The instant solution to global warming, zero energy (no yeah right, hydrogen combustion)

On Feb 2, 11:37 am, wrote:
On Feb 2, 11:34 am, wrote:





On Feb 2, 11:32 am, wrote:

On Feb 2, 11:19 am, wrote:

On Feb 2, 10:24 am, wrote:

On Feb 2, 8:45 am, "dlzc" wrote:

Dear gb6...:

Off topic in sci.astro. Adding sci.chem

On Feb 2, 7:54 am, wrote:

Zero energy is available.

Hydrogen can be extracted out of air using electrolysis
using the car's battery

About 60% loss of applied energy doing this.

The 60 percent loss applies only if its electric.

Hydrogen can be used to replace gasolene in ordinary cars. This is
trivial,
but you have to use your brain.

As trivial it means that we all should understand.

You have probably heard of hydrogen combustion engine. There are two
types of hydrogen engines. When oxygen and hydrogen mixes, electricity
is produced. There are busses in Chicago that use this technology, and
the electricity produced runs these busses. Here the 60 percent energy
efficiency is true. Here when oxygen and hydrogen is mixed, a product
aside from electricity is water. This is a beautiful and silent
technology, and relies on the transportation of hydrogen as fuel.

The second, and the most ignored version of a hydrogen based engine,
is hydrogen combustion. Hydrogen is gas that burns and works perfectly
with most traditional car engines.

What I ask as a preservation of technology, is based on my trivial
understanding that hydrogen using electricity can be extracted from
water, and water can be extracted from the air using electricity, as a
waste product of air conditioners.

The possibility is there for an engine that
extracts hydrogen from the air using a car's battery, and uses that
hydrogen as a replacement to gasoline.

I have extracted a liter of water in one minute using an air
conditioner.

Electrolysis using a car's battery produces instant hydrogen, which
can be directly directed to the car's engine for combustion.
In fact this is so simple, that a car mechanic could do it very
cheaply. In East Europe a lot of people cheat by installing propaine
tanks in their cars as a cheaper means of gas, as gasoline in Europe
is expensive. A car with a traditional engine could also take
hydrogen, and hydrogen can be very easily extracted using electricity
and electrolysis.

+------------------------+
| |
| Traditional car engine |---+
| | |
+------------------------+ |
| |
| |
+-------------+ |
| + - | |
| produces | |
| electricity | |H
| (battery) | |
+-------------+ |
| \ |
| \ |
+-----------------+ +--------------+
| | | electrolysis |
| air conditioner | | produces |
| produces water |--| hydrogen gas |
| | | from water |
+-----------------+ +--------------+

Upon starting up the car, one might see the battery starting
electrolysis, and instantly hydrogen gas is produced.
Then as the gas moves to the engine, the engine can start up using the
instant generation of hydrogen gas from water, and water from air.
What people don't see, is how effective extracting water from air and
hydrogen from water is.

Free energy ideas are generally dismissed, as so many tried and failed
in general. This concept is zero energy (self sufficient), meaning the
energy power is in the burning of hydrogen, but to extract hydrogen
from the air reaquires less energy, than what this engine produces by
burning hydrogen.

What this means is that hydrogen would not need to be transported as
oil. Hydrogen is extracted in place, by a car, by a device that
produces energy placed near a home, the energy becomes taking it
directly from the air, and by trivial means of extracting hydrogen
from the air and burning it. It means the collapse of the global
economy, as this technology is so simple, that an ordinary car
mechanic could do. It means politics, but it is also important, that
it is not patented away from all people, a preservation and government
control is needed for this technology.

Al Gore is interested in solutions that benefit all people, that
tackles global warming, solutions that also benefit the world. I
believe this is one of the interested solution available for research.

(first water waste from air conditioners, then
electrolysis separates hydrogen from the air

... water ...

and sends the hydrogen gas directly to the engine.)

Grinds to a halt really quick. Because you do not consider real
inefficiencies.

Ok. Why should we believe till we see it. Why should we see it,
if we don't want to believe it.

The problem is comparing the energy to a car.

I extracted one liter of water using a POWERFUL air conditioner
in one minute, a car has a tiny air conditioner compared to
one that cools a house.

One liter of water in one minute sounds cool.

If this would be gas, one liter of gas can run a car on a highway
for 5 minutes, given the car runs at 120 kilometers an hour
and the car consumes 10 kilometers per liter. (In US terms,
22 miles per gallon or so).

One liter of gas can be used up in 5 minutes, but in one minute,
But in five minutes, I was only able to produce 5 liters of water,
given a good powerful air conditioner.

Now the other problem, is that one needs a 5 times larger gas
tank for LIQUID hydrogen than for oil. It means, that that 5 liters
of water only means one, and it is not liquid hydrogen but water.

So we are not efficient, and the air conditioner for extracting
that amount of water may be far too powerful for a car's battery.

But there is belief, even if this is too complex, and yet trivial.

No. See I fooled myself. The five times greater tank applies
if hydrogen is used to produce electricity by mixing with oxygen.

We are talking about burning hydrogen, which is a lot more
powerful than electricity.

Keep in mind.

In fact the power, if hydrogen is burned, is equal to the power
of gasoline.

When you say 60 percent efficient, it applies to the Chicago bus,
whose gas tank is 5 times greater, and uses hydrogen to produce
electricity. That hydrogen was as well produced by using electricity.

Sorry for thinking alone here. So the only question is, how much
energy is needed in extracting a full tank of hydrogen. Hypothetically
we are in Japan, and we as rocket scientists exchange emails at
Fuji Heavy Industries, Inc.

