Patrick Shirkey, mused, then expounded:
> Bob Sanders wrote:
> > Patrick Shirkey, mused, then expounded:
> >
> >> What I have ascertained from watching the videos of people demonstrating
> >> the effect is that water can be exploded and the energy that is released
> >> can be used to turn a rotor on an engine.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > If I may suggest, surf over to - http://www.theoildrum.com/ for a
> > serious lesson on energy, because Hydrogen is not a fuel, in the
> > traditional sense - it's a synthethic fuel. It requires fuel
> > natural gas or electricity to create it.
> >
> >
>
> Or as MIT researchers have just proven it just needs a little bit of
> sunlight to split hydrogen from water. Could it be that physicists have
> been missing a critical proponent of molecular bonding of water for the
> past couple hundred years and that recent research has filled in a gap
> in the knowledge base? Could it even be possible that we don't actually
> know everything about the machinations of the universe and there is
> knowledge that we could be learning in this next century that will make
> considerable differences to the laws that we know already?
>
The MIT work as reported is not the panacea that the media made it
out to be. Plus it's not known whether it's practical outside of
a lab. Practical in the sense of commercial production. Much
more work needs to be done.
> > While they have a very nice search function, perhaps the place to start
> > is - http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/4077
> >
> > Title - Weekend Energy Listening: The H2 Economy vs the Electron Economy
> >
> > Gee, I got lucky. Something that ties this list in with the topic.
> >
> > Bob
> > -
> >
> Interesting interview. What he made clear is that we need multiple
> energy sources. My blog is focused on water as the source and hydrogen
> gas is a possible part of the solution. What I'm mostly interested in is
> this electrical circuit which can be used to instantly create an
> explosion from water. That seems like a very useful solution if current
> engines can be converted to use the circuit...
>
>
And you continue to ignore the issue of EROEI - Energy Return on Energy
Invested. Any internal combustion engine has a very low efficiency,
regardless of the source of fuel. At best, an internal combustion
engine can manage 35% efficiency. In a world of decreasing power per
human, the lack of efficiency will kill the majority of these engines.
I can tell you're very fascinated with this and that's fine on an
individual scale. But on a commercial scale it's a dead-end. Hydrogen
is a dead end.
And, as others have mentioned, water is getting hard to come by. Just ask
the people in India and Pakastan, or ask the folks in the Southeast USA.
Or the farmers in the Midwest of the USA. Wasting water to move your
butt from one place to another is close to criminal when supplies are
dwindling. But then the vast majority of the USA wastes water keeping
worthless, mono-culture lawns alive, so it's hard to say using it for
fuel is worse.
BTW - without water, one can't run coal or nuclear power plants which
require significant water for cooling. And without power, there won't
be any pumps delivering water to the taps so you can fill up your car.
As for water from the Arctic...if all that melts, which includes
Greenland, along with the Western Antarctic ice sheet, better make
sure your home is well above the current sea level. At least 25 ft
(7.62M) above.
Bob
-
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Aug 5 20:15:18 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 05 2008 - 20:15:18 EEST