The Car That Runs on Water [debunked]
Eric Gisin
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSSP7366720080613 [appalling junk]
http://www.goodcleantech.com/2008/06/genepax_water_energy_system_ma.php
June 16, 2008, 05:00:01 | Steven Novella
This story keeps coming back, and it is likes we will continue to see it into the future. The car
that runs on water has become almost a technological icon - like the hover car or the cure for
cancer. Except we will never see it because it simply is not possible.
Here is the latest iteration of this scam/pseudoscience. Japanese company Genepax claims that is
has a car that runs on water. Reuters reports:
"The car will continue to run as long as you have a bottle of water to top up from time to time,"
Genepax CEO Kiyoshi Hirasawa told local broadcaster TV Tokyo.
"It does not require you to build up an infrastructure to recharge your batteries, which is
usually the case for most electric cars," he added.
The Reuters article was pretty light on details. It was also light on skepticism (i.e basic
journalism). It failed to inform readers that such claims have been made numerous times before and
that the scientific consensus is that such claims violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Cryptogon reports that on June 12th the company held a press conference, adding:
The basic power generation mechanism of the new system is similar to that of a normal fuel cell,
which uses hydrogen as a fuel. According to Genepax, the main feature of the new system is that it
uses the company's membrane electrode assembly (MEA), which contains a material capable of breaking
down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction.
Though the company did not reveal the details, it "succeeded in adopting a well-known process to
produce hydrogen from water to the MEA," said Hirasawa Kiyoshi, the company's president. This
process is allegedly similar to the mechanism that produces hydrogen by a reaction of metal hydride
and water. But compared with the existing method, the new process is expected to produce hydrogen
from water for longer time, the company said.
Here is the problem - it takes energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. When you then burn
the hydrogen by recombining it with oxygen you generate some of that energy back. But the laws of
thermodynamic say that the energy you get back must be less than the energy you put in. You simply
cannot get energy out of this process.
Those who have claimed to have done so in the past fall into one of two broad categories: Either
they were deceiving themselves through sloppy science or they were scam artists. In the former case
the energy inputs and outputs were not measured accurately, or a source of energy input was missed,
leading to the false conclusion that energy output exceeds input. In the latter case con artists
are simply looking for investors for a product they know will never work. I do not know which
category Genepax falls into.
The company claims that it is their membrane technology that allows for the splitting of hydrogen
off water. But this does not explain where the energy is coming from. The word "catalyst" is thrown
around a lot - but a catalyst just allows a reaction to run more quickly, it does not allow a
reaction to go from a low energy state (water) to a higher energy state (hydrogen and oxygen). The
company also says that the reaction is driven by a chemical reaction. It is possible for a chemical
reaction to provide energy to split water - but then the fuel is the chemicals undergoing the
reaction. What chemical might these be? How much is needed to fuel the car? Whey aren't these
chemicals already used as fuels? Since the company claims the car need only water and outputs only
water it is unlikely they are fueling the car with large amounts of substances from which they are
getting chemical energy. This is a good way to confuse the scientifically challenged, however.
What is most amusing about this story, other than the utter failure of the mainstream media to
report it adequately, are some of the comments in the online article. Here are some gems:
For those who do not believe this ('academic' people especially). get ready to be imperially
f@cked when oil hits $200 a barrel. all I hear from them are moans that 'it cannot be done' while
they offer no other solutions'. Fact is, you do not even know how many truths are kept away from
you by the oil cartels. maybe a breakthrough was already created 20 years ago.
-----------
All this talk about a hoax is a little silly. Do you not think the reporters from Reuters didn't
at least check this thing out. I am sure they made sure that the person put water in the tank to
make it run. And for thermodynamics it is mostly garbage. Do the galaxies spin based on
thermodynamics.
-----------
A scam? So what.. If I can get down the road with this cheaper than I can with oil it has a
market. We are looking at $ per mile and availability of fuel. The "real" fuel here may be in the
form of a metallic reaction bar or other type of catylist but who really cares?
These were the basic types of gullible comments. Some talked about the "big oil" conspiracy to
suppress any such technology, while others simply stated that we need an alternative to gasoline
(as if needed it made it so). One commenter made a type of argument from authority - that the press
reporting can be trusted (how naive). But the most simplistic idiocy came from those who said
something to the effect - who cares if it's a scam, as long as it works. Huh?
It was good to see a fair percentage of commenters who understood the physics and that such claims
must be fraudulent. One commenter said it very well - "when will people learn that water is not
fuel." Exactly.