Its not a question. If hydrogen burns, and it is the same powerful
as burning gasoline, that power is far stronger than electric power.
We know this by experience. Electric engines are weaker, but
also electric technologies are advancing. So if you can comprehend
the 60 percent efficiency, and see that if hydrogen is used as
gas, then the energy by a combustion engine produces stronger
energy, while the electricity this engine produces can be efficiently
used to extract hydrogen out of water, while it also proves, that
extracting water with electricity out of air is also highly efficient,
even in the driest conditions, though you may lack the experience
in regards to knowing how much water can be extracted from the
air, as you said intelligently, depending on climate and place and
season.

Hydrogen can be extracted out of air using electrolysis
using the car's battery

About 60% loss of applied energy doing this.

The 60 percent loss applies only if its electric.

Electrolysis is electric. 60% applies.

Physics and chemistry is astronomy. A Universal and Chemics
is Bush.

Ignoring my sideposts, the bus in Chicago has a gas tank five
times of gas tanks of conventional busses, and is filled with
hydrogen. That hydrogen mixes with oxygen, and produces
electricity which runs the bus. That hydrogen tank itself was
produced using electricity, and if one calculates the cost,
the design is 60 percent energy efficient. That hydrogen
which produces electricity, needed 40 percent more electricity
in producing that hydrogen.

But what I am saying, is that when we burn hydrogen, it has
the same power as gasoline, which produces more power than
electric engines. Then we have more than 40 percent extra
energy, which can be used to produce hydrogen using
conventional means that the factory used to supply these
busses in Chicago with hydrogen. Of course we need to fit
this technology inside a car, and it becomes a zero energy
car. Take your time, I respect your true expertise.

Hydrogen can be used to replace gasolene in ordinary cars.
This is trivial, but you have to use your brain.

You have to replace your exhaust system. You have to adjust your
timing. You have to monitor your lubricants. It is not "trivial",
and yes, please do use your brain.

I am from East Europe, people use illegally installed propain
gas tanks to run their cars as gasoline is expensive. Nothing
needs adjustment. I am speaking of authentic cars.

As trivial it means that we all should understand.

You haven't yet.

Russians and Americans are not alike.

You have probably heard of hydrogen combustion engine.

MythBusters, if nowhere else.

There are two types of hydrogen engines. When oxygen
and hydrogen mixes, electricity is produced.

fuel cells. 80% efficient. Extremely intolerant of contaminants in
their fuel and oxidizer supply.

There are busses in Chicago that use this technology, and
the electricity produced runs these busses. Here the 60
percent energy efficiency is true.

No.

Explained above.

Here when oxygen and hydrogen is mixed, a product
aside from electricity is water. This is a beautiful and silent
technology, and relies on the transportation of hydrogen
as fuel.

The second, and the most ignored version of a hydrogen
based engine, is hydrogen combustion. Hydrogen is gas
that burns and works perfectly with most traditional car
engines.

For a while, yes.

What I ask as a preservation of technology, is based on
my trivial understanding that hydrogen using electricity
can be extracted from water,

60% loss of energy here.

Again, this should be explained already.

and water can be extracted from the air using electricity,

Some places easier than others. Some times of year easier than
others. All require *significant* energy inputs to do so. On the
order of what you expect to get out of it, plus a bit more for
entropy.

Right. My father is a biotechnologist, I know from him that water
is extracted very efficiently in the driest Sahara.

as a waste product of air conditioners.

Which don't run year round.

The possibility is there for an engine that extracts
hydrogen from the air using a car's battery, and uses
that hydrogen as a replacement to gasoline.

The infernal combustion engine is about 30% efficient on a good day.
You lose energy condensing water.
You lose energy electrolysing water (yes more than you get out of it
in hydrogen, right here).
You lose energy burning it in an infernal combustion engine.
You lose energy in converting shaft work back to electricity.

Well, one may just have to try and see. A car mechanic in East
Europe could do it.

and sends the hydrogen gas directly to the engine.)

Grinds to a halt really quick. Because you do not
consider real inefficiencies.

Ok. Why should we believe till we see it. Why should
we see it, if we don't want to believe it.

Been tried. Even carefully, the second law of thermodynamics prevents
"over unity" devices from working.

Your "good intenions" are just noise, and are off topic in sci.astro.

Thanks, good talk.

George

On Feb 2, 12:10 pm, wrote:
Hydrogen can be extracted out of air using electrolysis
using the car's battery

About 60% loss of applied energy doing this.

The 60 percent loss applies only if its electric.

Electrolysis is electric. 60% applies.

Physics and chemistry is astronomy. A Universal and Chemics
is Bush.

Ignoring my sideposts, the bus in Chicago has a gas tank five
times of gas tanks of conventional busses, and is filled with
hydrogen. That hydrogen mixes with oxygen, and produces
electricity which runs the bus. That hydrogen tank itself was
produced using electricity, and if one calculates the cost,
the design is 60 percent energy efficient. That hydrogen
which produces electricity, needed 40 percent more electricity
in producing that hydrogen.

But what I am saying, is that when we burn hydrogen, it has
the same power as gasoline, which produces more power than
electric engines. Then we have more than 40 percent extra
energy, which can be used to produce hydrogen using
conventional means that the factory used to supply these
busses in Chicago with hydrogen. Of course we need to fit
this technology inside a car, and it becomes a zero energy
car. Take your time, I respect your true expertise.

Hydrogen can be used to replace gasolene in ordinary cars.
This is trivial, but you have to use your brain.

You have to replace your exhaust system. You have to adjust your
timing. You have to monitor your lubricants. It is not "trivial",
and yes, please do use your brain.

I am from East Europe, people use illegally installed propain
gas tanks to run their cars as gasoline is expensive. Nothing
needs adjustment. I am speaking of authentic cars.

As trivial it means that we all should understand.

You haven't yet.

Russians and Americans are not alike.

You have probably heard of hydrogen combustion engine.

MythBusters, if nowhere else.

