Diving right in. The solution to the energy crisis.

[Carl in Michigan]

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

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.

Residential solar doesn't cost anywhere near that. You also dont have to supply 100% with solar.

The average price per watt for solar panels ranges from $2.58 to $3.38, and solar panelcosts for an average-sized installation in the U.S. usually range from $10,836 to $14,196 after solar tax credits.

 

[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.

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.

Technically, if you heat it to plasma like temperatures you WILL unbond it and combust the hydrogen.. But just combusting the hydrogen is not gonna result in a gain in energy..

Got a better plan.. Take sketchy wind and solar OFF the grid.. Use it separate hydrogen from water and store it.. It's that "free energy" the greenies can't get out of wind/solar on the grid... Because they are NOT alternatives to RELIABLE generators.. THey are merely substitutes.

Using OFF grid wind/solar to produce hydrogen and ethanol and OTHER fuels is a no brainer.. There'd be lots of investments and interest... And the COST of those alternate fuels would go WAY down...

If you combust anything, you will gain power from it. As in the form of pressure. Pressure can be utilized. Also, when you combust anything, there is something else you will get from it. Heat. And when you are also talking about utilizing MHD, energy can also be produced from that.

Another thing is that I said earlier that 2% of water will combust at 3600 F. What if the steam you were injecting into the furnace was already at something like 3000F. Then getting it up to the proper combustion temperature wouldn't take all that much added heat.

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.

If you are thinking of banning me, I will tell you something else about using water to create energy. So that if you do ban me, hopefully this will make you feel bad for doing so. 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.

Now all matter has a sonic resonant frequency that will disrupt it. That would have to include the H2O molecule. What if you shot such a frequency down a long tube filled with water or steam. You would then separate the molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. (At the very least it could make the amount of energy needed for electrolysis much less) This mixture might directly be used to cause ignition. I don't remember what the hydrogen and oxygen mixture used in the space shuttle was. But for proper ignition, the ratio of hydrogen and oxygen would need to be the same.

Getting back to electrolysis to separate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. As that the atoms would already be freed from each other from sonic disruption, it wouldn't take all that much electrolysis to get the gasses to move in the direction you wanted them to go for collection. Not only that, you would likely be using DC. Which means a polarity. Strong neodymium magnets could be used to supplement this polarity. Maybe it would make any electrolysis unnecessary.

If the ONLY thing you get out is pressure -- after putting all that energy in -- CONGRATS MAN -- you've invented the steam engine... Of course even THAT is NOT an energy source.. Think I'll just skip your opinions on solar and wind after reading this thread...

If you are thinking of banning me, I will tell you something else about using water to create energy. So that if you do ban me, hopefully this will make you feel bad for doing so. 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.

You are seriously challenged technically.. When you go to a concert and see those monstrous racks of amplifiers --- I bet you believe all that sound didn't require "much energy"... That's because you're way ignorant about amplifiers.. They consume energy to move a LOT of air.. You can move a LOT OF AIR with either 5Volts or 220Volts.. But what gets USED IS CURRENT.. And alternators have limits on currents.. That's why there is 20 fuse fuse box in your car...

That stereo guy quoting the 40,000 Watts wants to redesign you ENTIRE CAR electrical system.. Typical alternator is 50 Amps.. Full load to EVERTHING without battery banks is 1200Watts at FULL speed.. Not even that idling or slugging along.. So I figure with a 1000 AMP alternator (if you can find one to fit) AND a 100 pound battery bank to get you thru stoplights ---- YOU MIGHT SOMETIMES have about 10,000 Watts to your stereo before the headlights dim out... Only ought to cost you a year's wages to make those mods...

You should stop reading anything I write. Obviously you don't have the intelligence for it. As I was telling somebody else, when you burn a piece of wood, you are breaking molecular bonds. (And possibly recombining others) So you can't tell me that breaking the molecular bond of H2O won't create heat also. And it is just sheer stupidity to call it steam. Also I pointed out elsewhere that at 3600 F, 2% of H2O will disassociate into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. This disruption will probably (I don't know for sure) rise exponentially with a further rise in temperature. So that at 4000 F, most of the H2O molecules will have been disrupted (combust) into their constituent atoms.