Reading the comments of such articles always gives me the sensation (at the risk of creating a
false dichotomy) that people fall into two basic groups: those who understand science and basically
trust the institutions of science, and those whose thinking is hopelessly muddled by conspiracy
thinking, pseudoscientific ideology, and/or scientific illiteracy. Perhaps the internet, with its
exquisite catering to niche markets, is exacerbating this divide - making skeptics into better
skeptics while simultaneously feeding the conspiracy mongers and lunatic fringe. If true it will be
interesting to see where this gets us.
One thing is for sure - wherever that is we won't be getting there in a water-powered car.
Don Lancaster
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/morenrgf.pdf
--
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
Sevenhundred Elves
3 ngs at a time>
Thank you, Eric. Just as you say, this IS a frequently recurring topic
here, so your article should deserve a place in the sci.energy FAQ.
(Is there one? Who maintains it?)
It should be taught in school, too. The basics of physics shouldn't be
kept secret from everybody besides physicists, it's too important for
that.
S.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:51:43 -0700, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com>
wrote:
Spaceman
> Thank you, Eric. Just as you say, this IS a frequently recurring topic
> here, so your article should deserve a place in the sci.energy FAQ.
> (Is there one? Who maintains it?)
>
> It should be taught in school, too. The basics of physics shouldn't be
> kept secret from everybody besides physicists, it's too important for
> that.
The biggest problem with schools is they seem to be teaching relativity
as if "IT" is the basics of physics when it is far from the basics.
You are correct, they should teach the basics of physics in school,
that way more people would see the problems with relativity that
has no physical causes associate with effects instead of being brainwashed
by it so they can not see the problems at all.
And refuse to even look when shown.
Math is not a cause, yet physics seem to be teaching such today.
:)
Time travel, worm holes, curved space-time, shrinking meter sticks
zero point energy, pure energy without mass...etc..
all bologna that is being fed and brainwashed into too many
new students even in physics and they do not even understand such laws
anymore.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
daestrom
> Eric Gisin wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/morenrgf.pdf
Do you have to post the *entire* message over again just to SPAM us with
your web site tripe??
daestrom
Don Lancaster
>
> daestrom
>
It is a thankless task, but someone has got to do it.
hhc...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Hey, Daestom, I really for one appecitate Don's infomative website
links, simply because they provide more factual and technological
information than a a newgroup is capable of providing I supect
everyone and everyone of posting on profit websites based upon pure
financial motive goals, but Don Lancaser post the wealth of
information free to all visitors, He does not require you to sign in
and post your email address that he could sell to a mailing list
suppier, or so far as I can tell have any amy suspicous motivations.
Evidently, he doesn't sell his mailing list to any magazine
publishers.
Sorry to you defamers of Don Lancaster, but in my impression, he is
the last remaining "Boy Scout" on the Internet. I've never seen him
post anyhing but scientific fact, which seems to distress some posters
who would rather believe in scientific fantasy, but thankfully Don
does not collapse to these pressures.
I don't know if Don holds a degree in Science or Engineering, but to
his credit, he should. Better than most science or engineering
instructors, Don has had and and still has an abiliy to make the most
obtuse subject seem obvious.
Harrry C.
Eeyore
hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't know if Don holds a degree in Science or Engineering,
Yes.
> but to
> his credit, he should. Better than most science or engineering
> instructors, Don has had and and still has an abiliy to make the most
> obtuse subject seem obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Lancaster
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/donbio.pdf
Graham
hhc...@yahoo.com
wrote:
JIm, amen. My first year at Dexel was leaning the mathmatics that I
wasn't tuught in Bordentown highschool. where are math knowledge was
limitied to a teacher who was more focused on the laurdromat that he
owned rather than teaching. So I entered Drexel somewhat
blindsided.
Jim, at time time I had really a good comprension of algebra (not
thanks to my pubiic eduation), but my public school ecucation has
never bother to eqaunt me about the siplifaction of formulas in
trigonomety. I knew about that sine and cosine funcitions were, and
the values of a 30, 60. 90 right triangle, but not much else. I
flunked by first year in undergraduate math, but learned a great deal
in repeating that course. Jim, after that experience during the next
year I could spit triginometric relationships out of by asshole (sorry
to be so blunt).
It strikes me at sort of humor, but I can seen many guys out there
that can memory alone recite the result of The Half-Angle formulas.
Ok the wife hits me in one side of my head, and calls for me to come
for dinner.
Olders readers know what that suggest. younger readers have asolutely
no clue.
To furnish these clueless youngsters without a cllue, just a hint.
The vast majoritiy of us old farts have continued to remained married
for now 50 years.
daestrom
While Don's writings are useful, if you actually *read* the threads and then
*read* the link he posts, you'll notice there are not many times they are
about the same topic (unless you consider 'energy in general' to be the same
topic).
