STORING H2 GAS to power hybrid cars IS A DEAD PROJECT

We must rethink all about it, this seems a time wasted project.

Any project that relay on storing "H2 GAS" into a car and in H2 gas stations are useless, since the easier way to get "free H2" and store it without any danger and at no cost -is as plain H2O- from which H2 must be converted "on Demand" within the vehicles -by a single autodevice- No Doubt.

Again, Hibrid with H2 are not a solution to stop climate changes, since -as combustion fuel- it burns clean but generates waste heat too -as any other fosil fuel- which will continue the global temperature increments either.

The solution are plug-in electrics cars powered by -hi-eficiency, low weight, long range batteries/capacitor packages- and faster to recharge from the DRID supplied by GREEN renewables energies only (from sun, wind, tide and hidro) coming stronger every year.

But, I propose to work on a CITY CAR POWERED BY PRESSURIZED AIR, too. So, we only need to reach the gas station to recharge plain air -and pay for it-. I am developing an air powered motorcycle to begin with. We realy need break trought innovations -not more fuels- since it is time to use our brain -at top ingenuity- or we will esxtinguish our self with our own wastes -in XXI century-.

But, I propose to work on a CITY CAR POWERED BY PRESSURIZED AIR, too. So, we only need to reach the gas station to recharge plain air -and pay for it-. I am developing an air powered motorcycle to begin with. We realy need break trought innovations -not more fuels- since it is time to use our brain -at top ingenuity- or we will esxtinguish our self with our own wastes -in XXI century-.

I too am working on a Compressed air powered flying car using a rotary air distributor plenum chamber connected to the tips of the rotor blades directly eliminating the need for a seperate air motor, gear reductions and transmission losses.Speed control is through valves.I have an external screw to manually repressurise (by squeesing) the compressed air tank, and extract the maximum mileage, even in an emergency.

Wish you success in your efforts.

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

Good morning Dr Ramakrishna:

On previous message I intended to promote a break storm -not to store H2 gas as fuel- but to develop enviromentaly clean new city cars -powered by plain air pressure-

I was happy to find ECO with you -and your projected flying city car. Congratulation!!!!!!!!! I wish you a lucky landing of the idea.

In order to help you some how to get the best performance, instead of replenish tank by a hand-pump, my advice is to add a small compressor powered by a generator-capacitor system that rescues the synetic energy -every time you drive down hills, desacelerates or brakes to stop the car-.

I have problems to get funds to continue my 2 projects: a motorbike -powered by pressurized air- and a solar water heater that could be mass produced at US$400 sale price. Both will help to reduce CO2 emitions, to rescue the lovely climate gone.

But, I will keep knocking door to get it done, any way.

regards.

G'day D.RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU, CHEMA & others,

Please, don't get me wrong, I think your intent to try and reduce our dependence of fossil fuels in not only admirable but absolutely necessary if we are going to deal with climate change and global warming.

However, I don't think you have a full understanding of the physics, chemistry and engineering behind what you are trying to do.

The compressed gas powered flying car sounds nice but hasn't got a snow ball's chance in hell of getting off the ground let alone being viable. The problem comes from the energy density that can be achieved using compressed gasses, it's nowhere near what you need to get even a model aeroplane off the ground let alone a full scale helicopter, which by the way are the most inefficient of all aircraft, off the ground.

I haven't got the time at the moment but if people are interested and ask nicely I will go through the physics behind rotary wing aircraft and compressed gas energy storage systems and show exactly why the concept is unrealistic.

Meanwhile and as I have stated on CR4 innumerable times, if you don't understand the problem you are trying to solve then you will almost certainly end up making things a whole lot worse. It's the same here and while a compressed air powered flying machine sounds like a good idea it's unlikely to be viable and will all most certainly end up pumping even more green house gasses into the atmosphere that we currently are.

Dear Masu,

it's always a pleasure to hear from you, especially after a long interval.Thanks for CHEMA's encouragement.

The powering is by using dry Compressed Air at 6 Bar and not a gas.

The repressurisation of the air storage tank, (even in mid-air, while flying) will be by simply turning a screw jack a couple of turns, thus squeezing the inflatable storage tank, very similar to what a bagpiper does under his arm.

The rotary air foils are turning by reaction of the escaping compressed air at the end of the trailing edge,in a regulated flow.We're simply letting out compressed air into atmospheric air- hence zero pollution!We are also avoiding cavitation and reducing the pressure over the airfoils because of the partial turbulence from the preceding blade.

I hope this addresses the concerns expressed by you.

