John McCain: Military Draft?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Nice article in that is shows just how far solar has to go to even make a dent in our energy needs. The scale of the problem is very difficult for most folks to grasp.

300 acres for only 64megawatts and 14,000 homes. 1/10th of a coal plant.

Solar is way behind, and wind isn't just a whole lot better at this time.

Right now from what I was reading, Wind would run > .30 per KWH in energy cost due to the very high cost of the wind turbine generators at this time.

Lower the cost of the turbine though, and you start getting closer to the 16-20 cents per KWH that most people are currently paying.

There are "other" issues with wind though, ie what do you do with the excess, and when the wind isn't blowing? This is always the issue with wind and solar.

-----------------------------------

As far as the breaking down the hydrogen with minimal amperage --- I have no way to prove that one. I saw a video of a guy doing it, and he claimed to be getting a patent on it. Then it was claimed that the dept of homeland security took his invention, and told him they were going to use it on subs. He was said to be "taken" care of -- and I have heard nor read anything else about it since then. I don't pretend to know how he was doing it, but he claimed it had to do with the harmonics of water, and that you had to pulse elec to the water @ a to be kept secret frequency and that water would break down simply. He said that the frequency was the key to it all, and as soon as he had his patent he would be mass producing engines and converting existing ones. He would also be selling solar distillation plants so people could make their own distilled water to run in their cars.

I am not sure if it is true or not, but I have heard that he is no longer living now though. Rumors may or may not be true. Lots of things can happen and lots of things can be seen in a video that are/aren't true.

I do know this though, there are certain people in the US that would very much prefer that we go to hydrogen (stored and burned in a vehicle) -- so they can produce the hydrogen and sell it to the public -- (and are totally against burning hydrogen that is produced at the cylinder -- even though it is much safer). I have talked to some investors who were thinking in investing in hydrogen production in the US.

[dude1394]

Hydrogen is a very nice fuel source if you can get enough of it because of the fuel-cell technology. Nice way to create "work" without many moving parts.

[Underdog]

Nuclear-powered flying cars by 2012?

Believe it!

[wmbwinn]

The only way we will see cars that produce hydrogen from water at the cylinder is if the auto industry itself makes it.

But, if it can be done, the auto industry ought to be doing it. It would certainly be a way to sell cars...

You are right that other private investors would have no motivation whatsoever to invest in hydrogen production within a vehicle. Again, the only interested investors would be those investing in the sell of vehicles.

The other interested investors would be those making war machines for sale to the US and its allies...

[dude1394]

If it can be done, it will be done. There is just too much globalization to think that even if they wanted too (which they do not) the auto manufacturers/oil companies would squelch a revolutionary energy or transportation development.

They'd bring it to market as fast as possible to keep japan, india, china, s.korea, france, britain, germany, china from beating them to it.

It hasn't been done because it can't...and plenty of people have been looking for it.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by dude1394

If it can be done, it will be done. There is just too much globalization to think that even if they wanted too (which they do not) the auto manufacturers/oil companies would squelch a revolutionary energy or transportation development.

They'd bring it to market as fast as possible to keep japan, india, china, s.korea, france, britain, germany, china from beating them to it.

It hasn't been done because it can't...and plenty of people have been looking for it.

The statement is the one place that you and I totally disagree on.

I think it is controlled due to the $$$$. You apparently do not. Of course, I think $$$$ controls most things.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

The statement is the one place that you and I totally disagree on.

I think it is controlled due to the $$$$. You apparently do not. Of course, I think $$$$ controls most things.

Well if you mean that people will do things for $$$$$'s I agree. Why would any of those countries not develop that technology? It was mean instant #1 automotive ranking for hyundai for example? For Japan it would mean the immediate cessation of importing all of their oil.

It's illogical to think something that revolutionary could be (or would be) kept under wraps. If you can provide me one documented instance of this, please do.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

If it can be done, it will be done. There is just too much globalization to think that even if they wanted too (which they do not) the auto manufacturers/oil companies would squelch a revolutionary energy or transportation development.

They'd bring it to market as fast as possible to keep japan, india, china, s.korea, france, britain, germany, china from beating them to it.

It hasn't been done because it can't...and plenty of people have been looking for it.

You can buy a $9000 car that runs on COMPRESSED AIR in France, Germany, Israel, Singapore, and South Africa RIGHT NOW (since 2007, actually...)

It's not legally available in the US because it doesn't go faster than 70mph (it was designed as an urban commuter car...)



There's been talk of a $18000/100mph design coming out in the US, but it's slated for 2010-2012 at the earliest (if ever - the French manufacturer has more than enough business on the planet without having to appease US lawmakers...)

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well if you mean that people will do things for $$$$$'s I agree. Why would any of those countries not develop that technology? It was mean instant #1 automotive ranking for hyundai for example? For Japan it would mean the immediate cessation of importing all of their oil.

It's illogical to think something that revolutionary could be (or would be) kept under wraps. If you can provide me one documented instance of this, please do.

Have you heard of frequency hopping in the communications world?

