Xpandngreal8y
Registered Member
Free energy
- Thread starter crazeeeeeem
- Start date
- Status
You've proved nothing.
Why?
It was because of your unawareness of what you have to do to get the atoms of a water molecule to separate.
Energy
You need energy to make H20 molecules into separated hydrogen and oxygen molecules. You cant make energy on something that takes energy.
Xpandngreal8y
Registered Member
ignorance is bliss i suppose.
Xpandngreal8y
Registered Member
in a hybrid you can use the passive electrical energy generated by the motor, wheels brakes etc, to fuel the hydrogen generation..
Except, that this energy will always be less than the amount you put in. The engine has to work harder to charge the battery than it would if there was no charger attached.
If I put 10J of electrical energy to split some water, I now have 10J of chemical potential energy minus whatever I lost as heat in the wires. So lets say I lost 1J of heat. I have 9J of potential energy. Now I burn this in a combustion engine and get 9J of 'rotaional' energy minus whatever I lost as heat (lets say another joule) so 8J of energy put into rotating the main axel.
This energy is then transfered into
1. the wheels.
2. the battery to recharge it.
So lets say I get 2J charging the battery minus whatever I loose as heat (1 joule again) I now have 1J sofar back in the battery to replenish the 10 I started with.
Next the wheels: I put 6J into the wheels to make my car move, loose that 1 to heat, get 5J moving the car forward. Loose another joule to wind resistance, before I get to a stop sign (gotta push that mass of air outta our way.) now have 4J. I put on the brakes, and they re-absorbe some of that energy, minus some lost to heat. 3J goes back into the battery.
I now have 4J in the battery, from the 10J I started with. I use this 4 Joules to split some water and the process repeats, each time with less energy (untill there isnt eanough to move the axel.)
You cannot create energy with electrolosis. Water is not an energy source.
-Andrew
If I put 10J of electrical energy to split some water, I now have 10J of chemical potential energy minus whatever I lost as heat in the wires. So lets say I lost 1J of heat. I have 9J of potential energy. Now I burn this in a combustion engine and get 9J of 'rotaional' energy minus whatever I lost as heat (lets say another joule) so 8J of energy put into rotating the main axel.
This energy is then transfered into
1. the wheels.
2. the battery to recharge it.
So lets say I get 2J charging the battery minus whatever I loose as heat (1 joule again) I now have 1J sofar back in the battery to replenish the 10 I started with.
Next the wheels: I put 6J into the wheels to make my car move, loose that 1 to heat, get 5J moving the car forward. Loose another joule to wind resistance, before I get to a stop sign (gotta push that mass of air outta our way.) now have 4J. I put on the brakes, and they re-absorbe some of that energy, minus some lost to heat. 3J goes back into the battery.
I now have 4J in the battery, from the 10J I started with. I use this 4 Joules to split some water and the process repeats, each time with less energy (untill there isnt eanough to move the axel.)
You cannot create energy with electrolosis. Water is not an energy source.
-Andrew
"Passive electrical energy?????" What on earth are you talking about?
Those who do not understand the most basic principles will never understand intergrated systems (or much else, for that matter) - unless they study more. Indeed, for them - just as you said - ignorance IS bliss. They can make ANYTHING happen - possible or not. (And them they sit around wondring why no one is using their wonderful "invention.")
Xpandngreal8y
Registered Member
do you even know where you are ?
crazeeeeeem
Registered Senior Member
So you are saying that you should be able to slow the pulse down to nothing. Is it reversible? Can you speed the pulse up? That way you could build a device to slow the pulse and speed it up again. Why? Well I dont know. Your bs prompted me to write this.
Yes it's reversable, if you put energy back into the system, the pulse would speed up (of course im assuming here our pulse speed is proportional to the amount of energy it contains.)
Yes you could build a device to slow and speed it up, but you would have to take out and put back in equal amounts of energy, so you would not gain any energy (infact you would probably loose it to heat, since the process wouldnt be 100% efficiant.)
-Andrew
Guess what? Your statement, "Well, I don't know" is the most accurate thing you've said here. And there is no BS in what he told you, you're simply displaying how little you actually know.
Energy is placed in a superconductor by only ONE means and it's extracted in exactly the same way - electric induction (electrical transformer principle). It cannot be sped up or slowed down because it always travels at a constant speed. It can be intensified (added to) or reduced (by inductive extraction) but that's it.
Do you not know how to use the quote feature? We cannot tell who you are talking to. :bugeye:
irishzombiehunter
Registered Member
I may not be a super genius like most of the other people here but i can say that if i read the original blog correctly it was about using zero-point energy.....I have read a well known book called "Black Order" by James Rollins. It explains in great deal about this energy and the type of energy produced because the Nazi's were very much into this thing. But a lot of their research was lost at the end of the war in an effort to protect the secrets.
I'm glad that there are people who are willing to take a look. All things considered, even basic tenets of science should be challenged on a level playing field regularly.
But the truly important thing is that they have already been challenged over an over - and have always come up wanting. Why continue to beat dead horses? Move on to something new and with possible promise and not waste time, effort and personal energy on things that have already proven to have no merit? The problem is that every so often a new guy comes along and thinks he's the very first one to come up with what is actully the same old tired ideas.
I will tell you why. It is because people like you can't even keep the laws of thermodynamics straight in your heads and you can't explain them in any manner that approaches clear. You put on arrogance instead. You're one of the dead horses. And beating you is definitely emotionally rewarding.
That bunch of tripe doesn't deserve a reponse so I won't.
I've told you before quite clearly that I have no personal interest in educating YOU. However, I will help others at every opportunity.
Yes and yes.
How do you do that, Nasor, by changing the temperature slightly? I was under the impression that the speed never varied.
crazeeeeeem
Registered Senior Member
I was making a small and very dry joke. The pulse does not slow down like a satellite. On the other hand, if it did, maybe we can incorporate it into a Symbian
crazeeeeeem
Registered Senior Member
By the way, I've given up responding to read-only. Its a spoiler. Expect them to pop out. Love to have a look at the ip's responding to this post.
- Status