Next. Stop lying to yourself. If you think that I think that PA amplifiers don't use a lot of electricity, you are hallucinating. As for the car stereo thing as a means of producing wattage to supply some sort of speaker with power, I asked a car stereo person about this. He may have been lying. But he said without altering an engine, such as putting in a more powerful alternator or going from 12 volt to 24 volts, you could achieve 40,000 watts of power. Now I do know that the really powerful car stereos out there use banks of capacitors. (Which come after the fuse box) And as you know, (maybe) the whole purpose of capacitors is to store energy. If you store enough energy, anything is possible. Also, only with bass is there a lot of air being moved. When it comes to the really high frequencies, rather than moving air, what you mostly are producing is decibels.

 

[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.

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.

Unless you murder, kill and slaughter. But I'm not allowed to talk about the philosophical justice in doing so around here.

How many times are you going to bitch about what you imagine (or want people to believe) you "are not allowed to talk about" here?

I'm not bitching so much as just speaking plain facts. Now, shouldn't you be calling me a sock again or something?

 

[fullpower]

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

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.

You can label it any way you want. But when you are over 18 trillion dollars in debt, you owe that debt to somebody. The government flushes around 420 billion in interest on that debt each year, Next, I see. You actually work for the nuclear industry. That is why anything else I have to say on the matter matters to you. You offend me.

 

[fullpower]

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

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

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.

Residential solar doesn't cost anywhere near that. You also dont have to supply 100% with solar.

The average price per watt for solar panels ranges from $2.58 to $3.38, and solar panelcosts for an average-sized installation in the U.S. usually range from $10,836 to $14,196 after solar tax credits.

\\

The point I was making to the fool you were talking about is that it doesn't matter how much solar panels and the infrastructure they require costs. The point is that any amount of money is worth the price. Fuck what places like India or China would do. Nuking those overpopulating, human bacteria fucking lowlifes right off the face of the planet would fix that. This would cause a nuclear winter. If radiation doesn't get too high, it might be worth it. Because it would at least reset to some degree the human caused global warming our planet is already suffering from. Which will likely get exponentially worse. But I know. For most of you your doomsday cult is more appealing. Where everything dies and you all go up to heaven to be blissfully herded around by jesus.

 

[Dekster]

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

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

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.

Residential solar doesn't cost anywhere near that. You also dont have to supply 100% with solar.

The average price per watt for solar panels ranges from $2.58 to $3.38, and solar panelcosts for an average-sized installation in the U.S. usually range from $10,836 to $14,196 after solar tax credits.

I didn't say it cost near that. I was responding to a poster who said that $500K installation costs wouldn't matter...and that tax credit ends this year at which point we will see if solar really is as viable without the subsidy.

 

[Dekster]

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

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

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.

You can label it any way you want. But when you are over 18 trillion dollars in debt, you owe that debt to somebody. The government flushes around 420 billion in interest on that debt each year, Next, I see. You actually work for the nuclear industry. That is why anything else I have to say on the matter matters to you. You offend me.

I hope run of our reactors has a spill in your back yard to silence to truth telling psychics

And $18T in debt is nothing when you have $140T in assets.

 

[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.

I will take your word on that. But even at almost 3000 watts, you could produce a pretty devastating resonant frequency. Especially if you used a horn. As long as the horn didn't screw with the purity of the resonant frequency.

I really don't understand the car-audio connection to splitting water molecules, but the resonant-frequency thing has never been proven, according to this.

There seems to be a lot of crackpot "science" on this, with people making promises they can't deliver, based on a great deal of paranoia about Big Energy.

First of all, I am not a scientist. So I couldn't tell you for sure that the right kind of resonant frequency would actually break the molecular bond of H2O. I know that the right kind of resonant frequency can break apart solid matter. But an actual H2O molecule probably has some plasticity to it. Even then, there may be a resonant frequency that will disrupt it. Or maybe it will just make it a bit unstable. Allowing electrolysis to work at a much lower energy input.

You know, I started out with the combustion of water. All of this talk of using the proper resonant frequency to break the molecular bond of H2O is just spitballing ideas. Maybe some scientist out there will hear of this and it will give him some ideas. Because one thing is for sure. If you could find an efficient and low power way of separating H2O into their component gasses and collecting them, a lot of energy can be derived from their combustion. With no pollution. Other than some heat.

There is no lower-energy way to do something that takes a set amount of energy.

 

[daveman]

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.

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.

