Diving right in. The solution to the energy crisis.

[fullpower]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

I actually agree with you on this. I'm a big fan of solar.

I'm also a big fan of being energy independent as INDIVIDUALS. Solar can make that possible, though three will always be some need for a "collective" grid, the goal should be to gree ourselves from being dependent on a large business for electricity.

 

[daveman]

I have a question regarding this plan.

After the extraction of energy, there will be no way to recombined the elements to create water. Granted, there is a huge supply of water on the planet. The question is not whether it will run out, but at what point will destroying the water cause unforeseen damages.

Water, while plentiful, is still not a renewable resource.

When hydrogen and oxygen combine by combustion, the exhaust is water vapor.

 

[daveman]

First you need to have an energy source to heat the water.

Next, water or steam will NOT combust. Steam is just water vapor.

Next, creating a vacuum will require an energy source.


So far, in your "solution" you need an outside energy source in 2 places, and you have produced steam.

You'd be better of running the water between 2 charged plates. One positive and one negative. This will split the water molecules into O2 and H2 components. It has been done on nuclear submarines since at least the 1950s.

I already talked about this. Haven't you been following along? You can use the combustion of Hydrogen and Oxygen to heat the furnace. You know. Like the space shuttle used. After that, the main problem would be in keeping the furnace from melting.
Next, I was trained in firefighting. So don't tell me. Some fires can get so hot that spraying water on them will cause the water to go beyond turning into steam and actually combust. As in EXPLODE!

Here's the thing. 2% of water will disassociate into oxygen and hydrogen atoms at 3600 F. As in combust. The percentage of water that would combust would probably go up sharply from there with ever lessening rises in temperature. The hydrogen and oxygen powered rocket engines of the Space Shuttle operated at 6000 F. Back in the late 50's, early 60's, the U.S. experimented with nuclear powered rockets. They operated at 5600 F. Though being designed to be light enough to fly, they were designed to operate for 600 hours of use.

As for the vacuum, maybe that wasn't the best term to use. You see, after a certain amount of time and temperature drop, most of, (if not all of) the free floating hdrogen and oxygen atoms will recombine into H2O molecules. At least that is what I was told by a college physics professor I brought this up to once. This is where the drop of pressure (vacuum) I spoke of would come from. This might cause a slight problem when it comes to using the pressure of the combusting water to run turbines. It just depends on how quickly the temperature drops. That in turn depends on how hot a turbine can be made to operate. Even then, running the hot gases (almost plasma) through a MHD device to create electricity could still be done. That is to my understanding of how MHD works. Hope this clears things up for you some.

You've invented a device that converts condensing steam into mechanical work?

Congratulations. .

Is making shit up the best you can do. The process has nothing to do with condensing steam. It has everything to do with the combustion of water or steam.

It kinda sounds like you're trying to get more energy out of a system than you've put it, and you haven't explained at all how you're going to put energy into the system to split the water.

That reminds me of something...


Maybe if you read something more than just the last post, you would learn differently. Try post #23.

I did. You still haven't explained where the initial heat comes from.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I have a question regarding this plan.

After the extraction of energy, there will be no way to recombined the elements to create water. Granted, there is a huge supply of water on the planet. The question is not whether it will run out, but at what point will destroying the water cause unforeseen damages.

Water, while plentiful, is still not a renewable resource.

When hydrogen and oxygen combine by combustion, the exhaust is water vapor.

Yep. Then the water VAPOR finds it's way back to the clouds and falls as rain. The "God cycle" is perpetual.

 

[fullpower]

You also bring up photovoltaic solar panels. Your anti alternative energy cult is one I can easily smash. Are you still paying attention? Good. I brought up earlier that even though they use the sun, solar panels are the closest thing we have to perpetual motion. in so much that that they create far more energy than was needed to create them. A lack of sunlight isn't a problem either. Because there is always (during the day) sunlight somewhere. And we transmit energy today, don't we. Another thing is that you use enough solar panels to create three times the energy you need. That way, with the use of batteries, you can always produce enough energy.

This is even WRONGER than your combusting water idea.. We actually DON't transmit energy long distances on a regular basis.. There are regional gateways and power trading between regions, but it's inefficient.. Just like solar efficacy which only actually about 30% of rated instantaneous power over the long run...

And we're not transmitting electricity over multiple time zones.. Not even a 3 hour difference... Even with a 3 hour buffer, solar STINKS in the northern territories.. Not just because of snow and ice in the winter, but because the solar insolation is much weaker there.