Take for example this thread. The OP is about some random news release of a
car 'running' on water. Don replies to the post by quoting the entire
news-release and related nonsense, and adds at the very end a link to his
"Some More Energy Fundamentals I" page.
On Don's page we find discussion of 'dimes equal kilowatts', exergy, a
discussion of amortization of costs including some discussion of PV costs
versus payback, economies of scale, and some links for his other web pages.
All this information is at least 'interesting' (although I disagree with his
'energy==money==energy' analysis somewhat).
But, where exactly in Don's posted link does he discuss hydrogen
electrolysis, fuel-cell technology, or identifying scams such as 'water as
fuel'?? No where. Someone that hasn't caught on to Don's little trick
might click the link and hope to see some intelligent discussion about the
topic found in the thread. Maybe some thoughtful analysis of the topic at
hand, or some such. Sorry, you'll be disappointed. He uses the 'one link
fits all' model. One link, to one page should fit any discussion about any
energy issue.
So why does he post a link to that page?? My only guess is a shameless plug
to get 'eyeballs' to his web site. And *that* is what I object to (along
with quoting the entire tripe just to say, "Oh, Oh, come read my page,
please, please"). It's not 'on point' to the discussion, it's just a plea
for 'eyeballs'. As if to say, "I can't be bothered discussing *this* issue,
if you read my writings, 'all will become clear' and you'll understand
everything."
You can worship Don for his altruistic posting of knowledge if you want.
But don't ask him to explain what he means by the 'fully burden costs of PV'
or what sorts of 'externalized costs' he includes in his analysis, as I have
several times. His reply is invariably, "I'll send you my hourly rate if
you would like and we can negotiate a contract." He's not really interested
in intelligent dialog about issues, he just wants you to click his link, add
one to his 'eyeball' count and tell others to come visit his sight as well.
Why? Only Don knows for sure.
daestrom
Don Lancaster
DB
Now, that was funny...
Bill Ward
He also has a slightly acerbic sense of humor.
Eeyore
DB wrote:
Funny perhaps, but Don IS one of the good guys. I've read a couple of his
books and they've helped me along in my career and I'm pleased to have met him
on Usenet.
Graham
Benj
wrote:
> > >> daestrom
> Funny perhaps, but Don IS one of the good guys. I've read a couple of his
> books and they've helped me along in my career and I'm pleased to have met him
> on Usenet.
Well, maybe "semi-good guys". Don has a lot of "showbiz" in what he
does and very definitely has an agenda! I've read a lot of his stuff
over the years and own many of his books, but I've also blasted him
here on the Internet a few times myself.
I agree with everything "daestrom" says and more. I especially object
to Don's rants when he goes into "debunking" mode.
Let us note here that the "water powered" car is not exactly nonsense.
I can easily build one. The problem is that all decent journalists
have been fired and forced into selling used cars. When did you EVER
find a journalist who reported a science story without errors and
worse, totally changing the thrust of the main points? I never have.
I've NEVER seen a story in which I was involved or a personal witness
where the reporter got it all correct. This question was once asked at
the Washington press club and NONE of the REPORTERS there could recall
an instance where a story has all the facts correct! They look at it
this way: They are out there to "make a good story". Facts are to be
bent to that end.
Unfortunately Don loves science but is also in the journalism biz. So
at times I'm sorry to say, in his case making salient points tends to
take a back seat to the proverbial "good story".
Oh, that "water powered" car? How about this? Put a piece of sodium
in water and it splits it into hydrogen and oxygen. Build this into a
hydrogen fuel cell and you have a power source that appears to run on
"water". Well, OK it consumes water! But left unsaid in all this (and
Don and any other reporter worth his/her salt should be smart enough
to figure all this out) is that in truth the power source is actually
running on SODIUM! (Or whatever else chemical reaction they are using
to split water). Basically that old scam from the 1930s of putting a
"pill" in your tank and then filling it with the garden hose is still
finding suckers. Let's face it. Isn't that "pill" thing a "good
story"?
Don Lancaster
DB
I've had 'Active Filter Cookbook' on my bookshelf for decades. So what?
daestrom is right, he is rarely interested in an intelligent dialog.
I've had just one with him in the several years I've been here.
Joe
news:X5SdnbhXKdJ_E8vV...@posted.uniservecommunications...
> http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=315 [Steven Novella's blog]
> http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSSP7366720080613
> [appalling junk]
> http://www.goodcleantech.com/2008/06/genepax_water_energy_system_ma.php
>
> June 16, 2008, 05:00:01 | Steven Novella
>
> This story keeps coming back, and it is likes we will continue to see it
> into the future.