There are two types of hydrogen engines. When oxygen
and hydrogen mixes, electricity is produced.

fuel cells. 80% efficient. Extremely intolerant of contaminants in
their fuel and oxidizer supply.

There are busses in Chicago that use this technology, and
the electricity produced runs these busses. Here the 60
percent energy efficiency is true.

No.

Explained above.





Here when oxygen and hydrogen is mixed, a product
aside from electricity is water. This is a beautiful and silent
technology, and relies on the transportation of hydrogen
as fuel.

The second, and the most ignored version of a hydrogen
based engine, is hydrogen combustion. Hydrogen is gas
that burns and works perfectly with most traditional car
engines.

For a while, yes.

What I ask as a preservation of technology, is based on
my trivial understanding that hydrogen using electricity
can be extracted from water,

60% loss of energy here.

Again, this should be explained already.

and water can be extracted from the air using electricity,

Some places easier than others. Some times of year easier than
others. All require *significant* energy inputs to do so. On the
order of what you expect to get out of it, plus a bit more for
entropy.

Right. My father is a biotechnologist, I know from him that water
is extracted very efficiently in the driest Sahara.

as a waste product of air conditioners.

Which don't run year round.

The possibility is there for an engine that extracts
hydrogen from the air using a car's battery, and uses
that hydrogen as a replacement to gasoline.

The infernal combustion engine is about 30% efficient on a good day.
You lose energy condensing water.
You lose energy electrolysing water (yes more than you get out of it
in hydrogen, right here).
You lose energy burning it in an infernal combustion engine.
You lose energy in converting shaft work back to electricity.

Well, one may just have to try and see. A car mechanic in East
Europe could do it.

and sends the hydrogen gas directly to the engine.)

Grinds to a halt really quick. Because you do not
consider real inefficiencies.

Ok. Why should we believe till we see it. Why should
we see it, if we don't want to believe it.

Been tried. Even carefully, the second law of thermodynamics prevents
"over unity" devices from working.

Your "good intenions" are just noise, and are off topic in sci.astro.

Thanks, good talk.

George

Summary:

Meeting the challenges of global warming.

I would like to talk about a highly unknown technology, that is an
alternative to oil.

As highly unknown, it is hard to talk about it, and as unknown, it is
not understood
until there is research. And yet this energy is here with us in the
air: hydrogen.

Hydrogen when mixed with oxygen produces electricity. Hydrogen can be
extracted
from water using electrolysis.

In Chicago, busses exist that use hydrogen. This hydrogen from the
bus' tank mixes
with oxygen and the result is electricity that runs the bus.

This hydrogen was produced with electricity, and the cost to produce
hydrogen
costs 40 percent more than the electricity produced by the hydrogen in
the bus
in return.

Now the unknown technology lays not in the already used electric
hydrogen busses
in Chicago, but in another form of hydrogen-based energy: combustion,
one that burns
hydrogen. From what I read, burning hydrogen offers the same energy as
gasoline
when burned, and that car engines can run on hydrogen, though the
effect on the
car's engine is not fully known.

When burning hydrogen, one gets more energy than electric power.

It means that a combustion engine can produce more energy out of
hydrogen,
and the 60 percent efficiency seen in the electric motors fueled by
hydrogen
perhaps can move above 100 percent, meaning by 'burning' hydrogen, we
can
actually produce energy.

(The produced energy in return can be used to acquire hydrogen from
water.
Further, water can be extracted from air using an air conditioner,
even in
the driest Sahara air conditioners extract water from the air. A
combination
that can eliminate the dependency to deliver fuel, rather burning
hydrogen
should produces enough energy to extract the needed hydrogen right
from
the air.)

This technology can prove to offer an environment-friendly and far
more
economical solution for energy.

I ask for the research and protection (from patents) of this trivial
(all should
understand) technological possibility.

One sees a car that has no gas tank, and runs without stopping.

One sees a cruise-ship crossing the ocean, and did not need fueling.
The
energy comes from burning hydrogen.

Carbon monoxide is produced, it's effect for the environment belongs
to
researchers.

Water for such a cruise-ship can be extracted from the sea, and the
engine that runs on hydrogen produces simple electricity for
separating
H and O atoms. The hydrogen burns in combustion engines.

I ask for the research in regards to this zero energy concept, at
government levels, and if quick tests prove this technology possible,
to make it known and shared.

(Politicians can debate the economical effects, possibly world wars
of greed and power.)

On Feb 2, 1:30 pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:10 pm, wrote:





Hydrogen can be extracted out of air using electrolysis
using the car's battery

About 60% loss of applied energy doing this.

The 60 percent loss applies only if its electric.

Electrolysis is electric. 60% applies.

Physics and chemistry is astronomy. A Universal and Chemics
is Bush.

Ignoring my sideposts, the bus in Chicago has a gas tank five
times of gas tanks of conventional busses, and is filled with
hydrogen. That hydrogen mixes with oxygen, and produces
electricity which runs the bus. That hydrogen tank itself was
produced using electricity, and if one calculates the cost,
the design is 60 percent energy efficient. That hydrogen
which produces electricity, needed 40 percent more electricity
in producing that hydrogen.

But what I am saying, is that when we burn hydrogen, it has
the same power as gasoline, which produces more power than
electric engines. Then we have more than 40 percent extra
energy, which can be used to produce hydrogen using
conventional means that the factory used to supply these
busses in Chicago with hydrogen. Of course we need to fit
this technology inside a car, and it becomes a zero energy
car. Take your time, I respect your true expertise.

Hydrogen can be used to replace gasolene in ordinary cars.
This is trivial, but you have to use your brain.

You have to replace your exhaust system. You have to adjust your
timing. You have to monitor your lubricants. It is not "trivial",
and yes, please do use your brain.

