|
|
|
|
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/5/2008 6:11:42 AM | Strictly speaking, a perpetual motion machine of any kind is impossible because it breaks the laws of thermodynamics. While I am not an engineer an an expert on the design of engines, in basic physics you look at the principles which underly things like heat engines and other types of engines and no engine can be 100% efficient in the sense no energy is lost. The basic rule is that energy can be transformed from one state or another, but is never created or destroyed, and the amount of useful work which can be extracted from the energy decreases as the number of transformations increase (this is called entropy, a sort of statistical measure of disorder based on the probabilities of arrangements of atoms and molecules.). These rules are firmly established by experiment and no exceptions have been observed in nature.
There are some potentially very powerful energy sources, such as nuclear fusion and widespread conversion of solar energy. Using antimatter or zero-point energy is more speculative, and we won't master that for probably 150-200 years at least. But even an engine based on antimatter or nuclear fusion (or water for that matter) would still have to obey the laws of thermodynamics. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/5/2008 8:13:09 AM | .
Those are two term that shouldn't be used together in a sentence.
Unless that sentence is "There are no promising inventions that create perpetual energy."
Is perpetual energy possible?
Not involving any current scientific beliefs or technology.
Perhaps in the future...if mankind lives long enough.
Would an inventor who created something like this get "wacked?"
Maybe...but only by a company or group that would use his ideas to make themselves wealthy.
Or wealthier.
And they wouldn't "withhold" the idea from the public.
How would they make any money?
I suppose this depends on precisely what you want to call "perpetual"? Till the end of eternity? Possible but unlikely.
Yep I did say possible 
Is millions of years close enough to be considered perpetual? Bet most people never thought of the sun? Its a near perpetual energy device as a result of the hydrogen fusion cycle. Granted it does slowly loose some and someday wil implode on itself but it is nonetheless a greater than a million year energy source. Unfortunately we simply do not take advantage of it.
Next planets in motion are near perpetual motion as well.
As for us creating perpetual motion I summarize it at this time as impossible. The problem of course is that it is possible to get efficiencies greater than 100% and not violate and "theories" (not laws), of thermodynamics but that is nothing more than playing with math and while true has nothing to do with perpetual anything. Simply remove the fuel and these devices will stop or cease to function.
Frankly I think its a bit naive to think the people with the market cornered on "black gold" would not go to any lengths to protect that market since they ahve already proven it. The phish carb that would get 60mpg was bought up by texaco< Im thinking in the 50's sometime where they immediately reformulated the gas so it would not longer work and tossed it in the trash. Moray was shot and woulded and his lab destroyed and burned, Do we see his little 2ft square black box on the market that produced 50,000 watts of continuous power? Nope. Tesla had his magnifying transmitter that could send electricity and power with not wires to anywhere in the world and under water and it was called "magnifying" because his early experiments at colorado springs showed he was getting 10,000 horsepower out for every 10 horsepower in. His device back fed the power company to the point he blew out their generator. He was able and demonstrated his transmitter by both sending out the electricity and remote controlling boats in the new york harbor in the very early 1900's. This technology has been around that long.
Anyone of us using it?
The problem is that the infrastructure had been built for oil and one of teslas earlier versions of electricity that designed in the 1800's. Your 110 volt ac wall outlets in your house". Yup tesla invented that too.
Tesla wanted to see all cars running off his transmitter and electricity at 90+% efficiency but we prefer gas motors that run at 30% efficiency!
Remeber the ev1, general motors electric car?
Yeh they destroyed all of them. Reasons unknown. But not really. They were sort of impractical with the original laed acid batteries so it was a fun experiment until they came out with nickel metal hydride that you could get up to 300 miles per charge and take 1/2 hour to charge back up!!! There was virtually no maintenance they would go in for a check up and drive out in 1 hour and the mechanics had nothing to do!
Now to really throw a curve ball in the works a guy named mead invents a crystal battery that has nearly as much power output and NiMi batteries and guess how they are charged? You shut the unit off and let is sleep for a while and the battery self charges!
Its already out there people, its just no manufactureer is going to produce it because lets face it the big money has trillions invested in their "infrastructure" and now if you have a stainless steel car with an electric motor you can virtually drive the same car all your life so a one time car sale with virtually no maintenance simply does not look to promising for BIG business.