As the design is evolving with improvements as it goes with ideas, I can put out a partially completed view of the AEROCAR, if so desired.I do not take out any patents for ideas that are likely to benefit humanity. It is open to copy/improvements by the CR4 at large.

I remain with very high regards.

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

G'day CHEMA, D.RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU & others,

Good to correspond with you.

I have been a little snowed under of late for several reasons with moving house being the major culprit. It's taken a lot more time, effort and money that first hoped an after nearly two years is still a work in progress. I have also needed to construct a new workshop from scratch in only about 15% of the space I previously had. It's not yet fully operational but I'm slowly getting there and with a little luck should be finished by the end of the year. Once that's done I plan to spend more time on CR4 especially my Masu on Blog.

• I hope this addresses the concerns expressed by you.

It's a little more complex, no actually it's a lot more complex that one might think.

The reason that I can state you will more than likely find you will not be able to power a helicopter from compressed gas (air is just a mixture of gasses and particularly unsuitable in this instance) is that I looked at the concept in detail about six months ago. I was actually considering the concept for use in the 1:8 scale flying replica of the deHavilland DH‑98 Mosquito that I am trying to construct. If you would like to read more on the project I have been documenting it in my CR4 blog Masu on Mozzies. For the reasons I stated earlier I haven't been able to do anything with the project for some time, but with a little luck the new year should see the project resurrected.

But I digress, so back to the problem at hand. When I crunched the numbers they clearly showed that there was no realistic way to store enough energy in cylinders of compressed gas to power the model for more than a couple of seconds. The energy density just isn't there and you just don't have the space to do it and that's before you add in the weight of the pressure vessels.

It also gets a lot worse because there is a thing called the square‑cube law that governs what happens when you try and scale things up. I haven't got the time to explain if fully but it basically means this. If you double the size of something you actually increase it by 2³ or 8 fold because it's twice as long, wide and high. However, lift is governed by surface area and if you double the dimensions you increase the area by 2² or 4 fold. Put the two together and you suddenly find that you can only get half the lift you need from the larger wings to lift the larger one off the ground.

The same thing happens with the power and if you cant to it with a 1:8 scale model it's going to be 8 times harder to do it with a full scaled aircraft.

In post #12 CHEMA quoted Louis Brandeis

"Most of the things worth doing in the world were said to be impossible before they were done."

There's a big difference between arbitrarily stating it can't be done and after looking at the science and physics behind the problem then crunching the numbers and concluding that it will not work or be viable.

Engineering is all about understanding the science behind the problem and then using mathematical models to analyse the problem in order to develop or even ascertain whether a concept is viable. There's also nothing wrong with coming up with what others call wacky or strange ideas, however, if the ideas have been shown to be unrealistic or unviable then continuing with it is analogous to flogging a dead horse and a waste of your precious time and effort.

Unfortunately when you stack the numbers up with compressed gas energy storage concept there just isn't sufficient energy to do what needs to be done. I don't have the time to go through all the calculations and explain where the problems lie but I will try and write it all up some time over the weekend and post it in this thread. In the meantime may I suggest searching CR4 as the concept has been discussed in detail several times. You may also find much of the information in my Masu on Mozzies blog useful as it deals with much of the engineering associated with flight.

Good day Masu:

I have proben my light city motorbike runinng for 20 km with a full charge -which is not enough in deed- but if no gas estation shows up, then I can plug it in any electric outlet to repressurize the system to keep moving -it is not for flying-

I Hope you have an idea how to improve the range up to 60 km at less.

thanks for your comments.

The problem with utilizing air is what it consists of which is roughly 4 parts nitrogen to 1 part oxygen. If you try and squeeze too much into a container it liquefies and then you end up with cryogenic temperatures when you release it. The other problem you get with compressed gas energy storage is the loss of heat. Compressing a gas not only raises the pressure but temperature as well and this heat then is lost to the atmosphere and lost making the overall efficiency poor.

One solution would be to use one of the Nobel gasses which will remain gaseous at much higher pressures but that makes recharging them far more expensive and requires some sort of distribution infrastructure.

I did see a program on one of the Discovery Channels several months back where they took motor bike and converted it to run on compressed air that was stored in two SCUBA tanks. However, like you they ran into problems at around the 20 km mark and had to recharge it regularly from a trailer that had large storage tanks.

Compressing air is a little more complex than just squeezing it into smaller containers and unless you remove all the moisture and keep impurities like oil and other airborne contaminants out you will have serious problems with the tanks eroding from the inside. This can not only be costly but extremely dangerous and is why there are serious regulations that cover pressure vessels.