Technically, if you heat it to plasma like temperatures you WILL unbond it and combust the hydrogen.. But just combusting the hydrogen is not gonna result in a gain in energy..

Got a better plan.. Take sketchy wind and solar OFF the grid.. Use it separate hydrogen from water and store it.. It's that "free energy" the greenies can't get out of wind/solar on the grid... Because they are NOT alternatives to RELIABLE generators.. THey are merely substitutes.

Using OFF grid wind/solar to produce hydrogen and ethanol and OTHER fuels is a no brainer.. There'd be lots of investments and interest... And the COST of those alternate fuels would go WAY down...

If you combust anything, you will gain power from it. As in the form of pressure. Pressure can be utilized. Also, when you combust anything, there is something else you will get from it. Heat. And when you are also talking about utilizing MHD, energy can also be produced from that.

Another thing is that I said earlier that 2% of water will combust at 3600 F. What if the steam you were injecting into the furnace was already at something like 3000F. Then getting it up to the proper combustion temperature wouldn't take all that much added heat.

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.

If you are thinking of banning me, I will tell you something else about using water to create energy. So that if you do ban me, hopefully this will make you feel bad for doing so. 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.

Now all matter has a sonic resonant frequency that will disrupt it. That would have to include the H2O molecule. What if you shot such a frequency down a long tube filled with water or steam. You would then separate the molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. (At the very least it could make the amount of energy needed for electrolysis much less) This mixture might directly be used to cause ignition. I don't remember what the hydrogen and oxygen mixture used in the space shuttle was. But for proper ignition, the ratio of hydrogen and oxygen would need to be the same.

Getting back to electrolysis to separate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. As that the atoms would already be freed from each other from sonic disruption, it wouldn't take all that much electrolysis to get the gasses to move in the direction you wanted them to go for collection. Not only that, you would likely be using DC. Which means a polarity. Strong neodymium magnets could be used to supplement this polarity. Maybe it would make any electrolysis unnecessary.

If the ONLY thing you get out is pressure -- after putting all that energy in -- CONGRATS MAN -- you've invented the steam engine... Of course even THAT is NOT an energy source.. Think I'll just skip your opinions on solar and wind after reading this thread...

If you are thinking of banning me, I will tell you something else about using water to create energy. So that if you do ban me, hopefully this will make you feel bad for doing so. 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.

You are seriously challenged technically.. When you go to a concert and see those monstrous racks of amplifiers --- I bet you believe all that sound didn't require "much energy"... That's because you're way ignorant about amplifiers.. They consume energy to move a LOT of air.. You can move a LOT OF AIR with either 5Volts or 220Volts.. But what gets USED IS CURRENT.. And alternators have limits on currents.. That's why there is 20 fuse fuse box in your car...

That stereo guy quoting the 40,000 Watts wants to redesign you ENTIRE CAR electrical system.. Typical alternator is 50 Amps.. Full load to EVERTHING without battery banks is 1200Watts at FULL speed.. Not even that idling or slugging along.. So I figure with a 1000 AMP alternator (if you can find one to fit) AND a 100 pound battery bank to get you thru stoplights ---- YOU MIGHT SOMETIMES have about 10,000 Watts to your stereo before the headlights dim out... Only ought to cost you a year's wages to make those mods...

You should stop reading anything I write. Obviously you don't have the intelligence for it. As I was telling somebody else, when you burn a piece of wood, you are breaking molecular bonds. (And possibly recombining others) So you can't tell me that breaking the molecular bond of H2O won't create heat also. And it is just sheer stupidity to call it steam. Also I pointed out elsewhere that at 3600 F, 2% of H2O will disassociate into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. This disruption will probably (I don't know for sure) rise exponentially with a further rise in temperature. So that at 4000 F, most of the H2O molecules will have been disrupted (combust) into their constituent atoms.

Next. Stop lying to yourself. If you think that I think that PA amplifiers don't use a lot of electricity, you are hallucinating. As for the car stereo thing as a means of producing wattage to supply some sort of speaker with power, I asked a car stereo person about this. He may have been lying. But he said without altering an engine, such as putting in a more powerful alternator or going from 12 volt to 24 volts, you could achieve 40,000 watts of power. Now I do know that the really powerful car stereos out there use banks of capacitors. (Which come after the fuse box) And as you know, (maybe) the whole purpose of capacitors is to store energy. If you store enough energy, anything is possible. Also, only with bass is there a lot of air being moved. When it comes to the really high frequencies, rather than moving air, what you mostly are producing is decibels.