Mid 90's you could buy 802.11 in either direct sequence or in a frequency hopping module. It was totally advanced technology -- that was kept under wraps -- since in the 50's and the Korean War.

I was told about it when the US military released it to its special forces in the late 80's. I was also told that when they release -- guys leave the service and the technology makes it to the public in about 5-10 years. This is why many things are not released until the US has a dire need for the technology to be used in a military situation.

I know of several other anomalies, but you asked for documented, and that is never easy to either find or prove even if you do find some paper on it.

[dude1394]

Yes I have heard of frequency hopping. And I work in the business of building semiconductor chips that enable that technology.

Sure you could buy it, but it cost too much. why do you keep throwing that part of the equation out.

You do remember 26K modems don't you. If I recall those were over $100/chipset. $100 for a 26Kbaud modem. And the cutting edge technology was getting to 56K.

Only with moore's law has this become viable. No one stopped it, it just wasn't marketable at the price would be charged. It wasn't a conspiracy, it wasn't the guvment, it was the price to build it.

With moore's law now you have 802.11 in an mp3 player and everything else in sight.

Less than 5 or 6 years ago a single USB Physical layer cost almost $5.00.. Now it's more like 30cents. Same with frequency hopping and 802.11, the technology wasn't there to make it affordable, so only the military could afford it. They don't have to make it cheap.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yes I have heard of frequency hopping. And I work in the business of building semiconductor chips that enable that technology.

Sure you could buy it, but it cost too much. why do you keep throwing that part of the equation out.

You do remember 26K modems don't you. If I recall those were over $100/chipset. $100 for a 26Kbaud modem. And the cutting edge technology was getting to 56K.

Only with moore's law has this become viable. No one stopped it, it just wasn't marketable at the price would be charged. It wasn't a conspiracy, it wasn't the guvment, it was the price to build it.

With moore's law now you have 802.11 in an mp3 player and everything else in sight.

Less than 5 or 6 years ago a single USB Physical layer cost almost $5.00.. Now it's more like 30cents. Same with frequency hopping and 802.11, the technology wasn't there to make it affordable, so only the military could afford it. They don't have to make it cheap.

except that the technology was held back for a specific purpose. Not due to only affordable to the military. It was held back because the Russians had no way to break the encryption setup they were using at the time, and it was held in line for encryption that the Russians didn't have technology to break.

on this one the technology was withheld -- which you said it isn't. I know it is, because I know a guy that worked on this project in the 50's.
------------------------

Prototype car runs 100 miles on four ounces of water as fuel



Thursday June 1, 2006 8:41 AM CDT - By: Michael Kwan

While his unique electrolysis process – working simply with water and electricity – was originally designed to work in welding factories as a replacement for acetylene torches, a whole new application has come to light from Denny Klein, who recently filed a patent on his solution. He has converted his 1994 Ford Escort to run either as a water-gas hybrid, or on water alone.

While the tip of the welder is cool to the touch, the water-powered torch can burn through charcoal and get tungsten to "light up like a sparkler." But when it comes to powering a vehicle, this prototype could drive for 100 miles on only four ounces of water. Technically, the car isn't running on water, because the H20 is converted to HHO gas. This is said to provide the "atomic power of hydrogen", while maintaining the "chemical stability of water."

He has already attracted the attention of an unnamed American automaker, and Klein has been invited to the Washington to demonstrate his technology, with word that he is now working on a water-gasoline hybrid Hummer for US military.

Of course, none of this has been confirmed, so it's hard to say whether Mr. Klein's invention is a) for real, b) actually usable or c) a complete hoax. For example, many have said that the energy required to convert H2O to HHO is greater than that produced when the HHO is burned.

Update 06/18/2008: Developed by Genepax in Japan, this commuter vehicle is able to travel at 80km/h for one hour on just a single litre of water. The concept is much the same as other fuel cell vehicles, except you don't need to feed the car with straight hydrogen.


It's coming -- JUST WHEN? ?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

except that the technology was held back for a specific purpose. Not due to only affordable to the military. It was held back because the Russians had no way to break the encryption setup they were using at the time, and it was held in line for encryption that the Russians didn't have technology to break.

on this one the technology was withheld -- which you said it isn't. I know it is, because I know a guy that worked on this project in the 50's.
------------------------

Okay so classified information was held back, but what is your point? A national security issue versus a market one. There are ALL KINDS of technologies that are withheld because of national security issues. Encryption, photography, etc. None are being held back for a profit motive, but for a national security one. And think goodness they are.

EVEN if it were NOT held back, it would not have been developed because of the cost of development. I still stand by my point. In other words it was not held back because of some profit motive from a company, it was held back for a reason completely different than what you have been touting.

Prototype car runs 100 miles on four ounces of water as fuel

Thursday June 1, 2006 8:41 AM CDT - By: Michael Kwan

While his unique electrolysis process – working simply with water and electricity – was originally designed to work in welding factories as a replacement for acetylene torches, a whole new application has come to light from Denny Klein, who recently filed a patent on his solution. He has converted his 1994 Ford Escort to run either as a water-gas hybrid, or on water alone.