I am from East Europe, people use illegally installed propain
gas tanks to run their cars as gasoline is expensive. Nothing
needs adjustment. I am speaking of authentic cars.

As trivial it means that we all should understand.

You haven't yet.

Russians and Americans are not alike.

You have probably heard of hydrogen combustion engine.

MythBusters, if nowhere else.

There are two types of hydrogen engines. When oxygen
and hydrogen mixes, electricity is produced.

fuel cells. 80% efficient. Extremely intolerant of contaminants in
their fuel and oxidizer supply.

There are busses in Chicago that use this technology, and
the electricity produced runs these busses. Here the 60
percent energy efficiency is true.

No.

Explained above.

Here when oxygen and hydrogen is mixed, a product
aside from electricity is water. This is a beautiful and silent
technology, and relies on the transportation of hydrogen
as fuel.

The second, and the most ignored version of a hydrogen
based engine, is hydrogen combustion. Hydrogen is gas
that burns and works perfectly with most traditional car
engines.

For a while, yes.

What I ask as a preservation of technology, is based on
my trivial understanding that hydrogen using electricity
can be extracted from water,

60% loss of energy here.

Again, this should be explained already.

and water can be extracted from the air using electricity,

Some places easier than others. Some times of year easier than
others. All require *significant* energy inputs to do so. On the
order of what you expect to get out of it, plus a bit more for
entropy.

Right. My father is a biotechnologist, I know from him that water
is extracted very efficiently in the driest Sahara.

as a waste product of air conditioners.

Which don't run year round.

The possibility is there for an engine that extracts
hydrogen from the air using a car's battery, and uses
that hydrogen as a replacement to gasoline.

The infernal combustion engine is about 30% efficient on a good day.
You lose energy condensing water.
You lose energy electrolysing water (yes more than you get out of it
in hydrogen, right here).
You lose energy burning it in an infernal combustion engine.
You lose energy in converting shaft work back to electricity.

Well, one may just have to try and see. A car mechanic in East
Europe could do it.

and sends the hydrogen gas directly to the engine.)

Grinds to a halt really quick. Because you do not
consider real inefficiencies.

Ok. Why should we believe till we see it. Why should
we see it, if we don't want to believe it.

Been tried. Even carefully, the second law of thermodynamics prevents
"over unity" devices from working.

Your "good intenions" are just noise, and are off topic in sci.astro.

Thanks, good talk.

George

Summary:

Meeting the challenges of global warming.

I would like to talk about a highly unknown technology, that is an
alternative to oil.

As highly unknown, it is hard to talk about it, and as unknown, it is
not understood
until there is research. And yet this energy is here with us in the
air: hydrogen.

Hydrogen when mixed with oxygen produces electricity. Hydrogen can be
extracted
from water using electrolysis.

In Chicago, busses exist that use hydrogen. This hydrogen from the
bus' tank mixes
with oxygen and the result is electricity that runs the bus.

This hydrogen was produced with electricity, and the cost to produce
hydrogen
costs 40 percent more than the electricity produced by the hydrogen in
the bus
in return.

Now the unknown technology lays not in the already used electric
hydrogen busses
in Chicago, but in another form of hydrogen-based energy: combustion,
one that burns
hydrogen. From what I read, burning hydrogen offers the same energy as
gasoline
when burned, and that car engines can run on hydrogen, though the
effect on the
car's engine is not fully known.

When burning hydrogen, one gets more energy than electric power.

It means that a combustion engine can produce more energy out of
hydrogen,
and the 60 percent efficiency seen in the electric motors fueled by
hydrogen
perhaps can move above 100 percent, meaning by 'burning' hydrogen, we
can
actually produce energy.

(The produced energy in return can be used to acquire hydrogen from
water.
Further, water can be extracted from air using an air conditioner,
even in
the driest Sahara air conditioners extract water from the air. A
combination
that can eliminate the dependency to deliver fuel, rather burning
hydrogen
should produces enough energy to extract the needed hydrogen right
from
the air.)

This technology can prove to offer an environment-friendly and far
more
economical solution for energy.

I ask for the research and protection (from patents) of this trivial
(all should
understand) technological possibility.

One sees a car that has no gas tank, and runs without stopping.

One sees a cruise-ship crossing the ocean, and did not need fueling.
The
energy comes from burning hydrogen.

Carbon monoxide is produced, it's effect for the environment belongs
to
researchers.

Water for such a cruise-ship can be extracted from the sea, and the
engine that runs on hydrogen produces simple electricity for
separating
H and O atoms. The hydrogen burns in combustion engines.

I ask for the research in regards to this zero energy concept, at
government levels, and if quick tests prove this technology possible,
to make it known and shared.

(Politicians can debate the economical effects, possibly world wars
of greed and power.)

I ask one thing in return. Allow smoking.

On Feb 2, 1:45 pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 1:30 pm, wrote:





On Feb 2, 12:10 pm, wrote:

Hydrogen can be extracted out of air using electrolysis
using the car's battery

About 60% loss of applied energy doing this.

The 60 percent loss applies only if its electric.

Electrolysis is electric. 60% applies.

Physics and chemistry is astronomy. A Universal and Chemics
is Bush.

Ignoring my sideposts, the bus in Chicago has a gas tank five
times of gas tanks of conventional busses, and is filled with
hydrogen. That hydrogen mixes with oxygen, and produces
electricity which runs the bus. That hydrogen tank itself was
produced using electricity, and if one calculates the cost,
the design is 60 percent energy efficient. That hydrogen
which produces electricity, needed 40 percent more electricity
in producing that hydrogen.

But what I am saying, is that when we burn hydrogen, it has
the same power as gasoline, which produces more power than
electric engines. Then we have more than 40 percent extra
energy, which can be used to produce hydrogen using
conventional means that the factory used to supply these
busses in Chicago with hydrogen. Of course we need to fit
this technology inside a car, and it becomes a zero energy
car. Take your time, I respect your true expertise.