Finally as far as the guy who made the generator, waltzing into the patent office and claiming perpetual motion automatically gets you put into the "gotta bring it in and prove it" file. So this guy was denied a patent because he could not show that his device actually works.
I took the time to review his 6 videos which turned out to be the same thinking that I would see something different that would show me it really worked. I immediately as one other person mentioned here notice a couple glaring errors that he was making and frankly was more impressed with the mueller motor/gen than his. One that I heard a lot about was the gray motor and the bedini but I never took the time to fully understand their operation.
Lots of kool things have been around for literally 10's of years but we just dont use them. As far as running a car off hydrogen is concerned, sure why not? we send rockets into space with hydrogen boosters! All you need to do is re-time the engine and they will run fine off hydrogen.
The best thing to do imo is to build yourselves an on demand HHO generator and run your car in a hybrid mode. So in a nutshell you pipe the HHO both in front and behind the throttle plate and add a little circuit to get your oxy sensor to lie to the car computer so it leans it out when HHO is injected. You will see anywhere from a rough hip shot of 150% to 220% increase in milaege. Oops over 100%!! Ok how about you will get up to a little over double your gas mileage with a little water. I made one from scrap metal for about 75 bucks.
Last but not least, good ole sandia labs is working on some tesla technology with a different twist. You know anything worthwhile is only good if its too big for the comman man to own one and has to be a pay per view community service right?!! (like the power company)
Anyway sandia labs claims to have used 300,000 watts of energy to create upwards of several million watts in their attemps to creat high enough temperatures for hot fusion. Of course is sandia labs or cornell is working on it we all ready know what its intended purposes are.
. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/5/2008 4:31:48 PM | RE msg 21 by Nergal:
How is refuting a claim about a car that runs on water OFF TOPIC If we keep the discussion short, then it won't be. But if the thread becomes solely a discussion about engines that run on water, running into many posts, then IMO, the thread's subject matter has been hijacked. Am I wrong?
I already posted a note about patents. The patent office dont need to see a working model, diagrams are enough. Thanks for letting me know that. I wasn't sure, which was why I deliberately worded my post to say that "I expected" the patent office to view the object at work, and why I said that I didn't know patent law. So I thank you for your clarification. But I want to make it clear that I never claimed that the patent office DID see the engine at work.
If the claim involves perpetual motion the US patent office automatically grant a patent, providing the paperwork is in order, as the last time they refused one a member of the office got shot. 1) I can see why the patent office would be expected to automatically grant perpetual motion machines. But from what I read last night, it's an expensive and lengthy process, and there is no guarantee that you will not be refused even so, simply because someone else patented it first, or something very like it.
2) Also, a patent is an expensive and lengthy process that is at the behest of the patent office, not the inventor, so there would be ample room to build in some simple protection against it.
3) Also, other government workers have gotten shot. They don't change their practices. Why should the patent office?
As for domes, it would require retraining the entire worlds building industry, I don't know if re-training is the right word, because I've never heard of the building industry being the "rectangular building industry". Plus, I've seen all sorts of buildings which are not rectangular, all over. I've seen blocks of flats designed in honeycomb shapes, and all sorts of buildings in London, which don't conform to a typical rectangular structure. Plus, we now live in an industry where things are done on CAD, and mass-produced in all sorts of shapes. I cannot see how it would affect day labourers, or painters, or decorators, or carpet-fitters, or electricians, who already have massive problems to cope with. Plumbers would just need curved pipes, which could be mass-produced by a factory, as long as there was sufficient demand. Heck, these days, a construction company could just ask for a pipe-making company to make 50,000 curved pipes and they would do it, no questions asked. Thanks to modern technology, the only things stopping us making all sorts of houses, are us.
making parts that arent available off the shelf You cannot buy something off the shelf. It has to be made first. Most of the products you buy have only been made in the last few years, because the way modern products are made, they re-design the production to suit the next line. This is all thanks to modern technology. So the only thing stopping manufacturing companies making such parts is the lack of such buildings. But even so, it wouldn't be hard to make your own shelving. In my flat, the only things I have that stick to the walls are shelving, cupboards and book-cases. It wouldn't take a lot to make them suit a curved dome. Heck, if you took the logs, they are curved anyway. You might save a lot of wood that is typically thrown away.
and who would buy one. Someone who lives in a hurricane zone, and doesn't have a lot of money, who has to put 4 people in a one-room flat, for one. For another, people who live in a zone where tsunamis could happen, like the Boxing Day tsunami. Think about it. If a tsunami hits a ball, what happens? The ball rolls forward. You get a bit knocked about, but you survive, with only a few cuts and bruises. That is a serious benefit to much of the world.