Car stereo guy was absolutely wrong. Capacitors don't come after the fuse box. And sound energy, regardless of the frequency, IS moving air.

You should stop writing what you write. Obviously you don't have the intelligence for it.

 

[daveman]

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

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.

Residential solar doesn't cost anywhere near that. You also dont have to supply 100% with solar.

The average price per watt for solar panels ranges from $2.58 to $3.38, and solar panelcosts for an average-sized installation in the U.S. usually range from $10,836 to $14,196 after solar tax credits.

\\

The point I was making to the fool you were talking about is that it doesn't matter how much solar panels and the infrastructure they require costs. The point is that any amount of money is worth the price. Fuck what places like India or China would do. Nuking those overpopulating, human bacteria fucking lowlifes right off the face of the planet would fix that. This would cause a nuclear winter. If radiation doesn't get too high, it might be worth it. Because it would at least reset to some degree the human caused global warming our planet is already suffering from. Which will likely get exponentially worse. But I know. For most of you your doomsday cult is more appealing. Where everything dies and you all go up to heaven to be blissfully herded around by jesus.

Wow. You really are crazy.

 

[fullpower]

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

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.

Residential solar doesn't cost anywhere near that. You also dont have to supply 100% with solar.

The average price per watt for solar panels ranges from $2.58 to $3.38, and solar panelcosts for an average-sized installation in the U.S. usually range from $10,836 to $14,196 after solar tax credits.

I didn't say it cost near that. I was responding to a poster who said that $500K installation costs wouldn't matter...and that tax credit ends this year at which point we will see if solar really is as viable without the subsidy.

Corporations will do everything from keeping it from being "viable." They have you feeding off the tit of dirty energy. But at some point you have to grow up and stop breast feeding. And do what is right. None of this is something that an individual here and there can do to make any difference. It is something that the government has to make everybody do. But it won't happen. And the government would never allow such people to organize. So the only alternative is to go out and shoot as many people as you can. Because your fault or not, you're all guilty. Tell me this isn't true. If you don't agree with this idea, feel free to give me one of your own. Change my mind. It's that simple. Keeping me from giving my bloody solution isn't the solution. DEBATE ME! There has to be at least one motherfucker in our government, in some university or on this god damned planet who would be willing to at least give that a try.

 

[Dekster]

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.

Residential solar doesn't cost anywhere near that. You also dont have to supply 100% with solar.

The average price per watt for solar panels ranges from $2.58 to $3.38, and solar panelcosts for an average-sized installation in the U.S. usually range from $10,836 to $14,196 after solar tax credits.

I didn't say it cost near that. I was responding to a poster who said that $500K installation costs wouldn't matter...and that tax credit ends this year at which point we will see if solar really is as viable without the subsidy.

Corporations will do everything from keeping it from being "viable." They have you feeding off the tit of dirty energy. But at some point you have to grow up and stop breast feeding. And do what is right. None of this is something that an individual here and there can do to make any difference. It is something that the government has to make everybody do. But it won't happen. And the government would never allow such people to organize. So the only alternative is to go out and shoot as many people as you can. Because your fault or not, you're all guilty. Tell me this isn't true. If you don't agree with this idea, feel free to give me one of your own. Change my mind. It's that simple. Keeping me from giving my bloody solution isn't the solution. DEBATE ME! There has to be at least one motherfucker in our government, in some university or on this god damned planet who would be willing to at least give that a try.

Your argument is that I should do something but one person doing something will not make a difference. If you want someone to debate you, you can start by not taking both sides of the same issue.

 

[daveman]

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.

Residential solar doesn't cost anywhere near that. You also dont have to supply 100% with solar.

The average price per watt for solar panels ranges from $2.58 to $3.38, and solar panelcosts for an average-sized installation in the U.S. usually range from $10,836 to $14,196 after solar tax credits.

I didn't say it cost near that. I was responding to a poster who said that $500K installation costs wouldn't matter...and that tax credit ends this year at which point we will see if solar really is as viable without the subsidy.

