Posted on 09/18/2008 10:24:42 AM PDT by Red Badger
Impressive that he has guts enough to claim that. He's counting on ignorance to make his 'invention' look good. The currents (amps) are totally meaningless without specifying the voltages at which those amps are flowing.
I can easily put half an ampere into a transformer and get a full ampere out. That doesn't mean that I've 'created' half an amp of current, though. What I've more likely done is applied 220 volts to a 220-110 stepdown transformer. Total power on each side is roughly the same even though the current has doubled.
Sounds similar to the plans of Sunflower Electric in S.W. Kansas until the 'powers' nixed the permits. Still in court...
I choose to disbelieve.
To make power from water, let it fall off a cliff onto turbine blades
I am his agent and can get you in early...... Want to invest?
I NEVER said “energy for nuthin”. We strictly obey the laws of Thermodynamics in this house! I learned as a child that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you would please read my previous posts, and quit acting the troll, you would see that I stated as such.
A simple google-quest for plasma gasification should answer your questions. If your too lazy to do your own research, I’m to busy to respond to your trolling.
So, the guy has violated the laws of thermodynamics and invented a perpetual motion machine.
I don’t care what he says. It takes a certain amount of energy to split water, and you get a certain amount back when the hydrogen oxydizes (burns). The system would have to be over 100% efficient for this thing to “work”.
Many of these same arguments were used to ‘debunk’ atomic and nuclear energy claims in the early part of the last century.
How does a nuclear power plant operate independently, being a net producer of power, after startup? Short answer - it is converting massive amounts of stored energy from the fuel.
Can an internal combustion engine create enough electricity to continue to spark the combustion process while providing net power output? Of course - cars and generators do it daily.
Yes, it is true that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but the analysis must include the whole energy equation - and the crux of the problem lies in calculating and then exposing stored energy. Many hydrogen test projects over the years have shown promising results based on the distinct stored energy within the hydrogen bond.
I don’t have nearly enough information to evaluate this particular project, but the concept of converting the stored energy of water/hydrogen into useful power is viable in theory. The practicalities of harnessing the energy in a viably efficient manner has been the stumbling block to date.
Here is what you posted to me.
Reports indicate that energy requirements for continuous operation are normally 2/3 of the output.
Basically what you are saying is that the energy needed to separate the H2O is 2/3'rds of the energy that you get from burning the separated gas.
That is the definition of a perpetual motion machine and is a clear violation of the laws of Thermodynamics. You seem to be under the impression that the presence of a catylyst changes the rules.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.