| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
This topic was just on CNBC.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
yep I saw it there too! as
yep I saw it there too!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
This is happening...
...and if the economy doesn't collapse, this technology will be used to power homes while hopefully being a source of hydrogen for your fuel cell cars to run on. Power your home with solar while producing hydrogen. Awesome.
The Retrocon
Hope for America, Ron Paul for President in 2008!
The Retrocon
Hope for America, Ron Paul for President in 2008!
I am going to make this whole debate very simple.
Who here wants people to have an ability to produce their own energy without oil?
Simple yet profound question.
Do you naysayers want people to have energy away from the strangle hold of oil to where they can have true freedom not having to pay for oil products?
Do you want the average human to be energy independent and free yes or no?
I have drawn the line in the sand.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
I do I do I do!
and here is the best way to do it!
It's FREE but takes a while to load, ebook with a lot of info...
FREE FREE FREE
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/PJKbook.pdf
A smart download for dumb people, A dumb download for smart people!
(Self proclaimed smart people say its dumb cause it proves them wrong!)
Check out page 383! good place to build from.
wow, that is quite a book!
Very interesting read. Someone spent a lot of time compiling all of that great information in one place.
Thanks!
Yes they did! Another Freedom Revolution!
And its free with no strings attached. Free for the ones who can move their figure and click a mouse. But you will find so many that do not want to take the time to become educated and free They'll keep saying "You can't do that! I've learned in physic 101 it's impossible, just a scam so don't try!"
"Educated Sheeples are the Oil companies best friends!"
Magic Word: Catalyst
OK guys, I think I can help.
I did a page search on the comments, and none of you seem to be mentioning the word CATALYST.
Students in science labs have been taking apart water using an electrical current for many, many years. The problem has been that the process is very inefficient.
The new process uses a new (patented) catalyst to release oxygen with almost 100% efficiency. This means that water can be taken apart and the resulting gasses later burned or used in a fuel cell with minimal loss of energy in the cycle. This makes using hydrogen and oxygen production, storage and use a viable means of storing significant amounts of energy. Think of it as a substitute for a storage battery.
The reference in the headline and article is misleading. The process does not use sunlight to produce hydrogen and oxygen. It uses the electricity produced by photovoltaic cells to take apart water, only more efficiently than we have seen in the past.
I googled some keywords and found a much better article which more clearly explains what they are doing Find it here:
http://tinyurl.com/55awdp
This article was written for persons with a high-school level of science education, and, while incomplete, gives a much clearer idea of the system. The MIT article seems to have been dumbed down so much as to be confusing.
Note that this process has NOTHING TO DO with the claimed high frequency excited production of HHO being touted by the "run your car on water" people. I have not seen anyone yet who has subjected those claims to rigorous scientific testing. It would be wonderful if true, so if you know of real proof of gas output vs energy input I'd really like to see it. Of course I could try to build a test system but if it didn't perform to expectations the promoters would say I built it wrong. What they should do is perform more rigorous tests if they expect to be believed.
I just want to be clear my
I just want to be clear my comment was not directed at the poster of this topic. HHO from solar is an actually good idea.
really, all you HHO loving
really, all you HHO loving people, shut up about it on this website! The educated base on here knows water is not an energy source. We also know that hydrogen is not an energy source, only a way to transport energy.
STOP BELIEVING EVERY STUPID THING A SCAMMER TELLS YOU!
Have you noticed that the only people using HHO are people with no scientific or chemistry background? It is not some conspiracy by the oil companies. Really, it is not.
"shut up about it on this web site"?
A way to become more free from the slavery of oil? Wow, I'm in the wrong revolution it seems... Liberty? and now we can't share things because we are not educated! Wow! Help me out here all the smart people, what college did Tesla get his degree from?
Hey all you dumb hho people go for a free lesson...
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/
get the facts, hook up with people who know and share, FREE!
By the way, after you start saving money from not buying as much gas, send dailypaul a donation! and the cfl!
thanks! from a dummy, ME!
sniffle,sniffle...
All you HHO people need to leave, BRITTANY ALONE TOO!!!!
*********************************************
The Second Amendment
The ORIGINAL Homeland Security
Doctorates at MIT who are
Doctorates at MIT who are more highly educated then you seem to think its worth pursuing??!!! as far as being "educated" some of the book smartest people I know are also the dumbest! I have 2 friends who scored 35/35 on there act tests and yet they make less money then I do and it makes them mad.. so who is smarter??
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
They have discovered a different method of electrolysis
If it offers some advantage over existing technologies, they will patent it and maybe make a bunch of money. If they can figure a way to turn it into a weapon, they will receive a government grant and will make a bunch of money (just kidding), The discovery is interesting, maybe even significant, but I would be more impressed with a breakthrough in fuel cell technology. Generating hydrogen from water is nothing new. A low cost, long lasting fuel cell to actually use that hydrogen would be. Hydrogen is very tricky to store, you know. All those teeeny tiny H2 molecules are cosmic escape artists.
I'm glad that the Anti-HHO crowd wasn't around
I'm glad that the Anti-HHO crowd wasn't around when humankind was discovering the uses of fire.