Snip....
>
> ...One thing is for sure - wherever that is we won't be getting there in a
> water-powered car.
>
http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
URL for Full Design Plans for Stan Meyers Water Fuel Cell: (for you REALLY
SMART guys)
http://waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.files/Stan_Meyer_Full_Data.pdf
Don Lancaster
>
>
> URL for Full Design Plans for Stan Meyers Water Fuel Cell: (for you REALLY
> SMART guys)
> http://waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.files/Stan_Meyer_Full_Data.pdf
>
>
Sorry, but that is for the really dumb guys.
The "not even wrong" epsilon minus wannabees, remedial junior division
hopefuls.
The really smart guys go to http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf instead.
Thermodynamic first principles involving exergy flat out GUARANTEE that
electrolysis from high value sources (such as grid, wind, pv, or
alternator) for bulk hydrogen energy flat out ain't gonna happen.
A thorough analysis of the Meyer electrocity can be found at
http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu08.asp#05-22-08
Joe
news:6c7p54F...@mid.individual.net...
But he got it patented.
Don Lancaster
Virtually ALL patents are utter failures.
Not one in 500 ever shows a net positive cash flow.
Winners are in the marketplace.
Losers are in the patent repository.
Also, if you bothered to read the patent, you would find it is just a
horribly complex and uselessly inefficient electrolysis scheme.
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
Bill Ward
But at other times can have a corrosive effect on basic communication.
m II
>> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
>
> But he got it patented.
>
>
http://righttocreate.blogspot.com/2006/04/ridiculous-patent-infinite-data.html
mike
--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.
Eeyore
Joe wrote:
Hahahahahahaahaa !
There's one born ever minute.
Graham
Eeyore
Joe wrote:
> But he got it patented.
So fucking what ?
Lots of things that don't work get patented.
Graham
Eeyore
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> >
> > But he got it patented.
>
>
> Virtually ALL patents are utter failures.
> Not one in 500 ever shows a net positive cash flow.
>
> Winners are in the marketplace.
> Losers are in the patent repository.
>
> Also, if you bothered to read the patent, you would find it is just a
> horribly complex and uselessly inefficient electrolysis scheme.
>
> http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
Meyer wisely made no claim of 'over unity' in his electrolyser patent. IIRC he
claimed it was 'more efficient' but he knew that an over-unity claim would
result in an examination so he didn't say that because he knew it would fail.
Graham
Don Lancaster
MOST things that don't work get patented.
By far the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.
Less than one patent in 500 ever generates a net positive cash flow.
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
george
> Virtually ALL patents are utter failures.
> Not one in 500 ever shows a net positive cash flow.
>
> Winners are in the marketplace.
> Losers are in the patent repository.
>
> Also, if you bothered to read the patent, you would find it is just a
> horribly complex and uselessly inefficient electrolysis scheme.
>
That one would require very large batteries to even be inefficient.
Just go electric and be done with it
Screen Ranger
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:5ba7cb19-ee05-4e03...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Yup Exactly for now it's a good choice.... If we can find lighter
battery that can yield higher current, that should solve Fuel
Problem.
Yevgen Barsukov
> http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=315[Steven Novella's blog]http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSSP7366720080613[appalling junk]http://www.goodcleantech.com/2008/06/genepax_water_energy_system_ma.php
>
Of cause the source of energy is a metal (or a metal-hydride), which
is the fuel.
Here are some more explanations coming from Japanese being pressed by
a more
competent correspondent:
I am amazed by the proliferation of the original story through mass
media,
without any mention of actual fuel (e.g metal, sodium borohidride
etc).
Also no mention of how long can the car go on one load of that fuel,
where to get the fuel and what is its price.
I mean, come on, they should institute a physics test for these who
want
to report stories about energy... Or to report stories, period.
Regards,
Evgenij
m II
> MOST things that don't work get patented.
Weird. I don't remember my Brother in Law being patented.
Don Lancaster
One of the lab rats I went to school with used sodium borohydride to
almost completely blow Callery, Pennsylvania off the map in 1958.
All he did was wash a beaker that was not quite empty.
Interest in the chemical has declined markedly since.
Eeyore
george wrote:
Uh ?
Have you even read Meyer's patent for his electrolyser ?
Graham
Eeyore
Screen Ranger wrote:
> Yup Exactly for now it's a good choice.... If we can find lighter
> battery that can yield higher current, that should solve Fuel
> Problem.
An 'over-unity BATTERY' ?
MORON squared.
Graham
Eeyore
Yevgen Barsukov wrote:
> I am amazed by the proliferation of the original story through mass
> media, without any mention of actual fuel (e.g metal, sodium borohidride
> etc).
> Also no mention of how long can the car go on one load of that fuel,
> where to get the fuel and what is its price.
> I mean, come on, they should institute a physics test for these who
> want to report stories about energy... Or to report stories, period.
If I may paraphrase, what you're saying, if I understand correctly, is that the 'meeja' are so stupid and lacking technically competent reporters that they are no more fit to report factually on 'energy' issues than say the
'economy' at which they are equally inept.
Yes ?
I'm pleased to say that I have in the last week seemingly through comments to the editor had 2 reports of so-called ZEVs removed from a well-known UK newspaper.
Keep at it and bash the media clowns. They deserve it.
Graham
Eeyore
m II wrote:
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>
> > MOST things that don't work get patented.
>
> Weird. I don't remember my Brother in Law being patented.
Merely an oversight.
Graham
Yevgen Barsukov
> Yevgen Barsukov wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 10:51 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=315[Steven Novella's blog]http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSSP7366720080613[appalling junk]http://www.goodcleantech.com/2008/06/genepax_water_energy_system_ma.php
>
> > Of cause the source of energy is a metal (or a metal-hydride), which
> > is the fuel.
> > Here are some more explanations coming from Japanese being pressed by
> > a more
> > competent correspondent:
>
>
> > I am amazed by the proliferation of the original story through mass
> > media,
> > without any mention of actual fuel (e.g metal, sodium borohidride
> > etc).
> > where to get the fuel and what is its price.
> > I mean, come on, they should institute a physics test for these who
> > want
> > to report stories about energy... Or to report stories, period.
>
> > Regards,
> > Evgenij
>
> One of the lab rats I went to school with used sodium borohydride to
> almost completely blow Callery, Pennsylvania off the map in 1958.
>
> All he did was wash a beaker that was not quite empty.
>
> Interest in the chemical has declined markedly since.
>
It is still one of the popular hydrogen generating materials used
in mobile fuel-cells. For example a company
Millennium Inc
http://www.millenniumcell.com/fw/main/home-177.html
has released to mass production a portable 1kW electric generator
that
uses NaBH4 canisters for producing hydrogen. For some reason
reputable companies resist temptation to call it a "water fueled
generator".
Fuel Cell promotion organizations even applied to FDA to approve
NaBH4 cartridges for use in aircrafts (amoung other materials).
So it looks like it is considered reasonably safe as long as
it stays of of contact with water,
and when used, contact is tightly controlled.
Of cause, anything that has to do with hydrogen is dangerous.
I myself had almost blew up my kitchen in 8th grade when experimenting
with
hydrogen production from Al-wire in presence of CuSO4 and NaCl
solution as a catalyst. It is a very dramatic reaction, which
you would not expect from seemingly stable aluminum.
(Btw another nice "water" car - take aluminum tank, and add
water with a little pinch of CuSO4 and salt :-)
But if you consider alternative storage options (greatly compressed
hydrogen is other
popular one) NaBH4 sounds very harmless.
Regards,
Yevgen
Fred Kasner
> On Jun 16, 7:13 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>>> Thank you, Eric. Just as you say, this IS a frequently recurring topic
>>> here, so your article should deserve a place in the sci.energy FAQ.
>>> (Is there one? Who maintains it?)
>>> It should be taught in school, too. The basics of physics shouldn't be
>>> kept secret from everybody besides physicists, it's too important for
>>> that.
>> The biggest problem with schools is they seem to be teaching relativity
>> as if "IT" is the basics of physics when it is far from the basics.
>> You are correct, they should teach the basics of physics in school,
>> that way more people would see the problems with relativity that
>> has no physical causes associate with effects instead of being brainwashed
>> by it so they can not see the problems at all.
>> And refuse to even look when shown.
>> Math is not a cause, yet physics seem to be teaching such today.
>> :)
>>
>> Time travel, worm holes, curved space-time, shrinking meter sticks
>> zero point energy, pure energy without mass...etc..
>> all bologna that is being fed and brainwashed into too many
>> new students even in physics and they do not even understand such laws
>> anymore.
>>
>> --
>> James M Driscoll Jr
>> Spaceman
>
> JIm, amen. My first year at Dexel was leaning the mathmatics that I
> wasn't tuught in Bordentown highschool. where are math knowledge was
> limitied to a teacher who was more focused on the laurdromat that he
> owned rather than teaching. So I entered Drexel somewhat
> blindsided.