While the tip of the welder is cool to the touch, the water-powered torch can burn through charcoal and get tungsten to "light up like a sparkler." But when it comes to powering a vehicle, this prototype could drive for 100 miles on only four ounces of water. Technically, the car isn't running on water, because the H20 is converted to HHO gas. This is said to provide the "atomic power of hydrogen", while maintaining the "chemical stability of water."

He has already attracted the attention of an unnamed American automaker, and Klein has been invited to the Washington to demonstrate his technology, with word that he is now working on a water-gasoline hybrid Hummer for US military.

Of course, none of this has been confirmed, so it's hard to say whether Mr. Klein's invention is a) for real, b) actually usable or c) a complete hoax. For example, many have said that the energy required to convert H2O to HHO is greater than that produced when the HHO is burned.

Update 06/18/2008: Developed by Genepax in Japan, this commuter vehicle is able to travel at 80km/h for one hour on just a single litre of water. The concept is much the same as other fuel cell vehicles, except you don't need to feed the car with straight hydrogen.


It's coming -- JUST WHEN? ?

What's stopping the dude from building 'em? I mean really. It's coming when the technology to cost-effectively manufacture them is available. I have no doubt that in the future hydrogen might be a fine fuel source. But it won't be delayed because of anyone trying to stop it. How about providing a link to this stuff also. That way I could check it out.

UPDATE: So I had to go search for this guys stuff myself. Looks like a scam to be honest, but it won't take long to find out. He's supposed to come out with a car in 2008. Proof is in the pudding as they say.

[dude1394]

With respect to Genpax.

Genepax Water Energy System

In June 2008, Japanese company Genepax unveiled a car which it claims runs on only water and air,[9] and many news outlets dubbed the vehicle a "water-fuel car".[10] The company says it "cannot [reveal] the core part of this invention,” yet,[11] but it has disclosed that the system uses an onboard energy generator (a "membrane electrode assembly") to extract the hydrogen using a "mechanism which is similar to the method in which hydrogen is produced by a reaction of metal hydride and water".[12] The hydrogen is then used to generate energy to run the car. This has led to speculation that the metal hydride is consumed in the process and is the ultimate source of the car's energy, making the car a hydride-fuelled "hydrogen on demand" vehicle, rather than water-fuelled as claimed.[13][14][15] On the company's website the energy source is explained only with the words "Chemical reaction".[16] The science and technology magazine Popular Mechanics has described Genepax's claims as "Rubbish."[17]

Popular Mechanics..
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...s/4271579.html

You should like this one as the guy tries to build one.

The Truth About Water-Powered Cars: Mechanic's Diary
It's one thing for a car to run on air, but do the latest claims of hydrogen-turned-oxygen-turned-electricity propulsion hold water—or feed in to the hysteria of the gas crunch? In his biweekly online column, PM's senior automotive editor focuses his chemistry prowess on the case of miracle water fuel, then builds an HHO car himself.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by dude1394

With respect to Genpax.



Popular Mechanics..
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...s/4271579.html

You should like this one as the guy tries to build one.

Good reading, especially all the comments. Many of which were from people who called the tester at PM an idiot. Many which claimed they have built them. Many which say PM is correct. Funny how that works differing opinions, and proof that is not accepted as proof.

----------------------------------------------

Ever hear the name Stan Meyer? About eight thousand conspiracy theorists just nodded their heads. Stan invented a water electrolyzer - nothing new there - however, according to Stan anyway, his actually works on demand. The above video (c. 1990) shows him driving a VW-powered dune buggy running on nothing but water. Peruse YouTube for related videos, and you'll find he's been actually pretty well documented, but surprisingly unpublicized.

His method of electrolysis breaks the H2 from the O into their respective gases, both which are then sent to the modified fuel injectors and combusted in a regular old ICE. The only exhaust is more water vapor, which can be left to the atmosphere, or recycled back into the system. Of course, as I said, there have been many people to make electrolyzers that do that very thing, but not in the copious quantities that Stan's machine is said to.

When sifting through his notes and patent materials (.zip file available here), he apparently found the resonance frequency of water and tuned his electrolyzer with an oscillator to that frequency, vastly boosting the efficiency of the device, and making it an actually viable source of fuel, since you don't have to put so much more energy into it than you're getting out of it. No, this is not a free energy system, since energy from water is actually consumed, and water must be refilled, but the vastly more combustible gas produced nets much greater mpg of water than any means of burning gasoline.

Unfortunately, Mr. Meyer is no longer around to tell us about his invention - let alone sell us his proposed DIY kit for $1,500 - because he was poisoned. His brother, however, has continued his research to the best of his ability and posted Stan's notes and patent info. Stan was not a trained scientist or engineer, so his notes use terms not accepted by the scientific or engineering community, and they can be hard to decipher. I'm sure that if you can make sense of his research, prove theories correct, and build a working prototype, the world as a whole would really appreciate it. Post your comments, findings, thoughts and discussions for all to hear.

-----------------------------------

Gotta love this stuff -- no matter which side you take.