However, that doesn't mean it's impossible just difficult and there is only one way to solve a difficult problem and that's perseverance. I have seen small car that is powered with compressed air that has the sort of range you are talking of but they utilize several carbon fibre storage tanks that are built into the chassis.

Anyway, I am a little tied up at the moment and I can't think of anything off the top of my head that will solve your problem. However, I have this niggling feeling that the answer to your problem is buried deep down in the dark recesses of my somewhat deranged mind. Invariably this means that if I just let things cogitate for a while I will have one of those eureka moments within a day or so. So hang in there, with any luck I come up with something in a day or so.

Thanks Masu and Dr Kamakrishna for your interest:

It is clear -I dont intend to built a car, yet- since my project platform is a light weight cross-bike, propulsed by controled air jets right upon top of the back tyre -the simplest engine known since IIXX century- plus the drivers-energy upon the pedals -known since IXX-. It is intended as NAVE -neiborwoods air vehicle- to help get back home if you feel really tired after your morning exercise. isnt it NICE-

Make it simplest and will work!!!!!!!!!............. Dr. Rudolph Deanin -Engineering dept Dean and my advisor- at UMass.

Yea,,,,, Yea, it works.

All bike`s structure pipes are interconected to serve as storages for air -at 8 bars- although I will try up to 16 bars, either. And, by sure it is more dangerours -in a crash- any vehicle filled fuel tank than a pressurised air bike -no doubt-.

As you see, in my design, oil and corrosion arent any problem -with passivated aluminum or steel pipes, or with carbon pipes nether-.

Any ideas -to last longer- are well come. Other than coming in to a gas station so often.

I hope Dr. Ramakrishna keeps moving the right direction, too. As well as his androids bissiness.

Going back to the original topic of storing H2 in tanks, I think is useless, while I can produce H2 upon demand of my car, from plain water -with no catalist or so-.

"Ense, we can save a lot and avoid half of wold fuel consumption", see links as:

www.Runyourcaronwater.com

Or -H2 produced on demand while runing your cars -from plain water- so simple.

G'day CHEMA,

• Ense, we can save a lot and avoid half of wold fuel consumption", see links as:
• Or -H2 produced on demand while runing your cars -from plain water- so simple.

Forget it, it's just a scam to milk you of money and give you the false impression you are doing something to help the environment.

You can split water into H₂ and O₂ but the process is terribly inefficient and you don't get anywhere near as much energy back from burning the H₂ as you expended creating it in the first place.

There is no way round it, you can not create nor destroy energy no matter what you do if it takes X amount of energy to get a vehicle to move then you must supply more than X energy in the form of fuel.

This is the most fundamental law of physics and there is absolutely no way to get round it.

• hola Masu:
• Air car is already on sale -a Good news for your files- since your previous comments were so pesimistic-
• However, I don't think you have a full understanding of the physics, chemistry and engineering behind what you are trying to do.
• The compressed gas powered car sounds nice but hasn't got a snow ball's chance in hell of getting off the ground let alone being viable. The problem comes from the energy density that can be achieved using compressed gasses,
• The problem with utilizing air is what it consists of which is roughly 4 parts nitrogen to 1 part oxygen. If you try and squeeze too much into a container it liquefies and then you end up with cryogenic temperatures when you release it. The other problem you get with compressed gas energy storage is the loss of heat. Compressing a gas not only raises the pressure but temperature as well and this heat then is lost to the atmosphere and lost making the overall efficiency poor.

Not a Good answer what you stated there, even with your well known physics arguments, none could stop some intelligent guys to invent an aircar -neither me to continue with my airbyke-.

Please, Dont get angry but some times we can be optimistic, if use more properlly and realistically all the teoretical physico-chemical and enginering stuff stored in our memory and processed in our MOTHERBRAIN-chip.

In fact, a very good design ZERO POLLUTION AIRCAR -ALL READY BORN, runs >200 km per tank- and is in 2009 competicion for the X-PRIZE -100 million dollars grant-. Wont you believe it? See next link please .......http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?p=77

I am happy about that happen, and more happy if D. Ramakrishna improved its flying car too.

Have a nice 2009 -no crisis on your family-

CHEMA

Hi Chema,

I know of and knew of the vehicle you are talking of when I wrote my posts in this thread.

Yes you do have a car powered by compressed air. However, as I pointed out when you look at the whole process in depth and the source of the energy you don't end up any better off than you would if you used an electric car.

The other hassle with the air powered car is what can only be described as abysmal performance and range.

Compare the air car with something like the Tesla Roadster and you will see what I'm talking about.

