Going Green with Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered...
jenneylist
http://automotive-industry-news.50webs.com/Hydrogen_Gas_Generator.htm
Don Lancaster
> Going Green with Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered...
Totally bogus.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/trashelc.pdf for a detailed analysis.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Bob Eld
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:79fer8F...@mid.individual.net...
I don't see many of these hydrogen nut case ideas any longer. It seems we
did a good job of debunking it a few years ago. I guess there are always a
few newbees who haven't figured it out yet.
Don Lancaster
The dilemma is this: Hydrogen injection DOES work and DOES have many
peer reviewed papers. But there is no way in hell that the staggering
losses in onboard electrolysis can remotely be made up by the benefits.
And that is BEFORE all the stupid mistakes ( stainless steel, no current
switchmode, ordinary alternator, way too small, outrageous costs, felony
EPA violations, use of a stock fanbelt, etc etc... ) are made.
http;//www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf
Eeyore
jenneylist wrote:
> Going Green with Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered...
Hydrogen as a fuel is ANTI-green. It is less energy efficient overall
even than oil.
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Bob Eld wrote:
> > "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> >news:79fer8F...@mid.individual.net...
> >> jenneylist wrote:
> >>> Going Green with Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered...
> >>>http://automotive-scam-news.50webs.com/Hydrogen_Gas_Generator.htm
>
> >> Totally bogus.
>
>
> >> --
> >> Many thanks,
>
> >> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
> >> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> >> rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
>
> > I don't see many of these hydrogen nut case ideas any longer. It seems we
> > did a good job of debunking it a few years ago. I guess there are always a
> > few newbees who haven't figured it out yet.
>
> The dilemma is this: Hydrogen injection DOES work and DOES have many
> peer reviewed papers. But there is no way in hell that the staggering
> losses in onboard electrolysis can remotely be made up by the benefits.
>
> And that is BEFORE all the stupid mistakes ( stainless steel, no current
> switchmode, ordinary alternator, way too small, outrageous costs, felony
> EPA violations, use of a stock fanbelt, etc etc... ) are made.
>
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster
Sure Donny.
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf
And:
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$1...@client2.news.psi.net>...
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
AT FIRST:
You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.
In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.
HOW TO?
As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.
Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to Ohio!
Ted!
Don Lancaster
>
> Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
> so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
>
The cost of this process is approximately $19,000.00
A thousand pages at $19 per page court transcription fees.
Which is the --> only <--- reason why I have not long ago done so.
The contents of the tape is not the least in doubt.
Sigh...
One more time...
=============
There seems to be yet another incarnation
of the Stanley Meyer water powered car
fiasco, both on YouTube and the sci.energy.hydrogen
newsgroup.
The video is particularly self-damming where you
can see the ac line operated induction motor on the
vehicle that drove an alternator to store up hydrogen
"piggy bank style".
Detailed debunking of the Meyer fiasco appears
here and here. A summary...
What most likely happened were the usual
incompetent pulse measurement errors that
everybody else always makes.
Not one individual anyplace ever has been
able to duplicate the Meyer claims on an
independently verifiable basis.
An Ohio judge found "gross and egregrious
fraud" and a "loose grip on reality" The
actual trial transcriptions have never been
made available due to high admin costs.
The experiment DOES get rerun many
tens of thousands of times daily by EIS
researchers. With uniformly negative
results.
A fundamental thermodynamic principle
involving exergy flat out GUARANTEES
that bulk energy hydrogen electrolysis
from high value sources (such as grid, pv,
wind, or alternator) ain't gonna happen.
The whole venture is thus totally useless.
Convincing British "experts" simply did
not happen. Based on a "lame excuse"
at test time.
Newsgroup response by proponents is
uniformly vitrolic and crudely ad-hominum.
Credible and factual info is rarely posted.
Many proponents are clearly not housebroken.
No unusual or overunity claims appear in
any of the patents. The patents simply
describe an enormously inefficient
and impractical approach to electrolysis..
For Meyer to be right, countless others would
have to be dead wrong. Including Faraday's Law,
Fourier Series, the fundamental definition of
current, EDM machining, Qprox proximity
sensors, thermodynamic fundamentals, and
many more diverse examples.
Claims of "nuclear and not chemical" are
prima facie absurd because of the outrageous
energy level differences. The root cause
appeared to be not knowing the difference
between "volts" (a potential) and "electron
volts" (an energy measurement).
The molecular resonance frequency of water
is THOUSANDS of times higher than the
frequencies in use. No overunity resonance
effect has ever been demonstrated anytime
ever.
The Meyer circuits completely ignore the
inescapable fact that water-to-hydrogen
conversion involves moving electrons and
thus is inherently CURRENT driven rather
than voltage. Current sources are inherently
inefficient unless special switchmode techniques
are in use.
Not one credible peer reviewed paper has ever
been published anywhere on what certainly would
have been a world class fundamental upheaval in
the laws of thermodynamics. "Publish or Perish"
should have produced a glut of scholarly research.
"Oil company suppression" seems conspicuously
absent since all the fully detailed material is
freely available on the web from multiple sources.
Albeit highly incompetent and sorely misguided ones.
Failing to use platinized platinum electrodes
and the stainless steel overvoltage of iron
guarantees low efficiency. Only the DC term
of a Fourier equivalent pulse waveform will
normally contribute significantly to gas production.
A double intergration is clearly involved.
Live links at http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu08.asp#05-22-08
Fred Kasner
My God! Still beating that dead horse? You still proclaim that an
electron volt is the same as a volt.
FK
Fred Kasner
Well done summary, Don. I now will shut down any more responses to the
idiot, JW. My ISP (AT&T) will no longer provide usenet service about the
middle of next month. So I'll pay for usenet service with a reduced
number of newsgroups. Also my health has been quite bad since the first
of the year. I may not survive at this rate. In any event fight the good
fight when needed. Fred Kasner
Eeyore
jenneylist wrote:
> Going Green with Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered...
There is NOTHING green about hydrogen. It takes about as much power to
produce as it releases and fuel cells only manage to extract roughly 1/2
of that potential power.
In short it's a great way of starting with 4 units of energy and ending
up with ONE. Typical 'greenmail'.
Graham
--
Eeyore
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
> nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
> to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
You could learn a LOT from that statement.
Eeyore
Fred Kasner wrote:
> Well done summary, Don. I now will shut down any more responses to the
> idiot, JW. My ISP (AT&T) will no longer provide usenet service about the
> middle of next month. So I'll pay for usenet service with a reduced
> number of newsgroups. Also my health has been quite bad since the first
> of the year. I may not survive at this rate.
Sorry to hear that. Your posts have always been interesting.
> In any event fight the good fight when needed. Fred Kasner
BTW, astraweb do a good inexpensive news service starting with a $10 for 25GB
non-expiring subscription. Only downside, they only allow posts to 3 groups
at a time.