Most people want to live in square houses, most furniture is designed around that concept .. So because most people have done it this way for years, we should continue? Most people believed that the Sun went around the Earth, thanks to Aristotle, to hundreds of years. Does that mean we should have left people thinking that way?
Thats the trouble with a lot of these inventions, firstly the energy equation, then the economic equation and then the marketing equation. Not quite. I used to live with a 3rd-year Building Engineering student in Manchester. Well, actually, I lived with 2, 1 in my first year, and 1 in my third year, and they both worked in the construction industry for years before they went to university. Very smart people. I and the guy in my 3rd year got talking about his dissertation, and it was about how you could build a house that was completely friendly to the environment, with no problems of pollution whatsoever. But he said that it would lower the profits of the construction companies, and they just don't want to lower their profits.
That's the trouble with a lot of these inventions.
First, the inventor looks at the current technology, and realises that with a change, the energy equation becomes much efficient. Then he looks at the economic equation and realises that it will make the object much cheaper to produce, but that will not give the retailer an excuse to sell the product for a very expensive price. Then he looks at the marketing equation, and does his own market research, and finds out that there is a massive demand for such products, and that the marketing campaign would be very cheap, making less money for the marketing and advertising companies, and making the product more competitive in the marketplace, which would weaken the stranglehold that the manufacturer and the retailers who sell the existing products have over the current market.
He ends up coming to the conclusion that it would be better for you, better for the environment, cheaper for you, and in all ways better for the consumer, but not better for the people who make the existing products and those people who gain benefit from your buying those products for high prices, and so he is likely to be cut out of the market.
Do we get more energy out of it than we put in ... the answer is normally no. No-one expects or needs a perpetual motion machine. A machine that is more efficient than the existing machines would do quite nicely. So the answer would normally be yes.
Is it more cheaper than conventional methods .... again the answer is normally no. No-one expects or needs a machine that is cheaper to make using conventional methods and conventional materials, at this exact minute. A machine that can be manufactured using methods and materials in 1 year, that would be cheaper to make than existing products, would do quite nicely. Again the answer is normally yes.
Will people want to buy it ... given the answers to the above 2 questions .. probably not ... Will people want to buy it, given that the companies would rather they had a monopoly selling the same old sh*t, for exorbitant prices, and will do massive ad campaigns against it, and pay the media to claim that it is worse than existing products? Probably not. If they were given a fair deal, simply to show their product and let people make their own minds up? For a lot of inventions, definitely yes. Are the companies that make the existing products likely to give them that chance? No way in hell. Are the politicians likely to support those companies? Yes.
Take electric cars, or even hydrogen cars. Shwarzenegger recently paid out for a hydrogen Hummer I think. He is govenor of California and its a state big on low emission cars. The price he paid was astronomical, luckily he can afford it, but average joe on the street no way. Electric cars have massive problems with range, add more batteries and the car gets slower and still doesnt get much of an increase in range. So in terms of using them for long distance driving its a no go. The US is the biggest users of cars in the world, and they have the cheapest fuel too. And also the longest roads, so to an American electric cars make less sense than in the UK. Electric cars have been around since way before I was a kid, because we've had electric floats used by milkmen since before I was born. Back then, I watched programmes that said they had a top speed of 50mph. Even if they could only get up to 30, you aren't allowed to go past 30 on most roads in cities and towns. If you really wanted, you could fit a main electric engine with a petrol engine. But the petrol engine would only kick in above 30 mph, which would be applicable for long-distance, and for fast roads in cities and towns, and it could be used to recharge the electric cell as well. That would at the very least massively reduce a substantial amount of the effects of pollution, because pollution is much more of a problem when it is concentrated. That comes from having many cars in the same place, such as in a city, and from the cars moving slowly, because at high speeds the speed would be transferred to the exhaust fumes and would therefore disperse. So why can't you do that?
