The future of free energy is here Now!

reply to post by TheRedneck


All it needs is for people to look past oil, and actually get off their backsides and start to put the infrastructure in place.

You know - entrepreneurial skills and innovation, that sort of thing.

Me, I'm not a scientist, I don't claim to be. I couldn't reproduce the technology without considerable re-learning over time that would not make it feasible in my lifetime.

I am a realist though. We either do this stuff or we die as a species. Survival of the fittest and all that. We have the smarts.

My Grandmother had a saying "If you say it can't be done, you'll never do it."

You might have dismissed it. I choose not to.

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

All it needs is for people to look past oil, and actually get off their backsides and start to put the infrastructure in place.

You know - entrepreneurial skills and innovation, that sort of thing.

Me, I'm not a scientist, I don't claim to be. I couldn't reproduce the technology without considerable re-learning over time that would not make it feasible in my lifetime.

I am a realist though. We either do this stuff or we die as a species. Survival of the fittest and all that. We have the smarts.

My Grandmother had a saying "If you say it can't be done, you'll never do it."

You might have dismissed it. I choose not to.

The optimistic thing to say is that while nothing is free, some things are cheap. What we want is cheap energy, not free energy. Obviously, nuclear power appears to be the cheapest, right now. However, there're a lot of factors, including the desire for decentralization and renewables and pollution-free power generation.

The way to help the starving kids is to produce technologies that're remarkably simple to create and to use. Otherwise, poor countries will keep on starving unless they're helped. There're already a lot of great ideas, like solar cookers which can be handmade with a few basic things. One of the major things is that poor countries do not have our infrastructure, so first worlders are pathetic at making solutions for them. Solutions require a mind that's not stuck in hte first world. The largest issue is food and water and sanitation, I tihnk. There're so many limiting factors for poor countries.

All of this is lolts of work. You have to make it part of your life.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Cheap energy exists.

It's storing it that is expensive.

And it's also crucial to the next step in weening ourselves off of fossil fuels completely.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I remember several inventors over the years making mods to their cars. These range from injection systems to adding water into the mix.

Adding water into the mix sounds stupid because it's stupid.

They were so sure that their inventions worked they decided to go public. Once that happened we saw reports on the tv that basically ridiculed them and passed them off as nutcases

Because they had no idea what they were doing.
I've seen ridiculous "inventions" too, and no matter how much you try to tell them why their invention doesn't work (even if it's running), they don't seem to get the missing link.

, and as you just stated, we saw what happened to them. That's why I stated in the OP that we should keep stuff like this exposed, but, just like in another thread I posted on this subject, THEY arrived to debunk and ridicule.

Why does things that do not deserve the attention deserve the attention?

When it comes to this particular invention, well, all kinds of solar energy technology is being developed, and so far they're not worth it (eocnomically). In that sense, they are definitely not "free", even if using your twisted interpretation of it, if they are more expensive than using the grid.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I remember several inventors over the years making mods to their cars. These range from injection systems to adding water into the mix.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
Adding water into the mix sounds stupid because it's stupid.

Actually you are wrong. It's been proven that adding water can indeed increase mileage per gallon. I'd explain but you'll just revert back to your "stupid" reply.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
They were so sure that their inventions worked they decided to go public. Once that happened we saw reports on the tv that basically ridiculed them and passed them off as nutcases

Originally posted by Nevertheless
Because they had no idea what they were doing.
I've seen ridiculous "inventions" too, and no matter how much you try to tell them why their invention doesn't work (even if it's running), they don't seem to get the missing link.

"EVEN IF IT'S RUNNING"

Originally posted by VoidHawk
, and as you just stated, we saw what happened to them. That's why I stated in the OP that we should keep stuff like this exposed, but, just like in another thread I posted on this subject, THEY arrived to debunk and ridicule.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
Why does things that do not deserve the attention deserve the attention?

Well, this is just your opinion, right?

Originally posted by Nevertheless
When it comes to this particular invention, well, all kinds of solar energy technology is being developed, and so far they're not worth it (eocnomically). In that sense, they are definitely not "free", even if using your twisted interpretation of it, if they are more expensive than using the grid.

I'm sorry but your post does not deserve the attention that I've given it.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Actually you are wrong. It's been proven that adding water can indeed increase mileage per gallon.

Where has this been proven, and how does it work?
I have only heard nonsensical claims that doesn't take a genius to disprove. Please help me find the "real deal", it'd be much appreciated.

I'd explain but you'll just revert back to your "stupid" reply.