Corporations will do everything from keeping it from being "viable." They have you feeding off the tit of dirty energy. But at some point you have to grow up and stop breast feeding. And do what is right. None of this is something that an individual here and there can do to make any difference. It is something that the government has to make everybody do. But it won't happen. And the government would never allow such people to organize. So the only alternative is to go out and shoot as many people as you can. Because your fault or not, you're all guilty. Tell me this isn't true. If you don't agree with this idea, feel free to give me one of your own. Change my mind. It's that simple. Keeping me from giving my bloody solution isn't the solution. DEBATE ME! There has to be at least one motherfucker in our government, in some university or on this god damned planet who would be willing to at least give that a try.

You've been debated. You've been given facts and logic about how what you want won't work.

You don't want debate.

Run along.

 

[fullpower]

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

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.

You can label it any way you want. But when you are over 18 trillion dollars in debt, you owe that debt to somebody. The government flushes around 420 billion in interest on that debt each year, Next, I see. You actually work for the nuclear industry. That is why anything else I have to say on the matter matters to you. You offend me.

I hope run of our reactors has a spill in your back yard to silence to truth telling psychics

And $18T in debt is nothing when you have $140T in assets.

18 trillion IS something A whole LOT of something. Also, I saw that jackoff Trump on TV once talking about the "assets" we have in the U.S. Such as how much the timber we have in the U.S. is worth. Or how much coal we have in the ground is worth. Or how much the metals still unmined in the ground are worth. Etc. The thing is, are you willing to sell you ass and what future generations may inherit just to pay off an unnecessary debt we shouldn't have had to begin with? I'm not. I wouldn't even consider it. Because I'm not traitorous, treasonous scum.

 

[fullpower]

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.

I will take your word on that. But even at almost 3000 watts, you could produce a pretty devastating resonant frequency. Especially if you used a horn. As long as the horn didn't screw with the purity of the resonant frequency.

I really don't understand the car-audio connection to splitting water molecules, but the resonant-frequency thing has never been proven, according to this.

There seems to be a lot of crackpot "science" on this, with people making promises they can't deliver, based on a great deal of paranoia about Big Energy.

First of all, I am not a scientist. So I couldn't tell you for sure that the right kind of resonant frequency would actually break the molecular bond of H2O. I know that the right kind of resonant frequency can break apart solid matter. But an actual H2O molecule probably has some plasticity to it. Even then, there may be a resonant frequency that will disrupt it. Or maybe it will just make it a bit unstable. Allowing electrolysis to work at a much lower energy input.

You know, I started out with the combustion of water. All of this talk of using the proper resonant frequency to break the molecular bond of H2O is just spitballing ideas. Maybe some scientist out there will hear of this and it will give him some ideas. Because one thing is for sure. If you could find an efficient and low power way of separating H2O into their component gasses and collecting them, a lot of energy can be derived from their combustion. With no pollution. Other than some heat.

There is no lower-energy way to do something that takes a set amount of energy.

If you think I said so, you are hallucinating.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Change my mind. It's that simple. Keeping me from giving my bloody solution isn't the solution. DEBATE ME! There has to be at least one motherfucker in our government, in some university or on this god damned planet who would be willing to at least give that a try.

You dont have a solution. You seem willfully blind as to how the world works.

 

[daveman]

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.

I will take your word on that. But even at almost 3000 watts, you could produce a pretty devastating resonant frequency. Especially if you used a horn. As long as the horn didn't screw with the purity of the resonant frequency.

I really don't understand the car-audio connection to splitting water molecules, but the resonant-frequency thing has never been proven, according to this.

There seems to be a lot of crackpot "science" on this, with people making promises they can't deliver, based on a great deal of paranoia about Big Energy.

First of all, I am not a scientist. So I couldn't tell you for sure that the right kind of resonant frequency would actually break the molecular bond of H2O. I know that the right kind of resonant frequency can break apart solid matter. But an actual H2O molecule probably has some plasticity to it. Even then, there may be a resonant frequency that will disrupt it. Or maybe it will just make it a bit unstable. Allowing electrolysis to work at a much lower energy input.

You know, I started out with the combustion of water. All of this talk of using the proper resonant frequency to break the molecular bond of H2O is just spitballing ideas. Maybe some scientist out there will hear of this and it will give him some ideas. Because one thing is for sure. If you could find an efficient and low power way of separating H2O into their component gasses and collecting them, a lot of energy can be derived from their combustion. With no pollution. Other than some heat.