Hydrogen can be used to replace gasolene in ordinary cars.
This is trivial, but you have to use your brain.

You have to replace your exhaust system. You have to adjust your
timing. You have to monitor your lubricants. It is not "trivial",
and yes, please do use your brain.

I am from East Europe, people use illegally installed propain
gas tanks to run their cars as gasoline is expensive. Nothing
needs adjustment. I am speaking of authentic cars.

As trivial it means that we all should understand.

You haven't yet.

Russians and Americans are not alike.

You have probably heard of hydrogen combustion engine.

MythBusters, if nowhere else.

There are two types of hydrogen engines. When oxygen
and hydrogen mixes, electricity is produced.

fuel cells. 80% efficient. Extremely intolerant of contaminants in
their fuel and oxidizer supply.

There are busses in Chicago that use this technology, and
the electricity produced runs these busses. Here the 60
percent energy efficiency is true.

No.

Explained above.

Here when oxygen and hydrogen is mixed, a product
aside from electricity is water. This is a beautiful and silent
technology, and relies on the transportation of hydrogen
as fuel.

The second, and the most ignored version of a hydrogen
based engine, is hydrogen combustion. Hydrogen is gas
that burns and works perfectly with most traditional car
engines.

For a while, yes.

What I ask as a preservation of technology, is based on
my trivial understanding that hydrogen using electricity
can be extracted from water,

60% loss of energy here.

Again, this should be explained already.

and water can be extracted from the air using electricity,

Some places easier than others. Some times of year easier than
others. All require *significant* energy inputs to do so. On the
order of what you expect to get out of it, plus a bit more for
entropy.

Right. My father is a biotechnologist, I know from him that water
is extracted very efficiently in the driest Sahara.

as a waste product of air conditioners.

Which don't run year round.

The possibility is there for an engine that extracts
hydrogen from the air using a car's battery, and uses
that hydrogen as a replacement to gasoline.

The infernal combustion engine is about 30% efficient on a good day.
You lose energy condensing water.
You lose energy electrolysing water (yes more than you get out of it
in hydrogen, right here).
You lose energy burning it in an infernal combustion engine.
You lose energy in converting shaft work back to electricity.

Well, one may just have to try and see. A car mechanic in East
Europe could do it.

and sends the hydrogen gas directly to the engine.)

Grinds to a halt really quick. Because you do not
consider real inefficiencies.

Ok. Why should we believe till we see it. Why should
we see it, if we don't want to believe it.

Been tried. Even carefully, the second law of thermodynamics prevents
"over unity" devices from working.

Your "good intenions" are just noise, and are off topic in sci.astro.

Thanks, good talk.

George

Summary:

Meeting the challenges of global warming.

I would like to talk about a highly unknown technology, that is an
alternative to oil.

As highly unknown, it is hard to talk about it, and as unknown, it is
not understood
until there is research. And yet this energy is here with us in the
air: hydrogen.

Hydrogen when mixed with oxygen produces electricity. Hydrogen can be
extracted
from water using electrolysis.

In Chicago, busses exist that use hydrogen. This hydrogen from the
bus' tank mixes
with oxygen and the result is electricity that runs the bus.

This hydrogen was produced with electricity, and the cost to produce
hydrogen
costs 40 percent more than the electricity produced by the hydrogen in
the bus
in return.

Now the unknown technology lays not in the already used electric
hydrogen busses
in Chicago, but in another form of hydrogen-based energy: combustion,
one that burns
hydrogen. From what I read, burning hydrogen offers the same energy as
gasoline
when burned, and that car engines can run on hydrogen, though the
effect on the
car's engine is not fully known.

When burning hydrogen, one gets more energy than electric power.

It means that a combustion engine can produce more energy out of
hydrogen,
and the 60 percent efficiency seen in the electric motors fueled by
hydrogen
perhaps can move above 100 percent, meaning by 'burning' hydrogen, we
can
actually produce energy.

(The produced energy in return can be used to acquire hydrogen from
water.
Further, water can be extracted from air using an air conditioner,
even in
the driest Sahara air conditioners extract water from the air. A
combination
that can eliminate the dependency to deliver fuel, rather burning
hydrogen
should produces enough energy to extract the needed hydrogen right
from
the air.)

This technology can prove to offer an environment-friendly and far
more
economical solution for energy.

I ask for the research and protection (from patents) of this trivial
(all should
understand) technological possibility.

One sees a car that has no gas tank, and runs without stopping.

One sees a cruise-ship crossing the ocean, and did not need fueling.
The
energy comes from burning hydrogen.

Carbon monoxide is produced, it's effect for the environment belongs
to
researchers.

Water for such a cruise-ship can be extracted from the sea, and the
engine that runs on hydrogen produces simple electricity for
separating
H and O atoms. The hydrogen burns in combustion engines.

I ask for the research in regards to this zero energy concept, at
government levels, and if quick tests prove this technology possible,
to make it known and shared.

(Politicians can debate the economical effects, possibly world wars
of greed and power.)

I ask one thing in return. Allow smoking.

I am not a human rights activist. I am a cannibal. I eat people.
The only reason I can eat people, is because there is a level.

As cannibals, we live as lifetime dissidents and peace activists.
We eat what we call 'monsters', they are racist children with
the mental level of racist 5 year olds. People eat dolphins,
they call that food mahi mahi, popular in Hawaii.

It is not important that some may have opened their eyes
to our presence. What is important that you eat, vote, work.
'Why' is not in your abilities.

On Feb 2, 1:56 pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 1:45 pm, wrote:





On Feb 2, 1:30 pm, wrote:

On Feb 2, 12:10 pm, wrote:

Hydrogen can be extracted out of air using electrolysis
using the car's battery

About 60% loss of applied energy doing this.