Not at all. I'm happy to explain why a specific claim is stupid, IF it is stupid. Now I have only mentioned stupidity in general, I can't talk about specifics because specifics haven't been mentioned.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
"EVEN IF IT'S RUNNING"

Yes. Just because something "is running", it doesn't mean it does what is being claimed.
Just like solar cells are not free energy, nor is a wind-mill on-top of a car.
The fact that some people, after building and running such a thing, still believe it to be working says quite a lot about their understanding of what they're doing.

Why does things that do not deserve the attention deserve the attention?

Well, this is just your opinion, right?

No it definitely isn't. I'm not the one who "decided" that the "old" news you posted have lost attention, am I?
It has lost attention because there is nothing to report. It gains attention when there is something to report. There isn't anything to report so there isn't any attention. I don't know how to make that any more clear.
YOUR opinion however, is that we should actively keep attention on something we don't need to keep attention of as there is nothing to report. You're the one with the "opinion" here, when the rest are simply, well.. doing nothing as there is nothing new to do, hear or see about it until... there is.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
When it comes to this particular invention, well, all kinds of solar energy technology is being developed, and so far they're not worth it (eocnomically). In that sense, they are definitely not "free", even if using your twisted interpretation of it, if they are more expensive than using the grid.

I'm sorry but your post does not deserve the attention that I've given it.

You decided to give a random answer to the part that mattered the most? Why?

Originally posted by okyouwin
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Well there ain't no free energy. I think we can all pretty much assume that. Photo electric, that's nice. But i remember a story about a box or unit, a relatively small box, that took in natural gas on side and put out electricity on the other I don't know what happened with this, but I think this is the answer. Use natural gas to produce electricity at point of use. This whole grid thing is a joke. as regards to providing electricity. and is soon going to need an alternative. Gas delivery is easy and trouble free. Huge generating stations and delivery by wire not so much,

I wonder what ever happened to that box. They had it on "60 Minutes."

That would be what was being marketed here as the 'BlueGen' unit, a single dwelling natural gas fuel cell that provided electricity as well as heating water. Using piped natural gas to run one of these as well as gas heating would qualify you for a cheaper bulk rate so your energy bills would be much lower. At $30000+ for the basic unit plus installation & gas connection (if you actually have a gas main handy) the attractiveness of these units became somewhat tarnished though and, apart from a few set up to prove the technology was a viable alternative, I know of no actual customers making the leap.

Current grid connected solar deals on offer trump this tech easily on a simple economic basis let alone the environmental aspect. For any alternative to be widely accepted it has to outperform the existing grid costwise. There's no need for any suppression of technology that ends up costing people more in the long run as people will vote for the successful proposal with their wallets and that's the cheapest on offer.

reply to post by StargateSG7

While there is certainly plenty of energy in Yellowstone, I am not sure I am comfortable with drilling multiple holes into an active caldera. Not even considering the technological challenges of working in such a hot environment, the potential to disturb the tectonic balances and cause an eruption would seem to be pretty high.

TheRedneck

reply to post by neformore

All it needs is for people to look past oil, and actually get off their backsides and start to put the infrastructure in place.

Ah, the old "oil is bad" argument.

We can get off oil easy, right now, without any new solar technology or entrepreneurship. Just stop using it. Every time anyone buys a tank of gas for their car or turns on a light powered by a fossil fuel generator or buys something not produced locally, that person makes a choice to use oil. Now the argument against that is typically that we have to use oil... no, we don't. We choose to use oil for energy because we want that energy badly enough. People survived before the internal combustion engine and before the electric light bulb. Life was more difficult, yes, much more difficult, but people did survive.

So it's a choice... we have oil. We have methods of using oil for energy production, developed over almost 100 years. We can pump gasoline into our car and drive away, right now, this moment, on demand as we feel the need. Or we can walk, or we can ride animals. That means we are open to the elements and have to plan our trips, and it means it will take longer to get from point A to point B. Our choice.

I choose the convenience as long as I can afford it. I'm not thrilled about using oil so much; it does create some pollution and it has created an unstable politico-economic situation. I would love to be able to put water in my gas tank and drive wherever I wanted, and I would love to have solar cells producing plenty of electricity for my home. But that's not going to happen today. No one has figured out a way to split the water molecule (without using more power than is gained when it recombines) and solar cells are too expensive for me to buy. So I still choose to use oil.

And as long as I choose to use oil, it would be hypocritical for me to demonize the oil companies simply for producing the energy I choose to use.

Again, show me a better choice and I might take it. Show me proven technology, and I'll show you a line of entrepreneurs stretching into infinity begging to finance the new industry. Until you show me proven technology, however, I cannot show you a line of entrepreneurs... because entrepreneurs are very good at investing in achievable industry and avoiding unachievable dreams... that's what makes them entrepreneurs.