There is no lower-energy way to do something that takes a set amount of energy.

If you think I said so, you are hallucinating.

"If you could find an efficient and low power way of separating H2O into their component gasses..."

You don't even know how much energy you can get out of a car alternator.

 

[fullpower]

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.

Technically, if you heat it to plasma like temperatures you WILL unbond it and combust the hydrogen.. But just combusting the hydrogen is not gonna result in a gain in energy..

Got a better plan.. Take sketchy wind and solar OFF the grid.. Use it separate hydrogen from water and store it.. It's that "free energy" the greenies can't get out of wind/solar on the grid... Because they are NOT alternatives to RELIABLE generators.. THey are merely substitutes.

Using OFF grid wind/solar to produce hydrogen and ethanol and OTHER fuels is a no brainer.. There'd be lots of investments and interest... And the COST of those alternate fuels would go WAY down...

If you combust anything, you will gain power from it. As in the form of pressure. Pressure can be utilized. Also, when you combust anything, there is something else you will get from it. Heat. And when you are also talking about utilizing MHD, energy can also be produced from that.

Another thing is that I said earlier that 2% of water will combust at 3600 F. What if the steam you were injecting into the furnace was already at something like 3000F. Then getting it up to the proper combustion temperature wouldn't take all that much added heat.

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.

If you are thinking of banning me, I will tell you something else about using water to create energy. So that if you do ban me, hopefully this will make you feel bad for doing so. 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.

Now all matter has a sonic resonant frequency that will disrupt it. That would have to include the H2O molecule. What if you shot such a frequency down a long tube filled with water or steam. You would then separate the molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. (At the very least it could make the amount of energy needed for electrolysis much less) This mixture might directly be used to cause ignition. I don't remember what the hydrogen and oxygen mixture used in the space shuttle was. But for proper ignition, the ratio of hydrogen and oxygen would need to be the same.

Getting back to electrolysis to separate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. As that the atoms would already be freed from each other from sonic disruption, it wouldn't take all that much electrolysis to get the gasses to move in the direction you wanted them to go for collection. Not only that, you would likely be using DC. Which means a polarity. Strong neodymium magnets could be used to supplement this polarity. Maybe it would make any electrolysis unnecessary.

If the ONLY thing you get out is pressure -- after putting all that energy in -- CONGRATS MAN -- you've invented the steam engine... Of course even THAT is NOT an energy source.. Think I'll just skip your opinions on solar and wind after reading this thread...

If you are thinking of banning me, I will tell you something else about using water to create energy. So that if you do ban me, hopefully this will make you feel bad for doing so. 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.

You are seriously challenged technically.. When you go to a concert and see those monstrous racks of amplifiers --- I bet you believe all that sound didn't require "much energy"... That's because you're way ignorant about amplifiers.. They consume energy to move a LOT of air.. You can move a LOT OF AIR with either 5Volts or 220Volts.. But what gets USED IS CURRENT.. And alternators have limits on currents.. That's why there is 20 fuse fuse box in your car...

That stereo guy quoting the 40,000 Watts wants to redesign you ENTIRE CAR electrical system.. Typical alternator is 50 Amps.. Full load to EVERTHING without battery banks is 1200Watts at FULL speed.. Not even that idling or slugging along.. So I figure with a 1000 AMP alternator (if you can find one to fit) AND a 100 pound battery bank to get you thru stoplights ---- YOU MIGHT SOMETIMES have about 10,000 Watts to your stereo before the headlights dim out... Only ought to cost you a year's wages to make those mods...

You should stop reading anything I write. Obviously you don't have the intelligence for it. As I was telling somebody else, when you burn a piece of wood, you are breaking molecular bonds. (And possibly recombining others) So you can't tell me that breaking the molecular bond of H2O won't create heat also. And it is just sheer stupidity to call it steam. Also I pointed out elsewhere that at 3600 F, 2% of H2O will disassociate into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. This disruption will probably (I don't know for sure) rise exponentially with a further rise in temperature. So that at 4000 F, most of the H2O molecules will have been disrupted (combust) into their constituent atoms.

Next. Stop lying to yourself. If you think that I think that PA amplifiers don't use a lot of electricity, you are hallucinating. As for the car stereo thing as a means of producing wattage to supply some sort of speaker with power, I asked a car stereo person about this. He may have been lying. But he said without altering an engine, such as putting in a more powerful alternator or going from 12 volt to 24 volts, you could achieve 40,000 watts of power. Now I do know that the really powerful car stereos out there use banks of capacitors. (Which come after the fuse box) And as you know, (maybe) the whole purpose of capacitors is to store energy. If you store enough energy, anything is possible. Also, only with bass is there a lot of air being moved. When it comes to the really high frequencies, rather than moving air, what you mostly are producing is decibels.

Car stereo guy was absolutely wrong. Capacitors don't come after the fuse box. And sound energy, regardless of the frequency, IS moving air.

You should stop writing what you write. Obviously you don't have the intelligence for it.

The stereos themselves have capacitors in them. Do they not? Do you hook up a car stereo before or after the fuse box. Next, tell me moron, what if I zap you with a UV laser. They operate at very high frequencies. How much air do they move. Also, I could hit you with a sonic frequency so high that you wouldn't even hear or feel it. How much air is it moving. What you are dealing with isn't moving air. What you are dealing with is atoms exchanging energy.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I will take your word on that. But even at almost 3000 watts, you could produce a pretty devastating resonant frequency. Especially if you used a horn. As long as the horn didn't screw with the purity of the resonant frequency.

I really don't understand the car-audio connection to splitting water molecules, but the resonant-frequency thing has never been proven, according to this.

There seems to be a lot of crackpot "science" on this, with people making promises they can't deliver, based on a great deal of paranoia about Big Energy.

First of all, I am not a scientist. So I couldn't tell you for sure that the right kind of resonant frequency would actually break the molecular bond of H2O. I know that the right kind of resonant frequency can break apart solid matter. But an actual H2O molecule probably has some plasticity to it. Even then, there may be a resonant frequency that will disrupt it. Or maybe it will just make it a bit unstable. Allowing electrolysis to work at a much lower energy input.

You know, I started out with the combustion of water. All of this talk of using the proper resonant frequency to break the molecular bond of H2O is just spitballing ideas. Maybe some scientist out there will hear of this and it will give him some ideas. Because one thing is for sure. If you could find an efficient and low power way of separating H2O into their component gasses and collecting them, a lot of energy can be derived from their combustion. With no pollution. Other than some heat.

There is no lower-energy way to do something that takes a set amount of energy.

If you think I said so, you are hallucinating.

"If you could find an efficient and low power way of separating H2O into their component gasses..."

You don't even know how much energy you can get out of a car alternator.

Burning HYDROGEN turns it into water VAPOR. That process creates a LOT of energy.

Unfortunately, SEPARATING water into hydrogen and oxygen REQUIRES THAT SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY.

He refuses to understand that breaking down water DOES NOT PRODUCE ENERGY. IT CONSUMES ENERGY.

 

[fullpower]

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.

Residential solar doesn't cost anywhere near that. You also dont have to supply 100% with solar.

The average price per watt for solar panels ranges from $2.58 to $3.38, and solar panelcosts for an average-sized installation in the U.S. usually range from $10,836 to $14,196 after solar tax credits.

I didn't say it cost near that. I was responding to a poster who said that $500K installation costs wouldn't matter...and that tax credit ends this year at which point we will see if solar really is as viable without the subsidy.

Corporations will do everything from keeping it from being "viable." They have you feeding off the tit of dirty energy. But at some point you have to grow up and stop breast feeding. And do what is right. None of this is something that an individual here and there can do to make any difference. It is something that the government has to make everybody do. But it won't happen. And the government would never allow such people to organize. So the only alternative is to go out and shoot as many people as you can. Because your fault or not, you're all guilty. Tell me this isn't true. If you don't agree with this idea, feel free to give me one of your own. Change my mind. It's that simple. Keeping me from giving my bloody solution isn't the solution. DEBATE ME! There has to be at least one motherfucker in our government, in some university or on this god damned planet who would be willing to at least give that a try.[/QUOT]

Your argument is that I should do something but one person doing something will not make a difference. If you want someone to debate you, you can start by not taking both sides of the same issue.

I seem to remember replying in an earlier post where I said that the government should require everybody to switch to solar energy. And pick up any costs themselves. If I suggested that anybody individually switch to solar energy, I was speaking in generalities. Because it would be the right thing to do. But with all of the other pollution going on, it just so happens that it wouldn't do much good.