We'd still be eating cold food in a dwelling with no heat probably and riding horses as our primary mode of transportation. Since using fire for cooking, heating our homes and in internal combustion engines would be out of the question.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
I'd call that an energy source, in fact I'd call it "fuel"
Really? Water is not a source of hydrogen (through the endothermic chemical reaction of electrolysis) which can be used as an energy source in an exothermic chemical reaction, like that in an internal combustion engine?
Wow. I thought it was. I thought 70% of the Earth is covered with this compound of hydrogen and oxygen known as water and that we have a nuclear reactor in our sky known as the Sun that IS a free energy source.
Sorry to "scam" everyone. I guess I'm not regurgitating your talking points properly.
Looks like MIT is trying to scam people too!
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
Don't get lost in semantics
Gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy.
Water is not "fuel" without electricity.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
the difference that you are
the difference that you are looking for is that gasoline continues it's reaction (rapid oxidation) without a continued supply of heat. It is simple really, gasoline is a form of energy (created by millions of years of sunlight making petroleum) and water is not. To turn water into hydrogen requires the same amount of energy put into it as you will get out of the combustion. And since combustion engines are not very efficient, you will actually lose energy in the process. You need a continuous supply of energy to have the water react. That is not the same with gasoline.
Do you see what I mean? I am not trying to be mean, just set you straight on the truth. You should learn to accept that you may not be right about everything.
Is he not right because you don't know?
google "Bob Boyce" and learn....never mind, you know everything!
Still buried in semantics...
It looks to me like like the difference between water as "fuel" and gasoline as "fuel" is that the former is an endothermic chemical reaction and the latter is an exothermic chemical reaction.
Perhaps "energy source" would be better phraseology for water as "fuel".
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
You've got it but you don't get it
An endothermic reaction absorbs heat. It can't be an energy source. It requires more energy than it provides.
An exothermic reaction produces heat. Lets go back to your example of needing spark plugs to keep a gasoline engine running. The battery provides the initial energy to turn over the engine and fire the spark plugs. Each time they fire they ignite the gasoline, which provides sufficient energy to both move the car and drive the alternator, charging the battery and providing the energy for the next spark. You get more energy out of the gasoline than it takes to initiate the reaction.
Since the splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen is, as you say, endothermic, it does not provide more energy than it takes to split the water. Therefore, there is no energy left to move the car.
Here is the real secret
be sharper than a marble, download the book and learn!
its free
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/PJKbook.pdf
Look at it this way
Gasoline is a fuel
Hydrogen is a fuel
Both of them release energy as heat when they combine with oxygen. Each produces byproducts of combustion when they burn.
Gasoline produces a laundry list of hydrocarbon emissions along with CO and CO2, and I'm sure lots of other nasty stuff.
Hydrogen produces water.
Saying you can use water as fuel is like saying that you could capture all of the byproducts of burning gasoline, somehow reconstitute them into gasoline, burn the new gasoline and achieve a net energy gain by doing so.
I do not in any way dispute the fact that you can use electricity to get hydrogen from water. However, you will never get more energy out of burning that hydrogen than you put into retrieving it from the water. You must provide energy from an outside source to produce the hydrogen.
This does not mean there is no use for hydrogen as fuel. The MIT article about using the hydrogen as storage for solar energy is one good use. There is also technology being developed to use bacteria in sewage treatment plants to produce hydrogen for fuel. Hydrogen is a fantastic fuel, but unfortunately, water is not.
You cannot refute this FACT:
Gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
I can
You need three thing, fuel, ignition (heat) and Oxygen. Just heat and fuel is not enough. Charles Nelson Pouge proved that in the thirties with his vapor carb. He used exhaust gases to super heat gas to make a vapor then dry it for burning. 26.5 miles per pint of gas..., ,They said it was not safe, "it will blow up! " .Not with out all three!
http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm
Yes, I know, the news said he was a crook!
That does not refute the FACT
Gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy. Ok, we can also say that gasoline is not "fuel" without oxygen (or other oxidizer). And, we can say that gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy and oxygen (or other oxidizer).
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
Actually, I can
From dictionary.com definition of Fuel:
1. combustible matter used to maintain fire, as coal, wood, oil, or gas, in order to create heat or power.
2. something that gives nourishment; food.
3. an energy source for engines, power plants, or reactors: Kerosene is used as jet engine fuel.
Definitions 1 and 3 are relevant. A substance does not have to be burning to be fuel, but it has to be able to burn. Hydrogen and gasoline both meet that requirement. Water does not.
Not even a nice try..
LOL. That is not a refutation.
What is the definition of "combustible"?
How is gasoline an energy source in an engine?
I already did my homework on this. You cannot refute it.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy
If you do not understand what I just posted,
there is no further point to this discussion.
Wrong again
No, you cannot understand that gasoline is not "fuel" without heat energy.
If you want to pretend that you can use gasoline as "fuel" without heat energy, then that's your problem.
Go ahead, show me an instance of using gasoline as "fuel" without heat energy. PROVE ME WRONG.
Go ahead, run your car without spark or glow plugs and see how far you'll drive.
----
The Antidote to neoCon Koolaid: www.dvds4delegates.com
"We really do have...a once in a lifetime opportunity to take the Republican Party back to where it was." -Kent Snyder, 1959-2008
----
"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy