Steal this idea
Joe Snodgrass
Here's an idea I had for the setting of a sci-fi story.
A Martian colony under a huge, plastic inflatable dome, with settlers
growing crops. Of course, the air is produced by a nuclear powered
"air factory," which only makes enough air to fill the dome. The only
thing they need from earth is nuclear fuel.
The name of the colony is "Bridgehead." Later, postulate the
discovery of Martian Uranium deposits, and the place can become
completely self-sufficient.
Now everybody jump down my throat and tell me it's already been done.
Brenda Clough
Wellll -- have you read SANDS OF MARS by Arthur C. Clarke? Also, the
existence of radioactive elements in the Martian soil would be of some
interest; I believe it is calculated that it is impossible.
Brenda
John F. Eldredge
On what basis is it calculated to be impossible? Given that there are
many tons of radioactive elements on Earth, including some in soil, it
would seem very unlikely that Martian soil wouldn't contain any.
Granite, for example, contains uranium, and is slightly radioactive.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Joel Polowin
> Also, the
> existence of radioactive elements in the Martian soil would be of some
> interest; I believe it is calculated that it is impossible.
Martian soil will unavoidably have *some* concentration of radioactive
isotopes. Cosmic radiation will blast whatever it hits, leading to
some radioisotopes, most short-lived. And there should be the usual
long-lived stuff: uranium, thorium, potassium 40. See the NASA
article: http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/mars_worldbook.html, though
that's referring to the mantle rather than to the crust.
Whether elements would be concentrated into easily-mined deposits
depends somewhat on how active the crust has been in terms of
geomorphism and hydromorphism, or whatever the proper terms are for
"minerals cooked by heat and pressure so they circulate, fractionate,
precipitate and recrystallize".
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Not at all, although the locations where one might expect to find
*concentrated* radioactives (or, indeed, any other materials that would
require the processing of an active planet to concentrate) are a lot
more limited than on Earth, since Mars' geological active regions appear
to have been limited in locale. However, there HAVE been such
geologically active regions, and there has, based on a large amount of
evidence, been a LOT of water activity over the years, so it's certainly
far from impossible.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Gerry Quinn
59b918...@i25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, joe....@yahoo.com says...
It's a plausible enough scenario - maybe as other posters indicate you
might have to think a bit about what useful radioisotopes are likely to
be mineable on Mars, but certainly something of the kind is obtainable.
Domed colonies have undoubtedly been done - I wouldn't be surprised if
they existed on the front covers of some novels without being in the
text. (A popular variation is a colony in a covered-over canyon of
some sort.) Stories about colonies looking for resources to make them
independent are not a new concept.
You've the perfectly good setting, certainly - there's nothing
startlingly original about what you've posted so far, but there's
nothing wrong with it as a start, so long as your subsequent plot and
characters are interesting.
- Gerry Quinn
Mark
Your colony could be done, but the problems wouldn't
necessarily come from the atomic aspect. In reality it's
the unforeseen things that bite you. Plastic is a bad idea.
It leaks, it breaks down and rots, and it's difficult to seal
the foundation. It's vulnerable to perforation. The inital
stages of your story will have to be about building this
structure. Use glass.
The plants, being organic, cannot be sterilized. So they
are succeptible to hitchhiking organisms.(good point to
make the story get interesting too). In real life a bad
mold or fungus could wipe out your entire crop.
Forget the nuclear idea. In real life there was a man
named Stan Myers. (look him up on YouTube) He
was able to make customized electric generators
that produce direct current at specific amplitudes not
commonly found. Then, still at very low power, he was
able to amplify the voltage at a specific frequency.
Using his device he fractured water, (splitting apart
the hydrogen and oxygen) but he utilized a special
aspiration technique which actually yielded him
hydrogen on demand. Doing this he could fill his
fuel tank with only water and drive as others do on
gas. The solar panels on this colony would be your
source of direct current to make oxygen and
hydrogen fuel. A recombining of those gases back
through a fuel cell...yields electricity. This is real.
The psychological aspect of a self contained
colony would provide ample material to play with
the dynamics of individual personalities.(especially
when a few of them go nuts)
Your raw material to sustain life, produce fuel,
make oxygen, and nurture the plants...is water.
You will have to make them mine ice, at great
risk to themselves.
---
Mark IV
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Nov 29, 3:38 pm, Joe Snodgrass<joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Here's an idea I had for the setting of a sci-fi story.
>>
>> A Martian colony under a huge, plastic inflatable dome, with settlers
>> growing crops. Of course, the air is produced by a nuclear powered
>> "air factory," which only makes enough air to fill the dome. The only
>> thing they need from earth is nuclear fuel.
>>
>> The name of the colony is "Bridgehead." Later, postulate the
>> discovery of Martian Uranium deposits, and the place can become
>> completely self-sufficient.
>>
>> Now everybody jump down my throat and tell me it's already been done.
>
> Your colony could be done, but the problems wouldn't
> necessarily come from the atomic aspect. In reality it's
> the unforeseen things that bite you. Plastic is a bad idea.
> It leaks, it breaks down and rots, and it's difficult to seal
> the foundation. It's vulnerable to perforation. The inital
> stages of your story will have to be about building this
> structure. Use glass.
>
> The plants, being organic, cannot be sterilized. So they
> are succeptible to hitchhiking organisms.(good point to
> make the story get interesting too). In real life a bad
> mold or fungus could wipe out your entire crop.
>
> Forget the nuclear idea. In real life there was a man
> named Stan Myers.
A conman pushing perpetual motion in the form of a free energy device
which, on the face of it, cannot work.
At least look for BELIEVABLE free energy, if you must.
John F. Eldredge
> Forget the nuclear idea. In real life there was a man named Stan Myers.
> (look him up on YouTube) He was able to make customized electric
> generators that produce direct current at specific amplitudes not
> commonly found. Then, still at very low power, he was able to amplify
> the voltage at a specific frequency. Using his device he fractured
> water, (splitting apart the hydrogen and oxygen) but he utilized a
> special aspiration technique which actually yielded him hydrogen on
> demand. Doing this he could fill his fuel tank with only water and drive
> as others do on gas. The solar panels on this colony would be your
> source of direct current to make oxygen and hydrogen fuel. A recombining
> of those gases back through a fuel cell...yields electricity. This is
> real.
Note that, in 1996, an Ohio court found Stanley Meyer's "Water Fuel Cell"
to be fraudulent; he was fined, and forced to repay his investors.
Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen requires just as much energy as
is later produced when the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined to produce
water once more. Since no process is 100% efficient (some energy is
always lost as heat), and additional energy is extracted from the system
in order to do work, Meyer's system would soon stop working.
If you are supplying electricity from solar cells, then you are adding
energy into the process, rather than doing a closed loop as Meyer had
claimed. The question then would be whether storing the hydrogen and
oxygen, for later electrical production, would be more efficient than
using some other method of energy storage, such as batteries.
Mark
There is absolutely nothing remotely connected with
free energy or perpetual motion in Stan's design. I am
familiar with all those magnet-motor hoaxes and the like.
This is different. The concept is in no way "over unity",
or violating laws of thermodynamics. The energy released
was already there.
---
Mark IV
Patok
> On Nov 29, 9:02 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 11/29/10 8:35 PM, Mark wrote:
>>
>>> Forget the nuclear idea. In real life there was a man
>>> named Stan Myers.
>> A conman pushing perpetual motion in the form of a free energy device
>> which, on the face of it, cannot work.
>>
>> At least look for BELIEVABLE free energy, if you must.
>>
>
> free energy or perpetual motion in Stan's design. I am
> familiar with all those magnet-motor hoaxes and the like.
> This is different. The concept is in no way "over unity",
> or violating laws of thermodynamics. The energy released
> was already there.
OK, so how does it work? Where does the energy "that was already there" come
from? It /must/ come from somewhere, you know.
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
--
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
Mark
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:35:18 -0800, Mark wrote:
> > Forget the nuclear idea. In real life there was a man named Stan Myers.
> > (look him up on YouTube) He was able to make customized electric
> > generators that produce direct current at specific amplitudes not
> > commonly found. Then, still at very low power, he was able to amplify
> > the voltage at a specific frequency. Using his device he fractured
> > water, (splitting apart the hydrogen and oxygen) but he utilized a
> > special aspiration technique which actually yielded him hydrogen on
> > demand. Doing this he could fill his fuel tank with only water and drive
> > as others do on gas. The solar panels on this colony would be your
> > source of direct current to make oxygen and hydrogen fuel. A recombining
> > of those gases back through a fuel cell...yields electricity. This is
> > real.
>
> Note that, in 1996, an Ohio court found Stanley Meyer's "Water Fuel Cell"
> to be fraudulent; he was fined, and forced to repay his investors.
I am well aware that search engines are repeating this explanation
over and over. They are copying each other, but the truth is...that
his techniques are over the heads of 99.999% of investigators.
The actual lawsuit was more one of investor disagreements and
not of fradulent science.
For instance, peruse this and see how far over your head it is:
C:\Users\Owner\Desktop\Stan Meyers Secret, Preventing Electrolysis.htm
> Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen requires just as much energy as
> is later produced when the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined to produce
> water once more. Since no process is 100% efficient (some energy is
> always lost as heat), and additional energy is extracted from the system
> in order to do work, Meyer's system would soon stop working.
Incorrect. I suggest you also look at the work which is ongoing
and prize winning at this time by Daniel Nocera of MIT. He is also
on YouTube. It's another way to fracture water a extreme low voltage.
> If you are supplying electricity from solar cells, then you are
adding
> energy into the process, rather than doing a closed loop as Meyer had
> claimed.
I understand that, and advocate a system utilizing PV.(photovoltaic)
For space colonization, and NASA, it's the only way to go.
The question then would be whether storing the hydrogen and
> oxygen, for later electrical production, would be more efficient than
> using some other method of energy storage, such as batteries.
I propose both, if it were done today. But with nanoengineering,
you can utilize self-assembling molecular structures such as
graphene (again...MIT), or the M13 Tobacco Virus (Univ.of Va.)
and create a battery of enormous density far beyond one of
lithium composition. This is cutting edge battery technology.
---
Mark IV
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__gHPblNumM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGp7hMUXjmI&feature=related
---
Mark IV
Mark
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
> is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Sorry. Here is the actual link I tried to give you a
second ago.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6227-stan-meyers-secret-preventing-electrolysis.html
JF
>
> At least look for BELIEVABLE free energy, if you must.
My brother has traced the Floods over a couple of hundred years,
starting from this end and working back. My reaction has been to
start at the other end and to look for interesting people I'd
rather like to be related to*. Robert Fludd, last flare of the
Renaissance, is where I'd like to get to. He invented a perpetual
motion machine which people were still trying to build into the
1800s.
The trouble with believable is that lots of people want to believe.
JF
*In a handwavey sort of way.
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Impressed yet? Look further...
http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm
---
Mark IV
Mark
There is no such thing as perpetual motion. It
violates the laws of thermodynamics. If I may...
I will offer an anology to what I'm showing you
guys.
It's like me taking a pile of pinestraw and putting
it in front of you, and then, showing you the first
match you've ever seen in your life. In the beginning
I light the match and you see it burn down, then out.
Next I allow you to light a match or two and feel the
heat, then watch them burn down, and go out.
Then I point to the pile of dry straw and say...
"See that old grass? I can make it turn into 1000
matches all at once." Assuming you are familiar with
old grass and have felt it, slept on it, then you will
claim I'm insane. That is, until I light it.
Same thing here with water. The energy is already
there.
---
Mark IV
Patok
> On Nov 29, 11:09 pm, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 11:01 pm, Patok <crazy.div.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mark wrote:
>>>> On Nov 29, 9:02 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:35 PM, Mark wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Forget the nuclear idea. In real life there was a man
>>>>>> named Stan Myers.
>>>>> A conman pushing perpetual motion in the form of a free energy device
>>>>> which, on the face of it, cannot work.
>>>>> At least look for BELIEVABLE free energy, if you must.
>>>> There is absolutely nothing remotely connected with
>>>> free energy or perpetual motion in Stan's design. I am
>>>> familiar with all those magnet-motor hoaxes and the like.
>>>> This is different. The concept is in no way "over unity",
>>>> or violating laws of thermodynamics. The energy released
>>>> was already there.
>>> OK, so how does it work? Where does the energy "that was already there" come
>>> from? It /must/ come from somewhere, you know.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGp7hMUXjmI&feature=related
>
> Impressed yet? Look further...
Impressed, indeed. This was the funniest load of nonsense I've seen in a long
time. Not only does the water split into components and these gases drive the
piston, but then it burns, implodes and expands some other gas, and then splits
itself into hydrogen and oxygen again. Hilarious.
> http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm
Another nest of ignorant crackpots. Why do you even bother?
You clearly have no understanding of the conservation of energy.
Patok
No. Energy has left the water. In order to split it again into H2 and O, you
need to input the energy back into it. There's no way around it - this is simple
energy conservation.
Bill Swears
content to bring in the idea that it's impossible.
Curt Johnson spewed his soda, at some cost to Cheryl's unitard. "What
do you mean, you've found viable level's of Uranium to mine? I thought
that was impossible!"
"Yes, it is. Tell it to the Marines."
Curt thought for a moment, while he ran to fetch napkins for Cheryl.
Coming back to the table, he asked, "Where'd they find the ore?"
"The northern lowlands. Where else?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/science/space/26mars.html
Bill
--
Puppies - http://www.mtaonline.net/~wswears/
Opinions - http://wswears.livejournal.com/
Touristy Stuff and a resume - http://home.gci.net/~wswears/Bill's1.htm
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok, I understand what you're saying now.
This is over you're head so you're mad. Feel free to insult
me. It won't make you smarter, or me dumber.
Then let's just let the boy energize his space colony with
photovoltaics. Their efficiency is more than enough to supply
direct current to nanoengineered batteries. I suppose he
could also use one of the next generation of mini-nuclear
reactors too.
Let's not overlook the labyrinth theme. The necessity of
underground mazes created while mining ice is the
perfect place for psychological drama to play out. The
need for "personal space" would become a premium,
even worth fighting over.
---
Mark IV
Mark
It's very similar to the principal of lasers, or microwaves. If
you notice in my *original reply*, I gave you the key to this,
which is the amplification at specific hertz. Again, here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/WFCexpl.pd
---
Mark IV
> --
> You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
> --
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmm. That link has become a redirect now, but it's
accessable at the top of the page when you click
on http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm. It takes you
to the Dublin Institute of Technology. Crackpots?
Lol! Hardly.
---
Mark IV
Joe Snodgrass
Here's two more ideas.
Make the dome out of kevlar that's thinner than the familiar layers
used for bulletproof vests. It doesn't have to be durable enough to
stop a bullet, but only to resist any forseeable accident caused by
ordinary working men.
Second, bring water to the planet from the comets. Although there's
almost certainly plenty of underground ice on Mars, it's still never
going to be NEARLY enough to terraform the whole place.
Much video bandwidth has been wasted on outer space oil roughnecks
diverting asteroids away from Earth, but how about diverting similar
objects toward a planet. Of course crashing it would never work. It
would have to be carefully put into orbit, and then chunks of it
lowered to the surface.
What sort of energies would be associated with such operations?
Assuming such energies to be available (ha ha), how big a VASIMR motor
would be required to bring a comet, say, the size of an iceberg, from
Neptune's orbit to Mars?
John F. Eldredge
> Hmm. That link has become a redirect now, but it's accessable at the top
> of the page when you click on http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm. It
> takes you to the Dublin Institute of Technology. Crackpots? Lol!
> Hardly.
I checked the http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm page. It does not
have any links to the Dublin Institute of Technology, which has the
domain dit.ie. I checked the page source to make sure.
You claim that cracking the water into hydrogen and oxygen, using Stanley
Meyer's technique, requires less energy than is subsequently produced
when the hydrogen and oxygen are subsequently recombined. So,
theoretically, energy is being produced out of nothing, and can be
produced indefinitely. This is a classic example of a perpetual motion
machine, a violation of the conservation of energy.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
Will in New Haven
No one has insulted you. People have _described_ you.
--
Will in New Haven
"A sucker has no business with money" Titanic Thomson
> Then let's just let the boy energize his space colony with
> photovoltaics. Their efficiency is more than enough to supply
> direct current to nanoengineered batteries. I suppose he
> could also use one of the next generation of mini-nuclear
> reactors too.
>
> Let's not overlook the labyrinth theme. The necessity of
> underground mazes created while mining ice is the
> perfect place for psychological drama to play out. The
> need for "personal space" would become a premium,
> even worth fighting over.
>
> ---
> Mark IV- Hide quoted text -
Mark
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:59:03 -0800, Mark wrote:
> > Hmm. That link has become a redirect now, but it's accessable at the top
> > takes you to the Dublin Institute of Technology. Crackpots? Lol!
> > Hardly.
>
> have any links to the Dublin Institute of Technology, which has the
> domain dit.ie. I checked the page source to make sure.
It's the sentence, "Simple explanation of Myer's fuel cell technology"
It's in red and purple. Top of the page. Takes you to a very indepth
PDF file from the Dublin Institute of Technology.
> You claim that cracking the water into hydrogen and oxygen, using
Stanley
> Meyer's technique, requires less energy than is subsequently produced
> when the hydrogen and oxygen are subsequently recombined. So,
> theoretically, energy is being produced out of nothing, and can be
> produced indefinitely. This is a classic example of a perpetual motion
> machine, a violation of the conservation of energy.
Yes, that's correct, if it were that.
Let me ask you this. How much energy does it take to detonate
a nuclear bomb? How much energy does the bomb yield?
My interest is in using photovoltaics to obtain the direct current,
then in a manipulation of the electricity, at very low voltage which
gets amplified by manipulation of frequency modulation, it cracks
the molecule...differently than Faraday electrolysis. With this we
obtain our gases. Now I'm interested in liquid hydrogen, but Myers
created an entirely new energy process. It drove pistons, and the
car which he demonstrated over and over. That really occurred.
If you simply used it for a generator, you could create electricty
from water. The answer to this worlds energy problems in all
applications is water.
On another planet you could find the temperature of -423.17F
needed to make liquid hydrogen in a vacuum. It wouldn't take
up much room that way.
Thanks,
Mark IV
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Doubletalk much?
---
Mark IV
John F. Eldredge
The link takes you to a PDF document,
http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/WFCexpl.pdf, which appears to be on Dublin
Institute of Technology letterhead. The fact that it is on their
letterhead neither proves nor disproves that it is actually from the
Dublin Institute of Technology, as opposed to being from someone else who
simply happened to get hold of some blank letterhead paper. I will
contact them via email and find out whether or not they actually issued
this document, and will post the results in this forum.
> Let me ask you this. How much energy does it take to detonate a nuclear
> bomb? How much energy does the bomb yield?
>
> My interest is in using photovoltaics to obtain the direct current, then
> in a manipulation of the electricity, at very low voltage which gets
> amplified by manipulation of frequency modulation, it cracks the
> molecule...differently than Faraday electrolysis. With this we obtain
> our gases. Now I'm interested in liquid hydrogen, but Myers created an
> entirely new energy process. It drove pistons, and the car which he
> demonstrated over and over. That really occurred. If you simply used it
> for a generator, you could create electricty from water. The answer to
> this worlds energy problems in all applications is water.
Note that, in the case of the nuclear bomb, you do not end in the same
energy state as before, unlike what Myers claimed to have invented. You
end up in a state of greater entropy than where you had begun. Myers
claimed that his process required less energy to crack the water molecule
than was released when the hydrogen and oxygen were subsequently
recombined to make water once more. Since energy was also being
extracted from the process (i.e., propelling the car), this would mean
that you would end up with less entropy than before, not more entropy.
No one else has been able to repeat Myer's claimed results, and he would
not let anyone examine his test apparatus to verify that it was doing
what he claimed.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> > You claim that cracking the water into hydrogen and oxygen, using
> Stanley
>> Meyer's technique, requires less energy than is subsequently produced
>> when the hydrogen and oxygen are subsequently recombined. So,
>> theoretically, energy is being produced out of nothing, and can be
>> produced indefinitely. This is a classic example of a perpetual motion
>> machine, a violation of the conservation of energy.
>
> Yes, that's correct, if it were that.
>
> Let me ask you this. How much energy does it take to detonate
> a nuclear bomb? How much energy does the bomb yield?
The extra energy comes from somewhere: namely, from the binding energy
of the nuclei that are split (or fused, in fusion weapons). Note that
you can't get a continuous cycle there (get energy from fusing up, then
get more from splitting down); both series end up stopping, with iron
being the bottom of both curves; move away from iron in either direction
and you use up energy.
Where does the magical energy come from in yours? Are you contending
that there's nuclear reactions going on in this magical cycle?
>
> My interest is in using photovoltaics to obtain the direct current,
> then in a manipulation of the electricity, at very low voltage which
> gets amplified by manipulation of frequency modulation, it cracks
> the molecule
By the input of the same amount of energy as would be needed to crack
it otherwise. You have a low input power, but if you break it by
resonance you're simply using a small amount of energy which builds over
time, adding up each input until it reaches the appropriate level.
This will not give you net energy out in your cycle.
Photovoltaics will give you energy for cracking the hydrogen -- but no
more than you'd get, in the end, from just using the photovoltaic energy
straight.
Now, if you have a good way of storing hydrogen, there is SOME use to
this, in that you cannot store pure electricity easily and hydrogen is a
good energy CARRIER. But you'll still end up with no more energy than
the solar cell would have given you in the first place, and given the
net efficiencies of solar cells, that's not much in any reasonable area.
Joel Polowin
> The link takes you to a PDF document,http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/WFCexpl.pdf,
> which appears to be on Dublin
> Institute of Technology letterhead. The fact that it is on their
> letterhead neither proves nor disproves that it is actually from the
> Dublin Institute of Technology, as opposed to being from someone else who
> simply happened to get hold of some blank letterhead paper. I will
> contact them via email and find out whether or not they actually issued
> this document, and will post the results in this forum.
The document is full of gibberish. If it's not a fake, the author is
a dupe. "Effectively the water molecule is marginally unstable in
water solution and is constantly acting as a 'radioactive' molecule
tossing out tossing out H+ and OH- ions."
Mark
> Institute of Technology letterhead. The fact that it is on their
> letterhead neither proves nor disproves that it is actually from the
> Dublin Institute of Technology, as opposed to being from someone else who
> simply happened to get hold of some blank letterhead paper. I will
> contact them via email and find out whether or not they actually issued
> this document, and will post the results in this forum.
Super. Thanks a lot. Yes, we have no real proof at all.
> > Let me ask you this. How much energy does it take to detonate a nuclear
> > bomb? How much energy does the bomb yield?
>
> > My interest is in using photovoltaics to obtain the direct current, then
> > in a manipulation of the electricity, at very low voltage which gets
> > amplified by manipulation of frequency modulation, it cracks the
> > molecule...differently than Faraday electrolysis. With this we obtain
> > our gases. Now I'm interested in liquid hydrogen, but Myers created an
> > entirely new energy process. It drove pistons, and the car which he
> > demonstrated over and over. That really occurred. If you simply used it
> > for a generator, you could create electricty from water. The answer to
> > this worlds energy problems in all applications is water.
>
> Note that, in the case of the nuclear bomb, you do not end in the same
> energy state as before, unlike what Myers claimed to have invented. You
> end up in a state of greater entropy than where you had begun. Myers
> claimed that his process required less energy to crack the water molecule
> than was released when the hydrogen and oxygen were subsequently
> recombined to make water once more.
I don't pretend to be fully familiar with Myer's claims. What I have
skimmed across are multiple different sources subsequent to his
death, who continue to say they fully understand his processes,
and go so far as to try and explain it in electrical terms, such as
in the earlier link I provided to the electrical forum.
> Since energy was also being
> extracted from the process (i.e., propelling the car), this would mean
> that you would end up with less entropy than before, not more entropy.
Yes. With petroleum, you have 85% heat/friction 15% efficiency.
With electric motors (cars) it's opposite. 85% efficiency, 15% waste.
Either one, you're running out of impetus at *some* rate, and the
wasted energy is depleting your fuel source. Energy cannot be
created, it can only be transfered.
> No one else has been able to repeat Myer's claimed results, and he
would
> not let anyone examine his test apparatus to verify that it was doing
> what he claimed.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that he has a brother who
is trying to continue the technology in Canada. Not sure.
---
Mark IV
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
> is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria- Hide quoted text -
Mark
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/10 6:40 PM, Mark wrote:
>
>
>
> > > You claim that cracking the water into hydrogen and oxygen, using
> > Stanley
> >> Meyer's technique, requires less energy than is subsequently produced
> >> when the hydrogen and oxygen are subsequently recombined. So,
> >> theoretically, energy is being produced out of nothing, and can be
> >> produced indefinitely. This is a classic example of a perpetual motion
> >> machine, a violation of the conservation of energy.
>
> > Yes, that's correct, if it were that.
>
> > Let me ask you this. How much energy does it take to detonate
> > a nuclear bomb? How much energy does the bomb yield?
>
> The extra energy comes from somewhere: namely, from the binding energy
> of the nuclei that are split (or fused, in fusion weapons). Note that
> you can't get a continuous cycle there (get energy from fusing up, then
> get more from splitting down); both series end up stopping, with iron
> being the bottom of both curves; move away from iron in either direction
> and you use up energy.
>
> Where does the magical energy come from in yours? Are you contending
> that there's nuclear reactions going on in this magical cycle?
Well, first of all, it's not mine, and if I could easily explain it
I already would have. However, others seem to be doing so, and
it seems to be contingent upon the properties of the molecule.
>
> > My interest is in using photovoltaics to obtain the direct current,
> > then in a manipulation of the electricity, at very low voltage which
> > gets amplified by manipulation of frequency modulation, it cracks
> > the molecule
>
> By the input of the same amount of energy as would be needed to crack
> it otherwise.
Define "otherwise". Ever heard of artifical photosynthesis? Now,
this is a different technique, but Daniel Nocera of MIT cracks water
at 1/2 a volt. Far different from the "otherwise" methods done over
the past hundred years that took 3 times the power to do it, as it
would energy back. Nocera is a good lecturer as well. (also on
YouTube)
>You have a low input power, but if you break it by
> resonance you're simply using a small amount of energy which builds over
> time, adding up each input until it reaches the appropriate level.
I don't know. His was hydrogen on demand.
> This will not give you net energy out in your cycle.
>
> Photovoltaics will give you energy for cracking the hydrogen -- but no
> more than you'd get, in the end, from just using the photovoltaic energy
> straight.
> Now, if you have a good way of storing hydrogen, there is SOME use to
> this, in that you cannot store pure electricity easily and hydrogen is a
> good energy CARRIER.
Yes. That is precisely my point. Also, depending on how much H
you yield, it could also have multiple uses.
> But you'll still end up with no more energy than
> the solar cell would have given you in the first place,
Right. I'm just not convinced yet this isn't some
anomalous and undiscovered technology
>and given the
> net efficiencies of solar cells, that's not much in any reasonable area.
Well, if you get enough of them it's do-able. There
are many different efficiencies, light spectrum captures,
light magnifiers, two and three axis tracking systems,
mono and poly-crystalline, thin film substrate printed,
etc. Much is being done with them, even approaching
50% efficiency. Really with nanoengineering we're
just getting started with all this.
---
Mark IV
Mark
Then how did he run a car off water, and
why was he poisoned to shut him up?
----
Mark IV
Gerry Quinn
@n10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, blueri...@yahoo.com says...
> Impressed yet? Look further...
> http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm
If Maxwell's Demon could also violate conservation of energy, it would
look like this. Extra crank points for refering to zero point energy.
You score 9.98 on the Crankometer. Next!
- Gerry Quinn
Mark
So, then is it a conspiracy and other miscellaneous
people are also in on it?
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6227-stan-meyers-secret-preventing-electrolysis.html
---
Mark IV
Gerry Quinn
@k14g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, blueri...@yahoo.com says...
> Hmm. That link has become a redirect now, but it's
> accessable at the top of the page when you click
> on http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm. It takes you
> to the Dublin Institute of Technology. Crackpots?
> Lol! Hardly.
Not everything accepted by someone at an institute of higher learning
is by that token non-crankish. I'm sorry, and as a compatriot of said
institute even mildly embarrassed, but this is plain and simple
crankery, nothing more.
- Gerry Quinn
Mark
> In article <074d9692-2a7a-41dd-a53f-fba1f9c33ae6
>
> > Impressed yet? Look further...
> >http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm
>
> If Maxwell's Demon could also violate conservation of energy, it would
> look like this. Extra crank points for refering to zero point energy.
> You score 9.98 on the Crankometer. Next!
>
> - Gerry Quinn
Yeah, as if you even comprehended what this is
all about. Understand parametric resonance do ya?
---
Mark IV
Joel Polowin
I don't believe that the car ran off water, and I have no information
about any poisoning in this case.
Another bit of obvious nonsense, right from the beginning of the
paper:
"If we assume that this is produced by passing 2 amps of current for
96,494 secs at 1/2 volt, then the energy needed is 1/2 x 2 x 96,494
joules" -- except it's a silly assumption, because the standard
potential to electrolyse water is 1.23 V. If you try to electrolyse
water with 1/2 volt, nothing happens. If you use 1.23 V in the
equation in the paper instead of 1/2 V, you find that you suddenly
don't have energy magically appearing.
Mark
> @n10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, blueriver...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Impressed yet? Look further...
> >http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm
>
> If Maxwell's Demon could also violate conservation of energy, it would
> look like this. Extra crank points for refering to zero point energy.
> You score 9.98 on the Crankometer. Next!
>
> - Gerry Quinn
Please speed read this and explain it to us. We still
have questions. Thanks.
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/ForumPDFs/International%20Independent%20Test%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf
---
Mark IV
Gerry Quinn
29125b...@v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, blueri...@yahoo.com
says...
> Let me ask you this. How much energy does it take to detonate
> a nuclear bomb? How much energy does the bomb yield?
Let me ask you something. If the released hydrogen and oxygen are
burned together and put back into the waterm in a closed system, do you
not have a system that keeps getting hotter indefinitely? Thus you
violate conservation of energy. A nuclear bomb does not, because the
products of the rection cannot exothermically comnbine to reform the
original nuclear fuel.
- Gerry Quinn
Joel Polowin
> So, then is it a conspiracy and other miscellaneous
I'm willing to believe that lots of people believe that there's a
conspiracy, and that there are many dupes of the con man.
Mark
> In article <654e0678-b90a-422c-9d10-
> 29125b802...@v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, blueriver...@yahoo.com
> says...
>
> > Let me ask you this. How much energy does it take to detonate
> > a nuclear bomb? How much energy does the bomb yield?
>
> Let me ask you something. If the released hydrogen and oxygen are
> burned together and put back into the waterm in a closed system, do you
> not have a system that keeps getting hotter indefinitely?
I specifically remember that there is a cooling jet
feature built in. Look at the youtube lecture link in
this thread. It specifically addresses that.
Mark
Don't answer so fast with "usenet speak". That link
I gave you is dialogue between electrical engineers
who don't have a problem with this.
---
Mark IV
Ric Locke
> Ever heard of artifical photosynthesis? Now,
> this is a different technique, but Daniel Nocera of MIT cracks water
> at 1/2 a volt. Far different from the "otherwise" methods done over
> the past hundred years that took 3 times the power to do it, as it
> would energy back. Nocera is a good lecturer as well. (also on
> YouTube)
You didn't understand the presentation.
The chlorophyll molecule contains an electric field that contributes
part of the energy. The rest comes from incoming photons. Nocera has
found a way to substitute a lab power supply for the basic field; again,
the rest of the energy comes from the light. In a plant, the energy from
chlorophyll is made up by later oxidation of the hydrogen. In Nocera's
setup it comes from the wall.
Energy -- more precisely, an energy gradient -- doesn't come from
nothing. If it appears to you need to be looking for the trick, not
trying to justify it.
Regards,
Ric
Brian M. Scott
<jpol...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:5d88c992-d4a1-4ce2...@v19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.composition,misc.writing,rec.arts.books:
s/dupes/Marks
Brian
Ric Locke
No. You have invented a clumsy way to transfer energy from the apparatus
that separates the hydrogen and oxygen to the water.
Regards,
Ric
Gerry Quinn
wsw...@gci.net says...
> On 11/29/2010 2:32 PM, Brenda Clough wrote:
> > Joe Snodgrass wrote:
> >> Here's an idea I had for the setting of a sci-fi story.
> >>
> >> A Martian colony under a huge, plastic inflatable dome, with settlers
> >> growing crops. Of course, the air is produced by a nuclear powered
> >> "air factory," which only makes enough air to fill the dome. The only
> >> thing they need from earth is nuclear fuel.
> >>
> >> The name of the colony is "Bridgehead." Later, postulate the
> >> discovery of Martian Uranium deposits, and the place can become
> >> completely self-sufficient.
> >>
> >> Now everybody jump down my throat and tell me it's already been done.
> >
> >
> > Wellll -- have you read SANDS OF MARS by Arthur C. Clarke? Also, the
> > existence of radioactive elements in the Martian soil would be of some
> > interest; I believe it is calculated that it is impossible.
> >
> See, I'd be perfectly happy using radioactive fuels, and I'd even be
> content to bring in the idea that it's impossible.
>
> Curt Johnson spewed his soda, at some cost to Cheryl's unitard. "What
> do you mean, you've found viable level's of Uranium to mine? I thought
> that was impossible!"
>
> "Yes, it is. Tell it to the Marines."
>
> Curt thought for a moment, while he ran to fetch napkins for Cheryl.
> Coming back to the table, he asked, "Where'd they find the ore?"
>
> "The northern lowlands. Where else?"
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/science/space/26mars.html
Curt thought some more. After a few moments he asked he asked,
quietly: "Who knows about this?"
- Gerry Quinn
JF
>
>> I'm willing to believe that lots of people believe that there's a
>> conspiracy, and that there are many dupes of the con man.
>
> s/dupes/Marks
Anybody else recall the Deane drive?
JF
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
[snip]
>> By the input of the same amount of energy as would be
needed to crack
>> it otherwise.
>
> Define "otherwise". Ever heard of artifical photosynthesis? Now,
> this is a different technique, but Daniel Nocera of MIT cracks water
> at 1/2 a volt.
*sigh*
Breaking it up at lower voltages has nothing to do with the amount of
ENERGY involved.
I have had half a million volts flying off my fingertips into an
audience. I've also been knocked on my a** by 120 volts.
VOLTS are, to use an analogy, the pressure in a hose. But pressure
doesn't tell you how much water you're getting out of the hose; for that
you need to know the DIAMETER of the hose and thus get the flow rate,
which tells you how much water per second comes out.
This is POWER. Electrical power is expressed as watts, which is volts
TIMES amperage. Total ENERGY is number of watts times the number of
seconds, which will give you watt-seconds or (IIR my conversions
correctly) joules of energy.
The number of joules or watt-seconds necessary to break up a given
amount of water is a constant. If you want to break those molecules into
oxygen and hydrogen, you need to put that much energy into breaking the
bond. And you can NEVER get more energy than that out of re-establishing
the bond. It doesn't mattery how you put that energy in -- straight
electrolysis, imitations of photosynthesis, tricks with molecular
resonance -- all those are doing are changing the precise route by which
a sufficient amount of energy is put into that bond to cause it to break
apart. The amount never changes. (there are some reactions where you can
change the APPARENT reaction energy needed, but this isn't one of them)
If you could then FUSE the hydrogen you'd get buttloads more energy
out. You'd also get neutrons, which are much less fun than lots of
energy. (There are some no-neutron fusion paths, but they're not
hydrogen fusion).
> >and given the
>> net efficiencies of solar cells, that's not much in any reasonable area.
>
> Well, if you get enough of them it's do-able. There
> are many different efficiencies, light spectrum captures,
> light magnifiers, two and three axis tracking systems,
> mono and poly-crystalline, thin film substrate printed,
> etc. Much is being done with them, even approaching
> 50% efficiency.
I'm quite aware of this. Power harvesting miniature sensor nodes are a
major part of the R&D my company does -- in point of fact, I started
that entire section of our R&D and have pretty much directed the major
portion of it for the past 4 years.
Even 100% efficient solar energy STILL requires a lot of area to give
you significant power. You can get about a kilowatt per square meter
under ideal conditions. But conditions are never ideal and in the real
world, in "average" locations (say one of the temperate zones) you'd
better assume that over the long haul, you will be averaging between 5
and 10% of that, or 50-100 watts per square meter. Assuming, of course,
that you have some way to store that energy overnight when there isn't
ANY sunlight. By comparison, a hairdryer or microwave oven will draw
~1500 - 2,000 watts, so you need 20 square meters to handle that draw
directly. Now, you're unlikely to use that device very often, so
duty-cycle will drive that down, but in a good-sized house a modern
American family is almost certainly exceeding the energy demands that
could be satisfied even if their entire roof was solar cells of 100%
efficiency AND they were somehow kept aligned with the right angle of
the sun, simply because half the time there ISN'T any sun and a lot of
the time there will be overcast, etc., to block out the vast majority of
the energy.
Now, if you can convince people to sacrifice a few hundred square
kilometers of desert, and had a **REALLY** cheap way to manufacture
reliable, nontoxic, rugged, long-lasting solar cells of high efficiency,
you could provide lots more power for the country. But there's a large
number of roadblocks in that little hypothetical.
David Goldfarb
Mark <blueri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My interest is in using photovoltaics to obtain the direct current,
>then in a manipulation of the electricity, at very low voltage which
>gets amplified by manipulation of frequency modulation
Since when does direct current have frequency?
--
David Goldfarb | "M as in Mary, P as in Paul, U as in...
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | um...something beginning with U."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |
Bill Swears
"Knows about what?" She smiled. "The pluto sized asteroid that warped
our fair planet, or the massive uranium deposits we found in the impact
region?" (Please to note, I have no intention of figuring out what
other fissionables might exist in that area by now. U-238 has a
half-life of 4.7 billion years, so there's plenty left).
Curt scowled, shook his head. "Well, if it's just you, me, and a couple
dozen roustabouts, I think we can all expect to die in a massive
outbreak of botulism. If it's everybody on planet right now, there are
people who'll try very hard to make sure that we're all killed in a
meteor shower. Earthgov has a vested interest in maintaining Mars
Colony as a dependency."
Bill
>
--
Puppies - http://www.mtaonline.net/~wswears/
Opinions - http://wswears.livejournal.com/
Touristy Stuff and a resume - http://home.gci.net/~wswears/Bill's1.htm
Mark
Yes I realize this. However, the mission statement of
Norcera is to crack water at low voltage. Why? Because
we are using photovoltaics to do it, and the seperation is
to later recombine the two later through a fuel cell and give
us electricity when it's dark outside. Again, I am not
attempting to achieve over unity. That's impossible.
> I have had half a million volts flying off my fingertips into an
> audience. I've also been knocked on my a** by 120 volts.
>
> VOLTS are, to use an analogy, the pressure in a hose. But pressure
> doesn't tell you how much water you're getting out of the hose; for that
> you need to know the DIAMETER of the hose and thus get the flow rate,
> which tells you how much water per second comes out.
>
> This is POWER. Electrical power is expressed as watts, which is volts
> TIMES amperage. Total ENERGY is number of watts times the number of
> seconds, which will give you watt-seconds or (IIR my conversions
> correctly) joules of energy.
Yes, basic electricity. (Thank you Nicoli Tesla)
Which brings us to the crux of my interest in fracturing the
water. Now Nocera describes it here of course:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7ok8cOJbmo
But from the descriptions of the Myers technique, I'd
rather input the energy and do it his way.
By comparison, a hairdryer or microwave oven will draw
> ~1500 - 2,000 watts, so you need 20 square meters to handle that draw
> directly. Now, you're unlikely to use that device very often, so
> duty-cycle will drive that down, but in a good-sized house a modern
> American family is almost certainly exceeding the energy demands that
> could be satisfied even if their entire roof was solar cells of 100%
> efficiency AND they were somehow kept aligned with the right angle of
> the sun, simply because half the time there ISN'T any sun and a lot of
> the time there will be overcast, etc., to block out the vast majority of
> the energy.
I too have been doing R&D in this field, and have accepted a
partnership in an existing solar energy company. My focus in
marketing led to a proof of concept model which uses a 12K
system which I produce for one dollar per watt. Example:
The DAW product model, a 12K system.
Sale price.....................................$25,000.00
State credit......................................3,500.00
Federal credit...................................6,400.00
-----------------
Target finance number $15,050.00
$15050.00 @ 6% interest, 8 years...$197.78.00 month
This target payment will be yielding....1,500 Kwh/month
at a cost of 13 cents/kwh, beating XXX Electric.
1,500kwh at XXX Company costs $210.00/month.
The entire model is contingent upon our 200 watt panels
which have cost us $200.00 or less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEcpyQIBJnE
My market is in the Southeastern United States
where there is plenty of sunshine.
---
> Now, if you can convince people to sacrifice a few hundred square
> kilometers of desert, and had a **REALLY** cheap way to manufacture
> reliable, nontoxic, rugged, long-lasting solar cells of high efficiency,
> you could provide lots more power for the country. But there's a large
> number of roadblocks in that little hypothetical.
The future of electricty is to decentralize the generation
and allow for personal ownership and on-site production and
storage of power.
http://www.homedesignfind.com/green/when-you-dont-have-room-on-your-roof-for-solar-panels
The development on the horizon for batteries has already
made the Chevy Volt and Nissan leaf technology obsolete.
Here we see the last application of old nanotechnology
thus far applied to transportation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXwwEC2p8
And of course my favorite, electric airplanes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0
But what I really need to know is...How was Phil Myers
splitting water? I have seen others do it. He holds the
patents. Again, I'm not trying to achieve over unity or
perpetual motion. I'm just looking for a way to make
even more money with my solar home-generation sales.
Lastly, it certainly could be included in a novel about
a colony on Mars. Yes?
---
Mark IV
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
> Website:http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:http://seawasp.livejournal.com- Hide quoted text -
Mark
> In article <654e0678-b90a-422c-9d10-29125b802...@v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >My interest is in using photovoltaics to obtain the direct current,
> >then in a manipulation of the electricity, at very low voltage which
> >gets amplified by manipulation of frequency modulation
>
> Since when does direct current have frequency?
>
> --
> David Goldfarb | "M as in Mary, P as in Paul, U as in...
> goldf...@csua.berkeley.edu |
Apples and oranges here. Nocera uses DC.
Myers uses AC. I use inverters.
Sorry. I am simultaneously discussing 2 different
scientists, both of whom fracture water.
---
Mark IV
Mark
Nocera's breakthrough is the use of specific catalysts that
enable the splitting of water at room temperature. And at
voltage levels realistically derived from solar panels.
We see water as the realistic future energy source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTtmU2lD97o
---
Mark IV
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If the price drops by a factor of 2 or more I'd be interested,
depending on the actual lifetime, maintenance, and performance specs.
You'd need VERY good ones to expand out of "near-desert" markets.
That is, most solar panels have a limited lifetime, AND their output
drops significantly over time. Moreover, for them to work requires
keeping them clean; this is not practical for me to actually DO on my
house; I can't even reach the gutters and have to hire someone who CAN
just to empty them. I'm not going up on my roof; it has to keep itself
clean enough, basically, until I replace it (something I actually have
to do now, as it's been 20 years and leaks have started).
>
> ---
>
>> Now, if you can convince people to sacrifice a few hundred square
>> kilometers of desert, and had a **REALLY** cheap way to manufacture
>> reliable, nontoxic, rugged, long-lasting solar cells of high efficiency,
>> you could provide lots more power for the country. But there's a large
>> number of roadblocks in that little hypothetical.
>
> The future of electricty is to decentralize the generation
> and allow for personal ownership and on-site production and
> storage of power.
> http://www.homedesignfind.com/green/when-you-dont-have-room-on-your-roof-for-solar-panels
>
> The development on the horizon for batteries has already
> made the Chevy Volt and Nissan leaf technology obsolete.
I haven't seen any major advances in battery technology lately. It's
going to take something pretty exotic.
> Here we see the last application of old nanotechnology
> thus far applied to transportation:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXwwEC2p8
I'm highly skeptical of actually charging from EMPTY in 10 minutes --
and 10 minutes is a VERY long time for "filling the tank" compared to
gasoline.
Moreover, I've done the calculations before (I think in an LJ
discussion, but I might be able to find it and post it here), and the
fact is that if you wanted to convert your cars to electricity across
the country, you need to roughly DOUBLE the energy-generating capacity
of the USA -- and you can't do it locally, because the fill-up
requirements (to recharge your super-batteries in a time comparable to
standard fuel fill-ups) are in the MEGAWATT range -- way out of
residential wiring capability. New infrastructure would be needed at a
level that's hard to comprehend.
>
> And of course my favorite, electric airplanes:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0
>
> But what I really need to know is...How was Phil Myers
> splitting water? I have seen others do it. He holds the
> patents.
If he has patents, the patents are publicly available, and will tell
you how. That's a requirement of the patent. If the patented device
doesn't work, then it's a scam. If it does, you'll find out how he's
doing it, and it will be some minor variation on standard electrolytic
methods that probably is actually MORE energy-intensive in the long run,
but looks cool.
Will in New Haven
He didn't. And he wasn't.
--
Will in New Haven
Ric Locke
Dean Drive, Fish Carburetor (which this appears to be a resurrection
of), Scalar Resonance, and a host of others that won't pop into my
forebrain at the moment. Nazi flying saucers, complete with photographic
evidence. Half or better of Tesla's stuff. The Audion (which actually
worked, but its inventor/promoter was the very definition of the
Columbus joke). Turns out my boss subscribes to a good one -- Germans
finished the Sanger spaceplane, and USAF put it in orbit with crew in
1949; the leftover spacesuits fron /Destination Moon/ cited as evidence.
I like that sort of thing over beer, and generally offer corroboration
to keep the conversation flowing. In print or the Internet it's simply
foolishness, to be treated as such.
Regards,
Ric
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
He did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ3juM6vHwg
http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
And he was.
http://keelynet.com/energy/meyerx.htm
"It was a shame to hear that he was poisoned (March 98') and longer
with us. He died in the parking lot of a restaurant in his home town
of Grove City, Ohio. Sharks came a week later and stole the the dune
buggy and all of his experimental equipment, according to his brother,
Steve. Stan said while he was alive, that he was threatened many times
and would not sell out to Arab Oil Corps."
---
Mark IV
Mark
Maybe you should keep your beer banter in the bar,
and when evaluating someone like me, merely defeat
me with facts, or capitulate and lurk until a final
determination is rendered. You bibliographical
input will draw great interest.
---
Mark IV
Will in New Haven
> "It was a shame to hear that he was poisoned (March 98') and longer
> with us. He died in the parking lot of a restaurant in his home town
> of Grove City, Ohio. Sharks came a week later and stole the the dune
> buggy and all of his experimental equipment, according to his brother,
> Steve. Stan said while he was alive, that he was threatened many times
> and would not sell out to Arab Oil Corps."
>
This proves nothing. Anyone can write things on webpages. I'm not
calling you a liar, Mark IV, I'm calling you a fool.
Gerry Quinn
95c1fe...@n10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, blueri...@yahoo.com
says...
Okay, it's called Water Fuel Cell International Independent Test-
Evaluation Report, amnd starts with a bunch of hilarious legal warnings
to anyone who should dare manufacture this device in defiance of the
law (you wish).
There is a brief bit called 'Purpose of Content' which starts:
It has taken Water Fuel Cell (WTC) since before 1985 to have the
"Scientific Community" to "concur" that the water molecule is in
fact bipolar electrically charged...
Yes, the scare quotes are just as I copied them above!
Then comes an apparently legitimate paper from 1993 calling itself "A
Critical Review of the Available Information Regarding Claims of Zero-
Point Energy, Free-Energy, and Over-Unity Experiments and Devices". It
would better be described as 'credulous' rather than 'critical', and it
is not in any true sense a review. Amid many exhortations to open-
mindedness that read nearly as crankishly as the 'Purpose of Content'
above, it says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about Meyer's supposed invention,
except puts it in a list of devices of which certain claims have been
made by the inventor(s).
There follows a 147-page hodgepodge of patent applications, affadavits
etc.
It is explained as follows: cranks resort to such things when their
inventions don't work, and when folks repeatedly point out to them that
according to well-established physical processes and conservation laws
their inventions cannot work.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
74cc6c...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, blueri...@yahoo.com
says...
> On Nov 30, 10:37 pm, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > In article <654e0678-b90a-422c-9d10-
> > 29125b802...@v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, blueriver...@yahoo.com
> > says...
> >
> > > Let me ask you this. How much energy does it take to detonate
> > > a nuclear bomb? How much energy does the bomb yield?
> >
> > Let me ask you something. If the released hydrogen and oxygen are
> > burned together and put back into the waterm in a closed system, do you
> > not have a system that keeps getting hotter indefinitely?
>
> I specifically remember that there is a cooling jet
> feature built in. Look at the youtube lecture link in
> this thread. It specifically addresses that.
I don't have time to look at videos - if you have an explanation of why
it matters please post it here. It should be obvious in any case that
the cooling jet feature not only fails to contradict my point about
energy conservation, it amplifies it. It's like claiming that a
perpetual motion machine doesn't really violate conservation of energy
because it has a brake to stop it accelerating indefinitely!
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
wsw...@gci.net says...
> On 11/30/2010 6:59 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > In article<NqmdnbQwZpHfPmnR...@posted.mtasolutions>,
> > wsw...@gci.net says...
>
> >> do you mean, you've found viable level's of Uranium to mine? I thought
> >> that was impossible!"
> >>
> >> "Yes, it is. Tell it to the Marines."
> >>
> >> Curt thought for a moment, while he ran to fetch napkins for Cheryl.
> >> Coming back to the table, he asked, "Where'd they find the ore?"
> >>
> >> "The northern lowlands. Where else?"
> >>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/science/space/26mars.html
> >
> > Curt thought some more. After a few moments he asked he asked,
> > quietly: "Who knows about this?"
>
> "Knows about what?" She smiled. "The pluto sized asteroid that warped
> our fair planet, or the massive uranium deposits we found in the impact
> region?" (Please to note, I have no intention of figuring out what
> other fissionables might exist in that area by now. U-238 has a
> half-life of 4.7 billion years, so there's plenty left).
>
> Curt scowled, shook his head. "Well, if it's just you, me, and a couple
> dozen roustabouts, I think we can all expect to die in a massive
> outbreak of botulism. If it's everybody on planet right now, there are
> people who'll try very hard to make sure that we're all killed in a
> meteor shower. Earthgov has a vested interest in maintaining Mars
> Colony as a dependency."
"They wouldn't - you can't believe they would do that! I mean, sure,
we wouldn't have to buy energy from Solarcorp. We could fabricate
envirodomes here on Mars, instead of having them shipped in. But it
would be in their interests too, long-term, to have a thriving colony
here. We could trade with them, manufacture stuff they need, process
skroom here instead of sending the stromatoids to Earth..."
"They don't think long-term, Cheryl," said Curt. "They can't. Earth
has thirteen billion people it can barely support. Its economy is
fossilised. Politically, its stability depends on a million lirrle
pacts between corporations, unions and local governing bodies.
Interfere with any major industry, let alone several of them, and you
threaten the whole system. They won't stand for it. Look what
happened to Lutetia!"
"Lutetia? But - Lutetia was hit by a rogue asteroid! Asteroids do
collide sometimes. You can't really be saying they blew it up?"
"I don't know if they blew it up, Cheryl. But I do know the accident
- or whatever it was - happened soon after they found diamonds there.
There are mining vessels from Earth out there right now picking through
the debris. Sometimes they find pieces of the colonists."
It almost writes itself! But I guess we should leave it to the OP to
develop his plot in whatever way seems best to him!
- Gerry Quinn
Patok
> On Dec 1, 10:17 am, Ric Locke <warrick.lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 04:35:50 +0000, JF wrote:
>>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm willing to believe that lots of people believe that there's a
>>>>> conspiracy, and that there are many dupes of the con man.
>>>> s/dupes/Marks
>>> Anybody else recall the Deane drive?
>>>
>> of), Scalar Resonance, and a host of others that won't pop into my
>> forebrain at the moment. Nazi flying saucers, complete with photographic
>> evidence. Half or better of Tesla's stuff. The Audion (which actually
>> worked, but its inventor/promoter was the very definition of the
>> Columbus joke). Turns out my boss subscribes to a good one -- Germans
>> finished the Sanger spaceplane, and USAF put it in orbit with crew in
>> 1949; the leftover spacesuits fron /Destination Moon/ cited as evidence.
>>
>> I like that sort of thing over beer, and generally offer corroboration
>> to keep the conversation flowing. In print or the Internet it's simply
>> foolishness, to be treated as such.
>>
>
> and when evaluating someone like me, merely defeat
> me with facts,
That's kind of difficult in your case, given as you can't distinguish fact
from fiction, as evidenced by your continuing discussion of the Meyer device.
I suspect that for you, it is because of this effect:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
--
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
Gerry Quinn
@j29g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, blueri...@yahoo.com says...
> Lastly, it certainly could be included in a novel about
> a colony on Mars. Yes?
So long as it's science fiction, certainly.
In this case, however, it would go against the OP's plot idea, as well
as the laws of physics.
- Gerry Quinn
Ric Locke
"Bibliographica input" is redundant.
Energy In = Energy Out + System Losses.
As with any equals sign, the two sides can be reversed without affecting
anything.
Anybody who tells you differently is a fool or a charlatan (although the
two categories are not totally exclusive) and, upon finding such a
person, your job is to root out the gimmick and/or misunderstanding. You
are permitted to suspend your disbelief for the purposes of a science
fiction story. Otherwise you either call bullshit or fall into the
"credulous fool" category at best.
Regards,
Ric
Mark IV
>
> > And he was.http://keelynet.com/energy/meyerx.htm
> > "It was a shame to hear that he was poisoned (March 98') and longer
> > with us. He died in the parking lot of a restaurant in his home town
> > of Grove City, Ohio. Sharks came a week later and stole the the dune
> > buggy and all of his experimental equipment, according to his brother,
> > Steve. Stan said while he was alive, that he was threatened many times
> > and would not sell out to Arab Oil Corps."
>
> This proves nothing. Anyone can write things on webpages. I'm not
> calling you a liar, Mark IV, I'm calling you a fool.
>
> --
A fool? Oh no. What ever shall I do? Please will,
take it back. For the children, the starving children.
---
Mark IV
Mark IV
>
> > And he was.http://keelynet.com/energy/meyerx.htm
> > "It was a shame to hear that he was poisoned (March 98') and longer
> > with us. He died in the parking lot of a restaurant in his home town
> > of Grove City, Ohio. Sharks came a week later and stole the the dune
> > buggy and all of his experimental equipment, according to his brother,
> > Steve. Stan said while he was alive, that he was threatened many times
> > and would not sell out to Arab Oil Corps."
>
> This proves nothing. Anyone can write things on webpages. I'm not
> calling you a liar, Mark IV, I'm calling you a fool.
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
You aren't Will, and you aren't in New Haven.
You are Phil, and you are a queer in Maryland.
----
Mark IV
Will in New Haven
Even if I were, and it would not bother me to be either, I wouldn't be
a gullible moron who continues to argue for something so utterly
stupid. But it's ok. At least you are amusing me.
Mark IV
1. Being gay is no crime. Being Phil from Maryland
is reason to commit suicide.
2. I've not argued that the water fuel cell works. I've
pointed out that other's continue to say so, there
are patents which explain a misunderstood technology
and I've not gotten to the bottom of this yet. A closer
examination today, makes it seem even more real
and not less, and thus far comments here by others
aren't pertinent to the data...which they've not bothered
to examine.
3. If you're amused, you're confused. I find that amusing.
4. If anyone can figure this out...it will be me. Your
skepticism isn't founded on an understanding of
fradulent processes, but merely on an ability to
type a post in usenet.
5. Good news, at least you're not Phil from Maryland.
He is a usenet troll and psychopath. Google the
name ari silverstein.
---
Mark IV
John F. Eldredge
Being able to split the water molecule at low voltages would still not
alter the fact that, if your process is 100% efficient, you need to
supply as much power to split the molecule as will be yielded later when
the hydrogen and oxygen gases are recombined to produce water. Since no
real-world process is 100% efficent (there will always be some energy
lost as waste heat, etc.), you will actually have to consume more energy
than will be yielded later. So, rather than the conversion from water to
hydrogen and oxygen, and later back again, being a net energy source, it
will be a net energy _loss_. The only reasons for doing this will be if
you need the hydrogen and/or oxygen as a feedstock for some other
manufacturing process, or if storing the gases will be more efficient
than storing the energy by some other means.
One thing that I have wondered is whether Meyer's apparatus is vaporizing
some of the water, via ultrasonic vibrations, as well as electrolyzing
water. This would result in a greater volume of bubbles being produced,
but the net gas production would include non-combustible water vapor,
which would subsequently recondense. This would be similar to how an
ultrasonic humidifier vaporizes water without needing to heat it.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Mark IV
No you are.
The input is what you submit for perusal.
The bibliographical aspect is it's authority.
bibliography (plural bibliographies)
1.A section of a written work containing citations, not quotations, to
all the books referenced in the work. [quotations ▼]
1992, Rudolf M. Schuster, The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of North
America: East of the Hundredth Meridian, volume V, page viii The
supplementary bibliography (in Vol. VI) attests to the
comprehensiveness of the effort.
2.A list of books or documents relevant to a particular subject or
author.
Mark IV
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 01:45:22 -0800, Mark wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 10:49 pm, Ric Locke <warrick.lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:11:43 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
> >> > Ever heard of artifical photosynthesis? Now, this is a different
> >> > technique, but Daniel Nocera of MIT cracks water at 1/2 a volt. Far
> >> > different from the "otherwise" methods done over the past hundred
> >> > years that took 3 times the power to do it, as it would energy back.
> >> > Nocera is a good lecturer as well. (also on YouTube)
>
> >> You didn't understand the presentation.
>
> >> The chlorophyll molecule contains an electric field that contributes
> >> part of the energy. The rest comes from incoming photons. Nocera has
> >> found a way to substitute a lab power supply for the basic field;
> >> again, the rest of the energy comes from the light. In a plant, the
> >> energy from chlorophyll is made up by later oxidation of the hydrogen.
> >> In Nocera's setup it comes from the wall.
>
> >> Energy -- more precisely, an energy gradient -- doesn't come from
> >> nothing. If it appears to you need to be looking for the trick, not
> >> trying to justify it.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ric
>
> > Nocera's breakthrough is the use of specific catalysts that enable the
> > splitting of water at room temperature. And at voltage levels
> > realistically derived from solar panels. We see water as the realistic
>
> > ---
> > Mark IV
>
> Being able to split the water molecule at low voltages would still not
> alter the fact that, if your process is 100% efficient, you need to
> supply as much power to split the molecule as will be yielded later when
> the hydrogen and oxygen gases are recombined to produce water. Since no
> real-world process is 100% efficent (there will always be some energy
> lost as waste heat, etc.), you will actually have to consume more energy
> than will be yielded later. So, rather than the conversion from water to
> hydrogen and oxygen, and later back again, being a net energy source, it
> will be a net energy _loss_. The only reasons for doing this will be if
> you need the hydrogen and/or oxygen as a feedstock for some other
> manufacturing process, or if storing the gases will be more efficient
> than storing the energy by some other means.
Yes, I've not found where he claims over unity
with this.
> One thing that I have wondered is whether Meyer's apparatus is vaporizing
> some of the water, via ultrasonic vibrations, as well as electrolyzing
> water. This would result in a greater volume of bubbles being produced,
> but the net gas production would include non-combustible water vapor,
> which would subsequently recondense. This would be similar to how an
> ultrasonic humidifier vaporizes water without needing to heat it.
Now you're getting somewhere. Skimming through
the data, mention is made that the electrolysis of
the water is only part of, and not the most important
aspect of this. The micron size of droplets is most
important. The bipolarity of the water molecule is
pivotal here. It gets fascinating the more you examine
it. I see it as a puzzle to solve. Wouldn't it be nice to
say you can explain why it's false, or ...be one of
the few that could understand it.
---
Mark IV
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
> is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria- Hide quoted text -
JF
> One thing that I have wondered is whether Meyer's apparatus is vaporizing
> some of the water, via ultrasonic vibrations, as well as electrolyzing
> water. This would result in a greater volume of bubbles being produced,
Aha! Ultrasonically-produced bubbles collapsing inducing local
hiopspots at above fusion temperatures. I'd advise standing well
clear of the apparatus to avoid the neutrons....
JF
Joel Polowin
> Impressed, indeed. This was the funniest load of nonsense I've seen in a long
> time. Not only does the water split into components and these gases drive the
> piston, but then it burns, implodes and expands some other gas, and then splits
> itself into hydrogen and oxygen again. Hilarious.
I'm reminded of another very similar claim that popped up about a year
ago,
IIRC: a Japanese company that was advertising a prototype of a new
"fuel
cell" that generated hydrogen from water and then burned the hydrogen
to
create the energy to generate the hydrogen, with a net energy output.
They, too, had documents full of technobabble (poorly translated from
Japanese to English, on top of the original gobbledegook) and had
supposedly demonstrated their system by driving a test vehicle for
some
distance. They claimed that the only fuel used by the system was
water.
But as for how it was supposed to work... well, amidst all of the
technobabble was one mention of "replaceable electrodes", or some
similar phrase. Which led to the immediate suspicion that the system
involved the consumption of large aluminum/magnesium electrodes to
react with the water, and that those electrodes were the obfuscated
real energy source.
Joel Polowin
Ah, found it -- discussion here:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010326.html .
Mark IV
>
> - Show quoted text -
The only commonality with Myers is the word water.
Genepax was an electric car concept. No similarity
whatsoever to the water fuel cell.
http://genepax.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBm8ogwnpG0
Figure out what Stan Myers did.
---
Mark IV
Cryptoengineer
>
> The only commonality with Myers is the word water.
> Genepax was an electric car concept. No similarity
> whatsoever to the water fuel cell.
>
> http://genepax.com/
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBm8ogwnpG0
>
> Figure out what Stan Myers did.
We know what he did.
He lied.
pt
John F. Eldredge
Well, I wasn't thinking of anything that exotic, merely that
ultrasonically-induced vaporization would increase the volume of the
bubbling, thus making more of an impression on those about to be duped.
Mark IV
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 02:29:52 +0000, JF wrote:
> > John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> >> One thing that I have wondered is whether Meyer's apparatus is
> >> vaporizing some of the water, via ultrasonic vibrations, as well as
> >> electrolyzing water. This would result in a greater volume of bubbles
> >> being produced,
>
> > Aha! Ultrasonically-produced bubbles collapsing inducing local hiopspots
> > at above fusion temperatures. I'd advise standing well clear of the
> > apparatus to avoid the neutrons....
>
> > JF
>
> Well, I wasn't thinking of anything that exotic, merely that
> ultrasonically-induced vaporization would increase the volume of the
> bubbling, thus making more of an impression on those about to be duped.
>
> --
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
> is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
I need proof that he lied.
Many people claim to be able to explain how
it works. Where are those who can explain his
process, then specify where his patents fail? An
intelligent man would see this as cause for
speculation.
---
Mark IV