Now, pop quiz: Does anyone know when CD manufacturers had the ability to manufacture DVDs? Why exactly did CD manufacturers say they brought out DVDs when they did? | |
|
| |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/5/2008 6:25:33 PM | hell if we really want energy how about we build wardenclyff towers and pull ions from the atmosphere?
sooner or later you'll realize we are sheep as a society and for this reason we have all of our suffering and energy crisis, if society were free we would know what the government is up to at all times in all of their classified projects. | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 31 | |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/6/2008 3:43:51 AM | Some of the biggest problems we have with housing at the moment are space and greed. I'm talking about the UK mainly because I kinow its a fact but it does apply to other countries, especially Japan. America is a different issue, they have plenty of space. In the UK at the moment, land and buildng space is bought up by developers, who want to make a profit. House prices are already at a premium and it isnt going to change until the housing market collapses. A dome is wasteful of space. I was at a planning meeting a few years back, one of the applications was from a developer trying to get permission for 7 houses on a piece of land, the council knocked them back and insitsted there was only space for 5, and even at 5 houses it looked pretty cramped. A friend of mine lived adjacent to an old shop, they knocked the shop down and built about 15 flats on top of it, small tiny cramped flats.
So the whole economic question boils down to how many people can you fit on a piece of land. And how much money can the developers screw out of them for the priviledge. And they will need to retrain the workforce, The manufacturing industry produces square materials, producing curves is more expensive. If you built the domes out of glass the costs would rocket due to the price of curved safety glass, which needs making to exact tolerances. It needs a more skilled workforce because the pieces have to fit exactly, you cant just pad it out with a bit of foam as they do with an ill-fitting window these days.
I cant ever see domes being built in the UK on a massive basis, the drive and the grants are biased towards eco-homes. I've got a mate who is a builder and is seriously looking at building some because the grants make it profitable. There is a huge amount that can and is being done to make conventional houses more eco-friendly, and that seems to be the way forward.
There are cars available that use electric and petrol, and they are getting better, I dont see a problem with that, but for long distance driving they dont cut the mustard yet. Most of the long distance driving in the UK is done by reps who want cars they get in and drive, they want to do so at, or above the speed limit and with as little filling up as possible. The car industry is mainly dictated by the American and European markets, long distance driving. Especially with the Americans, cheap petrol, hey why bother with a electric car that cant hack the pace. I agree it would cut pollution and make the oil last longer, but its not convenient.
How is refuting a claim about a car that runs on water OFF TOPIC
If we keep the discussion short, then it won't be. But if the thread becomes solely a discussion about engines that run on water, running into many posts, then IMO, the thread's subject matter has been hijacked. Am I wrong?
... you make me laugh, when have you ever kept a conversation short.
The thread is about promising inventions so water engines are not Off Topic.
Its not about companies having monopolies. Its about profitability. I was looking into business investment for some ideas of mine, a few years ago. I spoke to a few people got a couple of numbers and in one 15 minute phone call got offered £30o million. Which was way more than I needed. That was down to me producing a profitable business plan, which I couldnt do, not with a 100% guarantee of success. So there is plenty of money available for investment. If someone came up with a rock solid idea then people would be flocking to invest. Why havent they?
I havent answered all your points ... but :-
Wood that is normally thrown away - Nope its made into chipboard, MDF and other flat materials. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/6/2008 10:26:11 AM | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvRzWYCZ2e0&NR=1
refute that, 2 facts put into one which provides near limitless energy!
all about profitability umm, perpetual energy isn't profitable so right there you just stated yourself you don't want it. | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 33 | |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/6/2008 10:42:02 AM | I've seen it before I think it was you that posted it. Its funny but doesnt prove anything. Its about a cat and jellied toast. Which is an urban myth. Drop jellied toast on the floor and it will land whichever way up, its 50/50 chance. Cats land on their feet because they twist their bodies in mid air, I've done it and landed on my feet after a fall, I'm not a cat I nearly wrenched a muscle. But that gives cats say a 90% chance of landing on their feet, maybe slight more. If the cat doesnt land on its feet, it lands on its back on the toast, making a mess on the carpet.