My Grandmother had a saying "If you say it can't be done, you'll never do it."

You might have dismissed it. I choose not to.

Your grandmother was right. However, it is also true that simply saying it can be done does not make it possible.

Logically, just because !A = !B, it does not necessarily follow that A = B.

I have dismissed nothing but the presentation. I am keeping an open mind to the science behind all this, but I have not yet seen evidence that the claims made by a spokesman are accurate.

TheRedneck

reply to post by VoidHawk

It's been proven that adding water can indeed increase mileage per gallon. I'd explain but...

Here you go:

By atomizing water into vapor, it evaporates almost immediately upon contact with the air/fuel mixture, decreasing the temperature and increasing the density of the mixture. A denser air/fuel mixture tends to ignite more easily and exhibit a more stable burn, increasing the power transmission from the oxidation process to mechanical energy.

We used this back in the 80s hot-rodding old muscle cars.

No links, sorry, got a busy day coming up. It should be easy to find though.

"EVEN IF IT'S RUNNING"

I think what he's referring to is that all too often something will appear to work even when in actuality the readings are false due to a misunderstanding of the science involved. I have seen videos where some weird-looking apparatus takes a 9V battery and produces high voltage, supposedly showing the production of "free energy." I have seen videos where the same thing is used on current. And I have seen videos where energy is simply stored and suddenly released, resulting in a very high (but short-lived) apparent power increase.

It's easy to make something that "works" for a short time... but very difficult to make something that not only "works" but also keeps "working" indefinitely.

TheRedneck

I'm a fan of TedTalks and recall this episode.

As has been mentioned, this tech wouldn't be free, if the substrate materials were made economically enough, and they were applied to ALL new window manufacturing, we could significantly reduce consumption of natural resources. By both new construction, and replacement windows, this could happen fairly quickly.

Of course the trolls are going to come out as nay sayers, but one thing is certain, if they simply convince us that it "can never happen", and we don't even try, well, it won't!

Thanks for the reminder OP. S&F.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by VoidHawk

It's been proven that adding water can indeed increase mileage per gallon. I'd explain but...

Here you go:

By atomizing water into vapor, it evaporates almost immediately upon contact with the air/fuel mixture, decreasing the temperature and increasing the density of the mixture. A denser air/fuel mixture tends to ignite more easily and exhibit a more stable burn, increasing the power transmission from the oxidation process to mechanical energy.

That is the description in the link I found but that's an increase in power, not miles per gallon.

We used this back in the 80s hot-rodding old muscle cars.

No links, sorry, got a busy day coming up. It should be easy to find though.

I found this link:


Looking For A Miracle: We Test Automotive 'Fuel Savers'

WATER INJECTION
This technology was developed during World War II to provide emergency sprint power for turbosupercharged fighter planes. At altitude, there is less air for cooling engines. The turbos, however, cram air into the inlet at manifold pressures nearly the same as those at sea level. The compressed intake air, heated as it goes through the turbos, makes the engine even hotter. Spraying water, or a water-alcohol mixture, directly into the intake lowers the combustion-chamber temperatures. This permits substantially more power for brief periods.

So, more mower, yes, maybe. But it doesn't say better fuel efficiency.

And the test results:

THE DYNO SAYS: With the AquaTune adjusted according to the instructions, the test truck gave us 20 fewer horsepower and about a 20 percent poorer fuel economy.

Maybe that's just a bad gadget but they didn't get either better fuel efficiency or more power from that thing.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Mileage is a function of power used compared to power obtained. The water injection increases the amount of power obtained for a specific amount of power used, thereby increasing efficiency and fuel mileage.

Simply put, you get the same power with less pressure on the gas pedal.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Mileage is a function of power used compared to power obtained. The water injection increases the amount of power obtained for a specific amount of power used, thereby increasing efficiency and fuel mileage.

Simply put, you get the same power with less pressure on the gas pedal.

TheRedneck

They didn't get more power or more mileage when they tested it.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Mileage is a function of power used compared to power obtained. The water injection increases the amount of power obtained for a specific amount of power used, thereby increasing efficiency and fuel mileage.

Simply put, you get the same power with less pressure on the gas pedal.

TheRedneck

This is, unfortunately, an incorrect deduction.
Increasing the power of an engine by injecting water does not mean an increase in power with a [constant] specific amount of power used .
My crude understanding of using such "tricks" in racing is to trim engines for more power has specifically to do with increasing the possible ignition rate, which in order, requires more fuel to be pumped faster.