Battery storage on a GRID SIZE SCALE would be a fucking enviro nightmare.. They all have finite life and the waste stream would be immense.. Solar panels only have a usable lifetime at anywhere near their ORIGINAL ratings of 16 to 20 years... Just about the time any homeowner would have paid off the expensive loan for their purchase...

First, what is wrong with the combustion of water. The science is there. Next, I see power transmission lines all over the place. Next, I don't know what you're going on about with "solar efficacy" and "30% of rated instantaneous power." Next, battery storage isn't a problem. Neither in your home or on a large scale. Even if you decide to use batteries at all. Because there are other ways of storing energy. Such as heating sodium, centrifugal inertia on a large, heavy well balanced disk or building very large capacitors.

As for how long solar panels last, I heard a maximum of 24 years. But that may have changed. Solar panels continue to improve. The last I heard, they were able to make them with a special paint. Ever try to paint anything? It isn't hard. As for any other kind of expense, it is probably kept artificially high by power companies being able to buy favor in government. Also, the way things are going, the government shouldn't be expecting people to pay for solar power. Or give them tax breaks to get them. They should require anyplace that they can be mounted on to have them and provide them themselves.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

First, what is wrong with the combustion of water

First, water DOESNT burn. Your basic premise is wrong.

 

[fullpower]

I have a question regarding this plan.

After the extraction of energy, there will be no way to recombined the elements to create water. Granted, there is a huge supply of water on the planet. The question is not whether it will run out, but at what point will destroying the water cause unforeseen damages.

Water, while plentiful, is still not a renewable resource.

It's a perfect plan if you stop to consider the rising oceans...

Stop listening to others and listen to me. You will go farther.

I'm not in the habit of listening to abject morons, sorry.

I am guessing that, lucky for you, other people are willing to do so.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Battery storage on a GRID SIZE SCALE would be a fucking enviro nightmare

This is my preferred storage method:

 

[fullpower]

This is an idea I came up with over 25 years ago. It is an idea that I came up with about the same time that I came up with a faster than light space drive. I won't get right into the fine detail of this solution to the energy crisis. (But I can direct you to it if you're interested) The material needed to create power isn't coal, oil, nuclear or anything else. It is plain old water! You see, at a certain temperature water or steam will combust. Just as if it was gasoline.When it does so, the gasses from it will be pretty hot. Power could be derived from these hot gasses through magnetohydrodynamics. Apart from that, the preassure from the combustion could be used to turn a turbine. Eventually the gasses will recombine into H2O. Creating a vaccum that would bring the pressure down to what it was in the pre-combustion stage. But before that happens, something could be set up like the engines in a German buzz bomb. Where any drop in pressure would take in air from someplace else besides where the combustion happened. The engineering to create a suitable combustion chamber has been around for at least 50 years.

So giving you the solution, what will you do for me. That is, at this forum. I'm not seeking money or sex.

Water DOESN'T combust. It is inert. You have to expend energy (electricity) to break it down before you can burn its components.

Look at post #6.

Why would we want to waste twice as much energy looking at your stupidity again? More energy is consumed splitting water into hydrogen & oxygen than you can capture from the combustion of it. Only useful for storing excess wind energy on a windy night when people aren't using it.

Looking at what I say is never a waste of any amount of energy. Next, did you even read anything I wrote? Once you put water or steam into a furnace that was hot enough, it would combust. After that, the process would heat itself. In fact, there might be some problem in keeping the furnace from melting.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Once you put water or steam into a furnace that was hot enough, it would combust

No. It does not. It does the OPPOSITE of "combust."

For being the smartest guy in the room, you miss a lot.

Rush would say you're "too smart by half"

 

[fullpower]

I already talked about this. Haven't you been following along? You can use the combustion of Hydrogen and Oxygen to heat the furnace. You know. Like the space shuttle used. After that, the main problem would be in keeping the furnace from melting.
Next, I was trained in firefighting. So don't tell me. Some fires can get so hot that spraying water on them will cause the water to go beyond turning into steam and actually combust. As in EXPLODE!

Here's the thing. 2% of water will disassociate into oxygen and hydrogen atoms at 3600 F. As in combust. The percentage of water that would combust would probably go up sharply from there with ever lessening rises in temperature. The hydrogen and oxygen powered rocket engines of the Space Shuttle operated at 6000 F. Back in the late 50's, early 60's, the U.S. experimented with nuclear powered rockets. They operated at 5600 F. Though being designed to be light enough to fly, they were designed to operate for 600 hours of use.