>
> Jim, at time time I had really a good comprension of algebra (not
> thanks to my pubiic eduation), but my public school ecucation has
> never bother to eqaunt me about the siplifaction of formulas in
> trigonomety. I knew about that sine and cosine funcitions were, and
> the values of a 30, 60. 90 right triangle, but not much else. I
> flunked by first year in undergraduate math, but learned a great deal
> in repeating that course. Jim, after that experience during the next
> year I could spit triginometric relationships out of by asshole (sorry
> to be so blunt).
>
> It strikes me at sort of humor, but I can seen many guys out there
> that can memory alone recite the result of The Half-Angle formulas.
>
> Ok the wife hits me in one side of my head, and calls for me to come
> for dinner.
>
> Olders readers know what that suggest. younger readers have asolutely
> no clue.
>
> To furnish these clueless youngsters without a cllue, just a hint.
> The vast majoritiy of us old farts have continued to remained married
> for now 50 years.
>
>
>
>
>
Yes, I know all about that at age just short of 82, Harry. It would be
55 years this year but, alas, the wonderful women died in 99. It is
still quite lonely.
FK
Edward Green
> This story keeps coming back, and it is likes we will continue to see it into the future. The car
> that runs on water ...
If anybody believes this for a nanosecond it's (1) evidence of the
failure of science education (2) exactly what they deserve. Let them
buy the crap.
<...>
Bob Cain
> I've had 'Active Filter Cookbook' on my bookshelf for decades.
_THAT_ Don Lancaster! Oh m'God. Thanks Don, that work alone justifies
canonization. :-)
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Don Lancaster
> DB wrote:
>
>> I've had 'Active Filter Cookbook' on my bookshelf for decades.
>
> _THAT_ Don Lancaster! Oh m'God. Thanks Don, that work alone justifies
> canonization. :-)
>
>
> Bob
Human cannonball during his circus exit interview...
"Sorry to see you go. Hard to find a man of your calibre."
m II
> _THAT_ Don Lancaster! Oh m'God. Thanks Don, that work alone justifies
> canonization. :-)
It's actually his evil twin. Don retired after he made his first 38
million. Rumours are he owns an island with his very own government.
'Despot Don' they call him.
Lovingly, of course..
DB
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
>> _THAT_ Don Lancaster! Oh m'God. Thanks Don, that work alone justifies
>> canonization. :-)
>
>
> It's actually his evil twin. Don retired after he made his first 38
> million. Rumours are he owns an island with his very own government.
> 'Despot Don' they call him.
>
> Lovingly, of course..
So, was it the third evil twin that wrote a book on how to write letters
to yourself and nobody else???
Eeyore
Bob Cain wrote:
> DB wrote:
>
> > I've had 'Active Filter Cookbook' on my bookshelf for decades.
>
> _THAT_ Don Lancaster! Oh m'God. Thanks Don, that work alone justifies
> canonization. :-)
Yeah, but most his filters have gain so it was almost useless to me. The
last thing you want in audio is a stage that'll clip before all the others.
WHY did you do that Don ? I appreciate it may have made the sums a little
easier. Did you just use gain to alter Q ? I forget now.
Graham
DB
>
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>> DB wrote:
>>
>>> I've had 'Active Filter Cookbook' on my bookshelf for decades.
>> _THAT_ Don Lancaster! Oh m'God. Thanks Don, that work alone justifies
>> canonization. :-)
>
> Yeah, but most his filters have gain so it was almost useless to me. The
> last thing you want in audio is a stage that'll clip before all the others.
Why would you ever drive your signal to the rails?
Eeyore
Eeyore
DB wrote:
That's precisely the point ! You don't WANT to. A filter with GAIN is the LAST
thing you want.
Read up on design of pro-audio mixing consoles and 'headroom'.
Graham
DB
>
> DB wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>>> DB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've had 'Active Filter Cookbook' on my bookshelf for decades.
>>>> _THAT_ Don Lancaster! Oh m'God. Thanks Don, that work alone justifies
>>>> canonization. :-)
>>> Yeah, but most his filters have gain so it was almost useless to me. The
>>> last thing you want in audio is a stage that'll clip before all the others.
>> Why would you ever drive your signal to the rails?
>
> That's precisely the point ! You don't WANT to. A filter with GAIN is the LAST
> thing you want.
Do you have the book? Most of the examples pass at 0db and less. If you
have a 3db peaker, just precede it with a divider. Or, run it at half
the gain in the feedback loop. The math is in the book to achive desired
results.
Don Lancaster
components equal value and also gave you a first order elimination of
frequency and damping interaction.
Quite a stunning breakthru, actually.
Sallen and Key missed it because they were using cathode followers.
Don Lancaster
It is theoretically possible to produce a passive device with a chosen
linear current versus voltage characteristic. Possibly placing one or
two of these at your filter output might be able to reduce the gain.
