehammer wrote:
Gravity is. IF gravity did not exist would water vapor go into the sky? If gravity did not exist would rain fall?

Solar energy is a tiny weak part of one of the four forces of the universe. Gravity is one of those 4.

Solar energy is not a force of nature. It is energy. Gravity is not energy. It is a force of nature.

You managed to stumble close to the answer. Where does all that falling water come from? Water vapor going into the sky. That water vapor comes from the oceans evaporating. Tell me what gravity has to do with that.


The Parrot Killer
26-04-2019 05:15
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I am sorry I wasted your time. I thought this was a place that you could actually discuss science, not religion. Keep it up comrade, im sure ww3 is just around the corner now.
26-04-2019 19:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
dehammer wrote:
I am sorry I wasted your time. I thought this was a place that you could actually discuss science, not religion.
Then discuss science, not religion.
dehammer wrote:
Keep it up comrade, im sure ww3 is just around the corner now.

Or, like so many before you, you could go off into completely irrelevant directions and start to insult people. That is not a discussion. That's quitting.


The Parrot Killer
26-04-2019 19:40
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Of course it quitting. I came here hoping to discuss science and found only trolls. You cant discuss anything with trolls. You win. Trolls always win.

I see a lot of what happening now in the history of Russian before their revolution and Germany before ww2. I had hoped to find a way to stop it, but no one wants to stop the train wreck. Too many think that their train will win. Who wins when two trains collide head on.
26-04-2019 20:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
dehammer wrote:
Of course it quitting. I came here hoping to discuss science and found only trolls. You cant discuss anything with trolls. You win. Trolls always win.
You are not discussing science. You simply have resorted to calling anyone that brings up science a 'troll'. May I suggest you go study the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation before you try again?
dehammer wrote:
I see a lot of what happening now in the history of Russian before their revolution
No royalty here in the United States.
dehammer wrote:
and Germany before ww2.
No NAZI party has any power in the United States.
dehammer wrote:
I had hoped to find a way to stop it,
Stop what?
dehammer wrote:
but no one wants to stop the train wreck.
What train wreck?
dehammer wrote:
Too many think that their train will win.
You seem to think in very binary terms. If someone challenges your wacky stories about perpetual motion machines, you figure that's going to start WW3. You are very strange.
dehammer wrote:
Who wins when two trains collide head on.

The news media. Perhaps the person that arranged it. They used to do this intentionally for entertainment purposes, you know. Sort of like Demolition Derby, but with trains. People would actually buy tickets to see these.

Nowadays, the only people that arrange such things are movie makers.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Solutions anyone?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
NEW BOOK out re Global Warming solutions201-12-2018 21:36
Climate Change Solutions : What you thought you knew is obsolete. Joe Romm318-12-2017 21:53
I present to you my Climate&Energy solutions and leads and quests I wrote/made over the past 2 years410-10-2015 00:01
How to create actual solutions to global warming1707-10-2015 23:07
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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