As for the vacuum, maybe that wasn't the best term to use. You see, after a certain amount of time and temperature drop, most of, (if not all of) the free floating hdrogen and oxygen atoms will recombine into H2O molecules. At least that is what I was told by a college physics professor I brought this up to once. This is where the drop of pressure (vacuum) I spoke of would come from. This might cause a slight problem when it comes to using the pressure of the combusting water to run turbines. It just depends on how quickly the temperature drops. That in turn depends on how hot a turbine can be made to operate. Even then, running the hot gases (almost plasma) through a MHD device to create electricity could still be done. That is to my understanding of how MHD works. Hope this clears things up for you some.

You've invented a device that converts condensing steam into mechanical work?

Congratulations. .

Is making shit up the best you can do. The process has nothing to do with condensing steam. It has everything to do with the combustion of water or steam.

It kinda sounds like you're trying to get more energy out of a system than you've put it, and you haven't explained at all how you're going to put energy into the system to split the water.

That reminds me of something...


Maybe if you read something more than just the last post, you would learn differently. Try post #23.

I did. You still haven't explained where the initial heat comes from.

I did. If you had been following along, you would know that. Are you just wasting my time? But then again, I don't suppose you would tell me if you were. I said the heating of the furnace at first would come from the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. Just like what the space shuttle engines used. After that, the combustion of the water itself would produce its own heat. Because that's just what combustion does.

 

[fullpower]

Battery storage on a GRID SIZE SCALE would be a fucking enviro nightmare

This is my preferred storage method:

Despite the picture, you could also use a tower.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Battery storage on a GRID SIZE SCALE would be a fucking enviro nightmare

This is my preferred storage method:

Despite the picture, you could also use a tower.

I dont know why anybody would use battery storage for large storage needs

 

[fullpower]

Once you put water or steam into a furnace that was hot enough, it would combust

No. It does not. It does the OPPOSITE of "combust."

For being the smartest guy in the room, you miss a lot.

Rush would say you're "too smart by half"

Are you high? When you are breaking the molecular bonds of the atoms, that isn't being the opposite of combustion. You apparently don't know this. But when you burn anything, such as wood, you are breaking molecular bonds.

 

[Dekster]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

Solar takes 450 times as much land to create the same energy as nuclear. Solar is more carbon intensive than nuclear. nuclear is the only solution that does not destroy habitat.

 

[Dekster]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

I actually agree with you on this. I'm a big fan of solar.

I'm also a big fan of being energy independent as INDIVIDUALS. Solar can make that possible, though three will always be some need for a "collective" grid, the goal should be to gree ourselves from being dependent on a large business for electricity.

You are never going to be free of large business for energy. Ever.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

I actually agree with you on this. I'm a big fan of solar.

I'm also a big fan of being energy independent as INDIVIDUALS. Solar can make that possible, though three will always be some need for a "collective" grid, the goal should be to gree ourselves from being dependent on a large business for electricity.

You are never going to be free of large business for energy. Ever.

Lots of people are. It all depends on your personal priorities

 

[Dick Foster]

This is an idea I came up with over 25 years ago. It is an idea that I came up with about the same time that I came up with a faster than light space drive. I won't get right into the fine detail of this solution to the energy crisis. (But I can direct you to it if you're interested) The material needed to create power isn't coal, oil, nuclear or anything else. It is plain old water! You see, at a certain temperature water or steam will combust. Just as if it was gasoline.When it does so, the gasses from it will be pretty hot. Power could be derived from these hot gasses through magnetohydrodynamics. Apart from that, the preassure from the combustion could be used to turn a turbine. Eventually the gasses will recombine into H2O. Creating a vaccum that would bring the pressure down to what it was in the pre-combustion stage. But before that happens, something could be set up like the engines in a German buzz bomb. Where any drop in pressure would take in air from someplace else besides where the combustion happened. The engineering to create a suitable combustion chamber has been around for at least 50 years.

So giving you the solution, what will you do for me. That is, at this forum. I'm not seeking money or sex.

How bout a kick in the ass? LOL

 

[daveman]

First of all, I called a car stereo place once and asked them how loud could you make a car stereo without having to alter your car's engine. Such as the alternator. The stereo person told me that it was basically unlimited. That 40,000 watts was achievable. Which means you could produce a LOT of sound from very little power.

The stereo person was wrong.

Let's say we've got a 2019 Ford F-150 half-ton pickup. We want to put a BANGIN' sound system in it. The factory alternator produces 215 amps. With an output voltage of 13.5 volts, that's only 2,902.5 watts.

It's impossible to get 40,000 watts out of an electrical system capable of producing less than a tenth of that.