I can design one of these for you at our standard consulting rates.
Eeyore
DB wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > DB wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> Bob Cain wrote:
> >>>> DB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've had 'Active Filter Cookbook' on my bookshelf for decades.
> >>>> _THAT_ Don Lancaster! Oh m'God. Thanks Don, that work alone justifies
> >>>> canonization. :-)
> >>> Yeah, but most his filters have gain so it was almost useless to me. The
> >>> last thing you want in audio is a stage that'll clip before all the others.
> >> Why would you ever drive your signal to the rails?
> >
> > That's precisely the point ! You don't WANT to. A filter with GAIN is the LAST
> > thing you want.
>
> Do you have the book?
Not on my own shelf.
> Most of the examples pass at 0db and less. If you
> have a 3db peaker, just precede it with a divider.
Oh Puhleeeze ! That creates NOISE. Or rather degrades s/n ratio never mind needing
extra components.
> Or, run it at half the gain in the feedback loop. The math is in the book to
> achive desired
> results.
How about re-writing it for unity passband gain filters ? They are by far the most
useful type.
Hey, you could sell another whole edition and also include sone DSP formulas too !
Graham
Eeyore
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Bob Cain wrote:
> >> DB wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've had 'Active Filter Cookbook' on my bookshelf for decades.
> >> _THAT_ Don Lancaster! Oh m'God. Thanks Don, that work alone justifies
> >> canonization. :-)
> >
> > Yeah, but most his filters have gain so it was almost useless to me. The
> > last thing you want in audio is a stage that'll clip before all the others.
> >
> > WHY did you do that Don ? I appreciate it may have made the sums a little
> > easier. Did you just use gain to alter Q ? I forget now.
>
> The magic thing about the filter gain was that it made all the
> components equal value
Nice for a hobbyist perhaps but of almost zero value for a serious guy.
> and also gave you a first order elimination of
> frequency and damping interaction.
As I broadly thought.
> Quite a stunning breakthru, actually.
Neat for sure.
> Sallen and Key missed it because they were using cathode followers.
That's not the only way to do it though esp if you don't mind signal inversion.
Graham
Eeyore
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > DB wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> Bob Cain wrote:
> >>>> DB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've had 'Active Filter Cookbook' on my bookshelf for decades.
> >>>> _THAT_ Don Lancaster! Oh m'God. Thanks Don, that work alone justifies
> >>>> canonization. :-)
> >>> Yeah, but most his filters have gain so it was almost useless to me. The
> >>> last thing you want in audio is a stage that'll clip before all the others.
> >> Why would you ever drive your signal to the rails?
> >
> > That's precisely the point ! You don't WANT to. A filter with GAIN is the LAST
> > thing you want.
> >
> > Read up on design of pro-audio mixing consoles and 'headroom'.
>
> It is theoretically possible to produce a passive device with a chosen
> linear current versus voltage characteristic.
In English please ?
> Possibly placing one or two of these at your filter output might be able to reduce
> the gain.
>
> I can design one of these for you at our standard consulting rates.
Don, as one who has designed (well mostly project managed but with original design
input) $250,000 mixing consoles (at 1988 values), and $150 consoles at 2006 values,
I don't think I actually need that help.
An exchange of ideas might be interesting though.
Did you ever get into DSP btw ?
Graham
Spaceman
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>> It is theoretically possible to produce a passive device with a
>> chosen
>> linear current versus voltage characteristic.
>
> In English please ?
Wow,
You are an electrical engineer and you did not get that?
Eeeegads man!
:)
Eeyore
DB wrote:
OH GOD !
You're not familiar with pro-audio design it seems. I am since 37 years ago.
Graham
DB
>
> DB wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> DB wrote:
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>>>>> DB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've had 'Active Filter Cookbook' on my bookshelf for decades.
>>>>>> _THAT_ Don Lancaster! Oh m'God. Thanks Don, that work alone justifies
>>>>>> canonization. :-)
>>>>> Yeah, but most his filters have gain so it was almost useless to me. The
>>>>> last thing you want in audio is a stage that'll clip before all the others.
>>>> Why would you ever drive your signal to the rails?
>>> That's precisely the point ! You don't WANT to. A filter with GAIN is the LAST
>>> thing you want.
>> Do you have the book?
>
> Not on my own shelf.
>
>
>> Most of the examples pass at 0db and less. If you
>> have a 3db peaker, just precede it with a divider.
>
> Oh Puhleeeze ! That creates NOISE. Or rather degrades s/n ratio never mind needing
> extra components.
>
>
>> Or, run it at half the gain in the feedback loop. The math is in the book to
>> achive desired
>> results.