Even though there is a place for a compressed air powered vehicle but I can't see it ever being useful as an everyday car due to the limitations of the physics behind using compressed gas as a an energy storage medium.

Dear Masu:

No to long ego, you commented:

G'day D.RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU, CHEMA & others, I don't think you have a full understanding of the physics, chemistry and engineering behind what you are trying to do.

The compressed gas powered car sounds nice but not viable.....bla, bla, bla.

Well masu, we could not understand all what you say above, and we are craisy that beleave in magic dreams ------he, he, he- as the french guy that builts one all ready, that runs one air for 125 miles and is ready to go on the market,

check this link, you may change your mind.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/20071/

Dear CHEMA,

Their response should not be purely technical, because the issue of viability of a new transporting alternative, is mainly an economical;

In the long run the real cost of powering mass transit systems with compressed gas should take into account the overall cost of A to Z production, including national or even international supply infrastructure.

Once such an infrastructure becomes competitive with current gasoline supply - then it can become a viable alternative.

I personally am very enthusiastic and hopeful about the possibility of compressed-air engines and transport systems - good encouraging trials are coming from China, India, and other countries, including the US - The fact that it might actually work - with a reasonable range between charges, still doesn't mean it's viable on mass scale because of economical issues of mass production

Yuval:

You are right, mass production seems in process by Tata -or some one else-.

And, Infrastructure for compressed air powered cars is any where -all ready- nothing extra to do, since all gas stations have compressed air hoses for the tyres. They have to add just a meter to sale it to instead of gasoline or gas, and an extra compressor according to demand.

So, this cars arent a big problem, to come along in the near future.

In fact, mass production of the MDI air car is not underway by Tata.

The compressors used in gas stations are inadequate for providing the 4000 or so PSI required for an air car. The typical gas station compressor goes to about 100 PSI.

So... no infrastructure, no mass production, and horribly low efficiency.

From your linked article:

The Air Car was supposed to hit the streets years ago, but its release always seems just around the corner. MDI announced in 2002 that the cars would be used to replace taxis in Mexico City, but nothing resulted.

There have been loads of air powered vehicle through the years... all very inefficient.

"The freedom to make mistakes provides the best environment for creativity."
An Unknown Author

Have an extraordinary day!

HOLA DR RAMAKRISHNA:

Air vehicles are on it way, see next link:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/20494/

Have a peacefull and happy year 2009, from MEXICO

Chema

Dear Massu:

You seems to handle theory like no other, I hope some day you decide to come up with a much better project that ours -my and Dr. Ramakrishna dreams-

"Most of the things worth doing in the world were said to
be impossible before they were done."
Jurist, Louis Brandeis

Your action for today is to see if there is something that
you would like to do or have that seems impossible at this
time. If it is something worth doing or having, set it as a
goal and take the first action towards achieving it.

Have an extraordinary day!

Dear Masu and Chema,

in lighter vein, please allow me to share a bit of relevent humour. Long ago I heard that Mamie Eisenhower wrote to Ike (then in Europe-WW II); "What is it that they have which we don't have?". Ike replied,"They have the same thing but they have it right here!!"

The point is that however inefficient any device that does not depend on fossil fuel may be, the source of raw stock (AIR or WATER) is plentiful, "renewable"-and like Ike said we can have it here and everywhere; they do not lead to the deleterious effects of utilising carbon based stuff.Let us also remember,a good chunk of petrodollars is funding terrorism worldwide!!

Of course, the danger is that we may run out of clean drinking water given the greed of humanity!

I personally do not accept the validity of Physics as being bandied about presently unless and until the true nature of Matter(dark or otherwise),Light,Magnetism, Gravity and fluidity of the universe etc. are cognisable without any mathematical mumbo jumbo.The very association of maths with physics has been the limitation and undoing of the reality of true physics.

Highest regards

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

Thanks for recalling me Masu :

In industry, every time that we can make a chemical reaction -easer that usually with higher efficiency and less energy applied- to convert into another chemical product, then, we call it a magic catalist or promoter -because that doesnt fit our tradicional maths or chems equations; till then every body is happy for that improvment -but not crasy-.

Take it ease fellow. , although you dont like some comments, we some are not scientist but like to search and find out catalists to make things and life easer or nicer , by braking barriers.

It is very good to know your calculated point of view -but dont get hungry - let us dream a little and may be ones we get it true. -like White Brothers get it to fly, a Leo Davinchi dream-

Be happy .

I still get the impression that you're not getting the point.

The dreaming about futuristic technology is fine and there is nothing wrong with that. However, when you try and transfer those dreams into the real world you have to comply with the real world and the way it works.