Having said that it makes about as much sense as any of your other posts so i'd expect you to believe it.
I didnt say perpetual energy wasnt profitable. I just said it didnt exist in a manner which we can tap profitably. Even the sun isnt truly perpetual. A perpetual motion machine is one that once started runs of its own volition, without consuming any power. A machine of that nature isnt possible. Solar power is worthwhile, wind power too although we dont know the effect on the weather systems. Geo-thermal energy was touted as one of the big solutions for a while but it seems to have died a death, mainly because it isnt feasible to get enough energy out of it to pay the cost of developing it. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/6/2008 10:48:58 AM | that link was also posted just as a joke to show that you'll try to refute even jokes as your so adamante to refute even the possibility that someone could come up with a real answer.
I just said it didnt exist in a manner which we can tap profitably. You mean you can't put a meter on it so lets not do it.
no shit the sun isn't perpetual it's a giagantic fusion reactor which will stop at iron or before then. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/6/2008 3:00:18 PM | | I once pondered in my sleep that I could make some kind of rotating mechanism if I could find some kind of magnet shield that moved with the rotation. The shield would go up as the magnets came near. And the shield would go down as the mechanism rotated past the magnet and get propelled by the magnetic energy.... So the shield would have to be in synch with the rotation. Seems viable to me. What about you? | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/6/2008 9:33:14 PM |
that link was also posted just as a joke to show that you'll try to refute even jokes as your so adamante to refute even the possibility that someone could come up with a real answer.
So you post something that should be refuted to show how unreasonable a person is for refuting it?
Let me guess, not debate team captain. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/7/2008 5:35:36 AM | Well this might make sense about perpetual energy.
I watched a special on PBS on a fellow or group of people who built a house, dome style, and covered it with 16 inches of dirt. Because of that the house inside stayed at a constant 55 F. In the summer there was no need for air conditioning and in the winter it cost him $49 to heat the home for the winter. It was easier to bring the temperature up to 72 F if the house was constantly 55 F than it would to bring a house temp. up to 72 F if the ouside of the house was in 20 F below. Now isn't the 55 F of the ground temperature perpetual.
Maybe we are looking in the wrong direction and need to capitalize on what already exists.
We build homes the way we do to intensify labor and create jobs, this goes for the Oil industry also or any industry. One of the reasons why governments will not interfere with the status quo. The fact of what we have created has backed up on us. As we look to create more jobs we forgot that there are methods that we can use that can ease the existing problems with energy.
The home mentioned above I believe was in the US. And if a tornado was to hit this home, it would just ride right over top of it, seeing that a tornado does not travel underground, it was quite the house. That to me is the future, especially in tornado and Hurricane areas. But I wouldn't want to cut the grass on it. Oh yea he used wood too to heat the house, less than a cord a yr. The 16 inches of dirt is the best insulator. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/7/2008 8:19:20 AM | .
The frost line varies from location to location and it is also dependent on th eoutside temperature as well as amount of snow etc as to how deep it actually goes.
The frost line can easily go deeper than 4 ft in some areas so you have to know what it is for that area you want to build in. Space is -272k so the temp of the earth is dependent on the sun and only as perpetual as the sun, and likewise only as perpetual as the suns stability. Should the sun lose its stability we could either burn up or freeze regardless of where we try to hide.
. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/7/2008 11:11:58 AM | --The frost line varies from location to location --
Right, another example of this is in Montreal Canada. What the builders did when they bought an older building was to make rather small units or apartments, the reason was that there was a large market for single dwellings for those who are old, invalid, single mothers and fathers and so on. With the cost of heating these units and I believe there where four of them, they came up with an idea that worked. They used a heat pump to extract the heat from under the ground around 100ft deep. It was a good Idea but they soon realized that if they put solar panels on the roof, and during the summer months they would use the solar energy to store heat back underground and it worked. They use the heat gathered from the summer, stored it under ground, then when the time came they used this heat to heat the building. This is going on at this moment and Montreal during winter is one cold place. I found that quite interesting again, perpetual in a manner. The only machinery they used was to pump the heat down ward. Rather interesting where we are going to day. | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 40 | |
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/7/2008 11:17:39 AM | | There is a project in the UK, really interesting but its expensive. It uses solar panels and a lot of gray water, and light tubes that filter sunlight down through the flats. The flats are expensive but running costs are much lower. I think its a definite way forward. Any savings we make are useful. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/7/2008 2:08:43 PM | .
solar panels are extremely inefficient and I would only use them to line the roof/hood/trunk of an electric car to recharge it while I was at work. parabolics are much better.