Why I wrote what I did, just design it properly. His book is a good
reference, not a bible.
> How about re-writing it for unity passband gain filters ? They are by far the most
> useful type.
Most of the examples in the book are unity at pass.
> Hey, you could sell another whole edition and also include sone DSP formulas too !
Just got this a few days ago. I really like what TI is doing these days.
The are nipping at AD's heals.
I'm not into sound systems. So DSC is more along my lines.
DB
You are right. If you want to use wire wound inductors and tubes, who am
I????
Don Lancaster
Equal component values and freedom of frequency and damping interaction
is infinitely more important than a modest (typically less than 6 db)
gain difference. That was the whole beauty of the method and the reason
for the book in the first place.
Especially since you could now use standard value capacitors rather than
exotic ratios.
Eeyore
DB wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > How about re-writing it for unity passband gain filters ? They are by far the most
> > useful type.
>
> Most of the examples in the book are unity at pass.
No they're not.
> > Hey, you could sell another whole edition and also include sone DSP formulas too !
>
> Just got this a few days ago. I really like what TI is doing these days.
> The are nipping at AD's heals.
>
> <http://focus.ti.com/dsp/docs/dspsplash.tsp?contentId=45483&HQS=dsp_f2808_cntrllr_dev_kit_080622&DCMP=mytinwsltr_06_21_2008>
>
> I'm not into sound systems. So DSC is more along my lines.
I'm NOT a DSP beginner anymore. I can design the hardware, the host controller and write the firm/software thanks.
Thanks anyway for the tip. I had 5 guys fron TI Dallas visit me only a couple of years ago btw. I told them that $20 32 bit
Float Point processors were NOT what the audio industry needed right now and they'de fucked up by removing a 24 bit fixed point
one made in Japan.
They looked errr... a bit disappointed. I had to tell them .. NO SALE.
Graham
Eeyore
DB wrote:
Who in their right mind would use wire wound inductors ?
Graham
Eeyore
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Equal component values and freedom of frequency and damping interaction
> is infinitely more important than a modest (typically less than 6 db)
> gain difference. That was the whole beauty of the method and the reason
> for the book in the first place.
>
> Especially since you could now use standard value capacitors rather than
> exotic ratios.
NO.
Ever heard of E96 ? In your local catalog NOW.
The other easy one I use is series or parallel combinations !
Want 100k467 ohms ? Use 100k 1% in series with 470 ohms 5%.
Did you NEVER think of that ?
Graham
Eeyore
Eeyore wrote:
Or tubes. Sorry, missed that one first time round. Such an esoteric idea I couldn't
imagine you were serious. They're good distortion generators though.
Graham
DB
> DB wrote:
>
> Want 100k467 ohms ? Use 100k 1% in series with 470 ohms 5%.
>
> > have a 3db peaker, just precede it with a divider.
Oh Puhleeeze... never mind needing
extra components.
Hmmmmmm...
Don Lancaster
Needing six 0.1 ufd instead of six different nonstandard vlues.
Don Lancaster
four-point barbed wire for your speaker connections.
Detailed tutorial at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/marcia.pdf
DB
3 octet possessors are only good for audio because that is the way the
industry went. DSC is not an audiophile product line. If not 16 bit,
then 32 bit is the only next step that makes sense.
Sales reps are a dime a dozen. Cooperate TI doesn't seem to see it worth
competing with AD for the audio market. At that, even AD is licensing
the ARM7 core for DSP and DSC these days. 32 bits uno...
It may be that the day of dedicated DSP possessors are coming to an end.
"fixed point"? How archaic. Even 8 bit floats will outperform that. I
didn't know you could buy such a beast.
daestrom
And certainly at the time of the first writing, getting even six of the same
value was not exactly easy. Component production has come a long way since
then. But that doesn't make the basic design less useful.
daestrom
Eeyore
Don Lancaster wrote:
> The big deal was the capacitors.
>
> Needing six 0.1 ufd instead of six different nonstandard vlues.
What do you call a non-standard value ?
Never heard of adding in parallel ?
Graham
Bob Cain
> I had 5 guys fron TI Dallas visit me only a couple of years ago btw. I told them that $20 32 bit
I'm damned glad they didn't listen. :-)
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Eeyore
Bob Cain wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > I had 5 guys from TI Dallas visit me only a couple of years ago btw. I told them that > $20 32 bit
> Float Point processors were NOT what the audio industry needed right > now...
>
> I'm damned glad they didn't listen. :-)
Depends what you need them for. Motoriola had a 56 bit DSP 20 years ago.
What I needed ( and got) was a $5 24.4 DSP. No way would the budget allow £20 no matter how wonderful
it was.
Graham