The 60 percent loss applies only if its electric.

Electrolysis is electric. 60% applies.

Physics and chemistry is astronomy. A Universal and Chemics
is Bush.

Ignoring my sideposts, the bus in Chicago has a gas tank five
times of gas tanks of conventional busses, and is filled with
hydrogen. That hydrogen mixes with oxygen, and produces
electricity which runs the bus. That hydrogen tank itself was
produced using electricity, and if one calculates the cost,
the design is 60 percent energy efficient. That hydrogen
which produces electricity, needed 40 percent more electricity
in producing that hydrogen.

But what I am saying, is that when we burn hydrogen, it has
the same power as gasoline, which produces more power than
electric engines. Then we have more than 40 percent extra
energy, which can be used to produce hydrogen using
conventional means that the factory used to supply these
busses in Chicago with hydrogen. Of course we need to fit
this technology inside a car, and it becomes a zero energy
car. Take your time, I respect your true expertise.

Hydrogen can be used to replace gasolene in ordinary cars.
This is trivial, but you have to use your brain.

You have to replace your exhaust system. You have to adjust your
timing. You have to monitor your lubricants. It is not "trivial",
and yes, please do use your brain.

I am from East Europe, people use illegally installed propain
gas tanks to run their cars as gasoline is expensive. Nothing
needs adjustment. I am speaking of authentic cars.

As trivial it means that we all should understand.

You haven't yet.

Russians and Americans are not alike.

You have probably heard of hydrogen combustion engine.

MythBusters, if nowhere else.

There are two types of hydrogen engines. When oxygen
and hydrogen mixes, electricity is produced.

fuel cells. 80% efficient. Extremely intolerant of contaminants in
their fuel and oxidizer supply.

There are busses in Chicago that use this technology, and
the electricity produced runs these busses. Here the 60
percent energy efficiency is true.

No.

Explained above.

Here when oxygen and hydrogen is mixed, a product
aside from electricity is water. This is a beautiful and silent
technology, and relies on the transportation of hydrogen
as fuel.

The second, and the most ignored version of a hydrogen
based engine, is hydrogen combustion. Hydrogen is gas
that burns and works perfectly with most traditional car
engines.

For a while, yes.

What I ask as a preservation of technology, is based on
my trivial understanding that hydrogen using electricity
can be extracted from water,

60% loss of energy here.

Again, this should be explained already.

and water can be extracted from the air using electricity,

Some places easier than others. Some times of year easier than
others. All require *significant* energy inputs to do so. On the
order of what you expect to get out of it, plus a bit more for
entropy.

Right. My father is a biotechnologist, I know from him that water
is extracted very efficiently in the driest Sahara.

as a waste product of air conditioners.

Which don't run year round.

The possibility is there for an engine that extracts
hydrogen from the air using a car's battery, and uses
that hydrogen as a replacement to gasoline.

The infernal combustion engine is about 30% efficient on a good day.
You lose energy condensing water.
You lose energy electrolysing water (yes more than you get out of it
in hydrogen, right here).
You lose energy burning it in an infernal combustion engine.
You lose energy in converting shaft work back to electricity.

Well, one may just have to try and see. A car mechanic in East
Europe could do it.

and sends the hydrogen gas directly to the engine.)

Grinds to a halt really quick. Because you do not
consider real inefficiencies.

Ok. Why should we believe till we see it. Why should
we see it, if we don't want to believe it.

Been tried. Even carefully, the second law of thermodynamics prevents
"over unity" devices from working.

Your "good intenions" are just noise, and are off topic in sci.astro.

Thanks, good talk.

George

Summary:

Meeting the challenges of global warming.

I would like to talk about a highly unknown technology, that is an
alternative to oil.

As highly unknown, it is hard to talk about it, and as unknown, it is
not understood
until there is research. And yet this energy is here with us in the
air: hydrogen.

Hydrogen when mixed with oxygen produces electricity. Hydrogen can be
extracted
from water using electrolysis.

In Chicago, busses exist that use hydrogen. This hydrogen from the
bus' tank mixes
with oxygen and the result is electricity that runs the bus.

This hydrogen was produced with electricity, and the cost to produce
hydrogen
costs 40 percent more than the electricity produced by the hydrogen in
the bus
in return.

Now the unknown technology lays not in the already used electric
hydrogen busses
in Chicago, but in another form of hydrogen-based energy: combustion,
one that burns
hydrogen. From what I read, burning hydrogen offers the same energy as
gasoline
when burned, and that car engines can run on hydrogen, though the
effect on the
car's engine is not fully known.

When burning hydrogen, one gets more energy than electric power.

It means that a combustion engine can produce more energy out of
hydrogen,
and the 60 percent efficiency seen in the electric motors fueled by
hydrogen
perhaps can move above 100 percent, meaning by 'burning' hydrogen, we
can
actually produce energy.

(The produced energy in return can be used to acquire hydrogen from
water.
Further, water can be extracted from air using an air conditioner,
even in
the driest Sahara air conditioners extract water from the air. A
combination
that can eliminate the dependency to deliver fuel, rather burning
hydrogen
should produces enough energy to extract the needed hydrogen right
from
the air.)

This technology can prove to offer an environment-friendly and far
more
economical solution for energy.

I ask for the research and protection (from patents) of this trivial
(all should
understand) technological possibility.

One sees a car that has no gas tank, and runs without stopping.

One sees a cruise-ship crossing the ocean, and did not need fueling.
The
energy comes from burning hydrogen.

Carbon monoxide is produced, it's effect for the environment belongs
to
researchers.

Water for such a cruise-ship can be extracted from the sea, and the
engine that runs on hydrogen produces simple electricity for
separating
H and O atoms. The hydrogen burns in combustion engines.