If such a method is used to actually decrease the fuel consumption, then there is definitely something wrong with the engine design to start with, or it is being used under conditions where this is required for the engine to work properly.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Maybe you are correct as far as the story goes but?, I read it many years ago before I got this new fangled internet thing, anyway I remember there was quite a lot of background to the story and I actually thoroughly believe it, now here is an example of how high the web of control goes please research the Duck energy producing technology that was invented by a Scotsman and which was in line to receive substantial government grants for development and use around the British coast were it's dual effect of producing energy from the wave's and calming the sea behind it would have both slowed erosion and provided cheap energy with little maintenance cost, How someone MYSTERIOUSLY misplaced a decimal point several places on the cost projection and made it appear much more expensive.

What would an oxygen purification and pre-mixing (to optimal combustion ratio's) and a pre-heating using excess manifold heat into a vapour then injection into a manifold do for both performance and hot not cold engine fuel economy, the internal combustion engine has not really evolved that much since the model T.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by StargateSG7

While there is certainly plenty of energy in Yellowstone, I am not sure I am comfortable with drilling multiple holes into an active caldera. Not even considering the technological challenges of working in such a hot environment, the potential to disturb the tectonic balances and cause an eruption would seem to be pretty high.

TheRedneck

---

We don't actually have to drill INTO the lava pools, just close enough to them
in areas where temperatures exceed 1000 degrees celcius. The ceramic tubes
would act as heat pipes (i.e. via the Peltier or Thermo Electric effect)

See:
en.wikipedia.org...

After about 200 years there would be a noticeable narrowing of the main
Yellowstone upwelling lava pipe cause by hardening and narrowing of the
walls of the pipe caused by heat exchange mechanisms, but we could
counteract this to prevent a RISE in pressure from the main lava chamber
below the upwelling lava pipe by ALSO DRILLING near the main chamber
so that the narrowing effect is EVEN in all areas. We won't see such
narrowing and pressure-rise effects for AT LEAST 200 years so by that
time we'll have ZERO-Point Energy modules to power our civilization
and can then STOP using the Yellowstone Caldera as a power production centre.

Anyways 2+ Terawatts is nothing to laugh at and for the cost of TWO B2 Bombers
(i.e. 3.5 billion dollars) we could have cheap electricity for at least 200 years!

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Mileage is a function of power used compared to power obtained. The water injection increases the amount of power obtained for a specific amount of power used, thereby increasing efficiency and fuel mileage.

Simply put, you get the same power with less pressure on the gas pedal.

TheRedneck

---

The science of Water Injection used in modern Racing Engines is to COOL the Fuel-to-Air mixture
thus increasing its DENSITY and thus its explosive power during each ignition cycle. Combine that
Water injection with Hemispherical or Oblong shaped Heads means you can SHAPE each ignition
in the cylinder to obtain HUGE increases in horsepower 150+ HP over non-water injected systems.

Basically, it's a cheap way to cool and densify the fuel/air mixture.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
What would an oxygen purification and pre-mixing (to optimal combustion ratio's) and a pre-heating using excess manifold heat into a vapour then injection into a manifold do for both performance and hot not cold engine fuel economy, the internal combustion engine has not really evolved that much since the model T.

I think it would depend highly on the specific load appilications of the vehicle. Vapor heating worked in some circumstances but caused serious backfiring in others. Modern fuel injection systems alleviate the need for the premixing aspect to a large degree as the fuel/air ratio is optimized under the various load conditions experienced during varied excelleration.

As for the above conversation regarding injecting water into the fuel mixture I had a supercharged Corvette that required a water injection kit to help prevent detonation due to excessive cylinder temperature. The fuel economy was lousy (12-14 MPH) and I would think that a intercooler would be more effective than a water injector in most circumstances.

Originally posted by StargateSG7

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Mileage is a function of power used compared to power obtained. The water injection increases the amount of power obtained for a specific amount of power used, thereby increasing efficiency and fuel mileage.

Simply put, you get the same power with less pressure on the gas pedal.

TheRedneck

---

The science of Water Injection used in modern Racing Engines is to COOL the Fuel-to-Air mixture
thus increasing its DENSITY and thus its explosive power during each ignition cycle. Combine that
Water injection with Hemispherical or Oblong shaped Heads means you can SHAPE each ignition
in the cylinder to obtain HUGE increases in horsepower 150+ HP over non-water injected systems.

Basically, it's a cheap way to cool and densify the fuel/air mixture.

====

For a more detailed explanation try the wikipedia entry:
en.wikipedia.org...

and these websites:

Obtaining the best fuel/air/water ratios:
www.rbracing-rsr.com...

Daily Drivers:
www.riceracing.com.au...

Tuner Specialists Info on Water injection:
www.importtuner.com...

Water Injection Forums:
www.dsmtuners.com...