. | |
|
| Perpetual Energy & Other Promising Inventions
Posted: 3/7/2008 10:51:23 PM | If I were to build a solar power collector system, it would consist of an array of photovoltaic cells with water flowing beneath them. That way, you'd convert visible light to electricity and infrared to heat. Then, convert the heat from the water to electricity and store in batteries.
Add a windmill or two just for good measure.
It's all about efficiency and economical design strategies. | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 43 | |
| Perpetual Energy & Other Promising Inventions
Posted: 3/8/2008 1:51:35 AM | | I quite agree Otto, most of the systems I've seen do stuff like preheat water, its basically a black radiator on the roof. It heats up the water prior to it running through the central heating boiler, so it takes less energy to heat it up. I know a few farmers that have wind turbines on their property, during the day they provide a proportion of the electricity for the house, and at night the electricity is sold back to the power companies. solar cells themselves are inefficient but they do help, and I've seen a couple of reports of more efficient cells being developed. In the UK you can buy wind turbines off the shelf at the big DIY stores. The only problem I have heard is noise, just from the vibration. The solar panel arrays, there are a few companies that fit them, pay for themselves in 10-15 years, from what I remember. It doesnt seem that worthwhile but it adds to the resale value of the house. If everyone did it then the total energy bill for the country or even the world would probably drop significantly. | |
|
| Perpetual Energy & Other Promising Inventions
Posted: 3/12/2008 1:30:37 PM | novascotialass:
I think your thread is technical in content. I'd say it is like suppliers to an automotive manufacturer. And how income is generated more by the service rather than the sell of the initial product. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/12/2008 8:26:45 PM | | I actually seen an episode of a show called The Dragons Den with something to that effect. The show features inventors trying to convince a panel of investors to buy into their ideas. One gentleman from the east coast of Canada had an invention that would harness the energy of the tides. It consisted of something along the lines of giant turbines on the floor of the continental shelf. For some reason all of the investors declined but I really believed that this guy was on to something. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/16/2008 12:32:41 PM | I could build a car to work on water ,its not difficult h2o two hydrogen one oxygen ,you send a current of electricity through the water it breaks it down and releases the hydrogen ,that's what the car runs on : --- problem is like a lot of these systems you have to put more energy in than you get out
a lot of perpetual engines use permanent magnets : --- problems is the name permanent magnets is a misnomer , they are not permanent in fact they lose their magnetic pull quite quickly when placed in perpetual engine machines ,and the making of permanent magnets runs in the the above problem more energy in than you get out
now enough with the conspiracy theory's already  | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/16/2008 1:36:20 PM |
now enough with the conspiracy theory's already
Perhaps there is no conspiracy, but it is easier to follow the path of least resistance. Change for an entire civilization requires an enormous effort. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/17/2008 12:36:26 AM |
I could build a car to work on water ,its not difficult h2o two hydrogen one oxygen ,you send a current of electricity through the water it breaks it down and releases the hydrogen ,that's what the car runs on : --- problem is like a lot of these systems you have to put more energy in than you get out
No, the problem with this system is that ALL of them require more energy input than they put out. | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/17/2008 2:02:54 PM | Was just looking up magnetic motors..seems like a given..as like poles repel and unlike attract get a circular engine and fire it up and away it goes..just magnetic energy involved..great idea..apparently GM has a website they are working on it and have a working model on u tube...awesome....
Hydrogen is good...especially where lots of water and lots of hydro electric power...but as the exhaust is water vapour..could capture it, and perform electrolysis in the car, the voila you have a closed circuit burning hydrogen and creating it all in one loop...hmmmm I wonder......... | |
|
| perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 3/18/2008 4:19:16 PM | ok here it is ,you skeptics ; how to make a perpetual engine!
1) start a post containing the words perpetual energy
2) this thread will go on forever and produce enough hot air to solve all our energy woes
simple ! and no conflict with the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