I ask for the research in regards to this zero energy concept, at
government levels, and if quick tests prove this technology possible,
to make it known and shared.

(Politicians can debate the economical effects, possibly world wars
of greed and power.)

I ask one thing in return. Allow smoking.

I am not a human rights activist. I am a cannibal. I eat people.
The only reason I can eat people, is because there is a level.

As cannibals, we live as lifetime dissidents and peace activists.
We eat what we call 'monsters', they are racist children with
the mental level of racist 5 year olds. People eat dolphins,
they call that food mahi mahi, popular in Hawaii.

It is not important that some may have opened their eyes
to our presence. What is important that you eat, vote, work.
'Why' is not in your abilities.

Typo: Fogot to say, Dolphins have the mental level of 4 year
olds.

Dear gb6...:

On Feb 2, 12:10 pm, wrote:
Hydrogen can be extracted out of air using electrolysis
using the car's battery

About 60% loss of applied energy doing this.

The 60 percent loss applies only if its electric.

Electrolysis is electric. 60% applies.

Physics and chemistry is astronomy. A Universal
and Chemics is Bush.

Your misunderstanding of the English language is not the entire issue.

Ignoring my sideposts, the bus in Chicago has a
gas tank five times of gas tanks of conventional
busses, and is filled with hydrogen.

A one time cost. Not something you have to keep paying for, like fuel
or filters.

That hydrogen mixes with oxygen, and produces
electricity which runs the bus. That hydrogen tank
itself was produced using electricity, and if one
calculates the cost, the design is 60 percent
energy efficient. That hydrogen which produces
electricity, needed 40 percent more electricity
in producing that hydrogen.

Not over the life of the bus. The lifecycle cost approaches the cost
of making the hydrogen, asymptotically. If it is maintained well, the
cost of making the tank is inconsequential.

But what I am saying, is that when we burn
hydrogen, it has the same power as gasoline,

No.

which produces more power than electric engines.

Not pound-for-pound of fuel. A fuel cell makes 2-3 times as much
electricity, due enitrely to conversion efficiencies.

Then we have more than 40 percent extra energy,
which can be used to produce hydrogen using
conventional means that the factory used to supply
these busses in Chicago with hydrogen.

Sorry, but that clearly doesn't work.

Of course we need to fit this technology inside a
car, and it becomes a zero energy car. Take your
time, I respect your true expertise.

You don't routinely respect anyone or anything in this newsgroup. I
doubt that will change.

Hydrogen can be used to replace gasolene in
ordinary cars. This is trivial, but you have to
use your brain.

You have to replace your exhaust system. You
have to adjust your timing. You have to monitor
your lubricants. It is not "trivial", and yes, please
do use your brain.

I am from East Europe, people use illegally installed
propain gas tanks to run their cars as gasoline is
expensive. Nothing needs adjustment. I am speaking
of authentic cars.

Same here. The only exhaust product of combusting hydrogen is high
temperature steam. This ends up contaminating the oil, and corroding
the exhaust system. And this is well documented.

As trivial it means that we all should understand.

You haven't yet.

Russians and Americans are not alike.

I have spent time in Kogalym. Russians that I have met are
intelligent people.

....
There are busses in Chicago that use this technology, and
the electricity produced runs these busses. Here the 60
percent energy efficiency is true.

No.

Explained above.

"Imagined" above. Not based on reality, only what you will allow
yourself to believe.

....
What I ask as a preservation of technology, is based on
my trivial understanding that hydrogen using electricity
can be extracted from water,

60% loss of energy here.

Again, this should be explained already.

Not explained, and not based on facts that are easily available.

and water can be extracted from the air using electricity,

Some places easier than others. Some times of year
easier than others. All require *significant* energy inputs
to do so. On the order of what you expect to get out of it,
plus a bit more for entropy.

Right. My father is a biotechnologist, I know from him that
water is extracted very efficiently in the driest Sahara.

Energy consumption to get 1 liter per minute of water via refrigerated
condensation is: how many kilowatt-hours?

....
The possibility is there for an engine that extracts
hydrogen from the air using a car's battery, and uses
that hydrogen as a replacement to gasoline.

The infernal combustion engine is about 30% efficient
on a good day.
You lose energy condensing water.
You lose energy electrolysing water (yes more than you get out of it
in hydrogen, right here).
You lose energy burning it in an infernal combustion engine.
You lose energy in converting shaft work back to electricity.

Well, one may just have to try and see. A car mechanic
in East Europe could do it.

Please do. Rub it in my face when you accomplish this. Because there
are 100 other people that have tried exactly what you propose, and
their projects are also stalled, because they didn't do their research
first.

and sends the hydrogen gas directly to the engine.)

Grinds to a halt really quick. Because you do not
consider real inefficiencies.

Ok. Why should we believe till we see it. Why should
we see it, if we don't want to believe it.

Been tried. Even carefully, the second law of
thermodynamics prevents "over unity" devices from working.

Your "good intenions" are just noise, and are off topic in sci.astro.

Thanks, good talk.

Just seems to be an opportunity for you to show what you don't know.

You do realize that this is all recorded for many, many years, right?
And you will look back on what you have written and blush...

David A. Smith

On Feb 2, 2:18 pm, "dlzc" wrote:
Dear gb6...:

On Feb 2, 12:10 pm, wrote:

Hydrogen can be extracted out of air using electrolysis
using the car's battery

About 60% loss of applied energy doing this.

The 60 percent loss applies only if its electric.

Electrolysis is electric. 60% applies.

Physics and chemistry is astronomy. A Universal
and Chemics is Bush.

Your misunderstanding of the English language is not the entire issue.

Ignoring my sideposts, the bus in Chicago has a
gas tank five times of gas tanks of conventional
busses, and is filled with hydrogen.

A one time cost. Not something you have to keep paying for, like fuel
or filters.

That hydrogen mixes with oxygen, and produces
electricity which runs the bus. That hydrogen tank
itself was produced using electricity, and if one
calculates the cost, the design is 60 percent
energy efficient. That hydrogen which produces
electricity, needed 40 percent more electricity
in producing that hydrogen.

Not over the life of the bus. The lifecycle cost approaches the cost
of making the hydrogen, asymptotically. If it is maintained well, the
cost of making the tank is inconsequential.

But what I am saying, is that when we burn
hydrogen, it has the same power as gasoline,

No.

which produces more power than electric engines.

Not pound-for-pound of fuel. A fuel cell makes 2-3 times as much
electricity, due enitrely to conversion efficiencies.

We are saying that gasoline has not much more power.
I have read, that hydrogen can be literally used in existing
cars. This already a deep physics/chemistry stuff to
calculate.

Then we have more than 40 percent extra energy,
which can be used to produce hydrogen using
conventional means that the factory used to supply
these busses in Chicago with hydrogen.

Sorry, but that clearly doesn't work.

If hydrogen burns as gasoline, it is more powerful,
the question is if we can use that power to
conventionally produce hydrogen. A question,
which you are convinced that this stuff is not
normal, so to speak, as violation of physics
or chemistry, or crackpotting scientry is the
case, with other labels. Either way. You speak
here, so you may be interested in me proving
to you, that hydrogen burns and as that can
be used to create energy.

Of course we need to fit this technology inside a
car, and it becomes a zero energy car. Take your
time, I respect your true expertise.

You don't routinely respect anyone or anything in this newsgroup. I
doubt that will change.

Hydrogen can be used to replace gasolene in
ordinary cars. This is trivial, but you have to
use your brain.

You have to replace your exhaust system. You
have to adjust your timing. You have to monitor
your lubricants. It is not "trivial", and yes, please
do use your brain.

I am from East Europe, people use illegally installed
propain gas tanks to run their cars as gasoline is
expensive. Nothing needs adjustment. I am speaking
of authentic cars.

Same here. The only exhaust product of combusting hydrogen is high
temperature steam. This ends up contaminating the oil, and corroding
the exhaust system. And this is well documented.

As trivial it means that we all should understand.

You haven't yet.

Russians and Americans are not alike.

I have spent time in Kogalym. Russians that I have met are
intelligent people.

...

There are busses in Chicago that use this technology, and
the electricity produced runs these busses. Here the 60
percent energy efficiency is true.

No.

Explained above.

"Imagined" above. Not based on reality, only what you will allow
yourself to believe.

...

What I ask as a preservation of technology, is based on
my trivial understanding that hydrogen using electricity
can be extracted from water,

60% loss of energy here.

Again, this should be explained already.

Not explained, and not based on facts that are easily available.

I have asked the French government to assign researchers to
this possible source of energy and to investigate all
environmental and possibilities. The French government
is looking at solutions to global warming. I sent a letter
to the French Ambassador. I don't know if it works.

and water can be extracted from the air using electricity,

Some places easier than others. Some times of year
easier than others. All require *significant* energy inputs
to do so. On the order of what you expect to get out of it,
plus a bit more for entropy.

Right. My father is a biotechnologist, I know from him that
water is extracted very efficiently in the driest Sahara.

Energy consumption to get 1 liter per minute of water via refrigerated
condensation is: how many kilowatt-hours?

Ordinary house-based air conditioner does 1 liter per minute waste.
That sucks, because there is no information on that, so you
need to test it yourself. I did it. a) find a large air conditioner.
b) find a place where it disposes of water. c) measure the
amount of that water. d) make sure the air conditioning system
does not need water as part of its functioning.

...

The possibility is there for an engine that extracts
hydrogen from the air using a car's battery, and uses
that hydrogen as a replacement to gasoline.

The infernal combustion engine is about 30% efficient
on a good day.
You lose energy condensing water.
You lose energy electrolysing water (yes more than you get out of it
in hydrogen, right here).
You lose energy burning it in an infernal combustion engine.
You lose energy in converting shaft work back to electricity.

Well, one may just have to try and see. A car mechanic
in East Europe could do it.

Please do. Rub it in my face when you accomplish this. Because there
are 100 other people that have tried exactly what you propose, and
their projects are also stalled, because they didn't do their research
first.

I don't do research. A lifetime accomplishment based on my
childhood collections of drinking water coming out of the air
conditioning systems, and filling up bottles after bottles, and
saying how fast this water keeps coming.

and sends the hydrogen gas directly to the engine.)

Grinds to a halt really quick. Because you do not
consider real inefficiencies.

Ok. Why should we believe till we see it. Why should
we see it, if we don't want to believe it.

Been tried. Even carefully, the second law of
thermodynamics prevents "over unity" devices from working.

Your "good intenions" are just noise, and are off topic in sci.astro.

Thanks, good talk.

Just seems to be an opportunity for you to show what you don't know.

You do realize that this is all recorded for many, many years, right?
And you will look back on what you have written and blush...

Once cannibals came about. These people wanted meat,
and the only source of meat were humans at the time.

A collection of bones, dead people hanging upside
down... these Cannibals sharpened their vampire teeth.

Their leader with a quiet deeeep voice taught
cannibals about a level that distingushes them from
the humans!

George

You are demonstrating a high profile, standards and maturity to
a cannibal. But we are not a hiring organization.

You are demonstrating a high profile, standards and maturity to
a cannibal. But we are not a hiring organization.

However, you have the resentfulness of an emperor.
You are worried of being invaded. It is a quality of a
man who is in control. But you also need to remember,
that this is the 21st century. And here, Cannibals rule
Earth. If that is hard to understand, than that understanding
will always be stubborn.