One of those real world rules is the conservation of energy. You just can't get if from nothing, it has to come from somewhere and has to go somewhere, that's just the way the universe works. If you could get energy from nothing the universe wouldn't exist because the first energy producing system that got fed back on itself would keep creating more and more energy till it cause the universe to heat up to the point it ceased to exist.

It's interesting to see people like da Vinci, Vern and the Wright brothers being put forward as dreamers and visionaries. They certainly were people that though differently and produced some very advanced technology, however, everything they dreamt of and built was based on a fundamental understanding of science and physics. What really made them different was they through this basic knowledge of science they could take their dreams and reject the ones that couldn't work and would be a waste of time. That left them free to concentrate on dreams that at least had a chance of working.

That's the difference between a visionary and a dreamer. A dreamer comes up with fantastic concepts and devices but no matter how hard they try they will never get their dreams to work because the violate the fundamental laws of the universe. A visionary on the other hand can see which of the dreams are possible and which ones are impossible and because they don't waste their time, effort and money going down an endless series of dead ends they can bring their dreams into the real world.

The more you understand about science, physics and chemistry the better you will be able to differentiate between the possible and impossible.

Right Masu:

Those guys you say are visioners -were consider dreamers at his time- including the fellow that wanted to mimic the brain with a PC, also Bill Gates, and the man who replaced the eye with a web cam, and so on, and on

I get the point. Yea....yea!!!!

So, our generation must tag some one idea as crasy dream, but once realized, next generation could tag them as visioners.

It doesnt matter, I preffer to do something and enjoy it -now- that do nothing and lament it later.

Hola -every body- it is nice to blog in here, since:

1) We find fellows willing to act as Deamon Attorny -detecting faults of any project-while you are searching for more ideas. Like Masu, who has the knowledge to alert us of any flaws -a valuable feed back that allows us to correct them on the way-.

2) Also, we find fellows willing to help -really- and give us tips, tricks or links -that strengten what you are searching for- as PlbMak.

3) However, We need many fellows as "JULIUS VERNE", who`s crasy ideas where questioned by the theoretical Physics of the age -as Masu uses to remark in his comments- but no matter that -all ideas came out to reallity later on-....... A kind of Peaple willing to explore out of cognitive physics -at present- but into unknown physics at atomic and nanoscale level or even at astral or universe scale, which perpetual movement is freelly -using little or no energy- but the universal iteraction fenomena of fluidics, gravity, magnetism, light as acting on mother narute -as photosintesis to make easely miriads of "Green organic compounds"-....... This unknown physics is what we ough to aknowledge -as Dr Ramakrisna proposes to search for- in order to understand how to make -not hibrids- but electric cars that runs on a single battery -sized like a penny- or how to make plains and spacecrafts that easely travel at light speed; or how to make easely -not only hydrogen from water-but any chemical product out of CO2 and H2O by mimic photosintetic procedures, or alike.......as Dr Daniel Nocera do -MIT researcher- see:

• www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21155/?a=f
• An so on.
• Go ahead fellow dont be stuck -do to critics as sparkstation that get nothing out of it- but encourage us to continue human development.
• have wonderfull days and chritmas time all of you.

Dear Sir,

Math is not there to validate physics.

The physical world does not need math to exert it's powers upon reality.

It's us who need math, in order to accurately describe natural phenomena.

To describe scales, ranges, relations between object, sizes, and dimensions.

In the sixteenth century math was dubbed by the metaphor "Eyes For The Blind"

No more, no less.

D.Ramakrishna Naidu pontificates:

"I personally do not accept the validity of Physics as being bandied about presently unless and until the true nature of Matter(dark or otherwise),Light,Magnetism, Gravity and fluidity of the universe etc. are cognisable without any mathematical mumbo jumbo.The very association of maths with physics has been the limitation and undoing of the reality of true physics."

---

What a load of crap. And you betray your position by the very fact that you are posting to this forum.

Mathematics are to Physics as Words are to Thought.

Mathematics and Words are both symbolic representations of something else. Physics is not Math, and Words are not Thought. Reality exists independently of any symbolic representations we might ascribe to it.

Thought exists without the words to express it, and likewise with Physics and Mathematics. But without symbolic representation, how would you communicate your thoughts to others?

How would you communicate precisely the relationships between physical things without mathematics? Try doing that with mere words and their myriad ambiguities. Can you do it?

Answer? No. You can't.

The very fact that you are using words to post your thoughts to this forum betrays your fundamental belief in the utility of symbolic representation, does it not?

Why then this aversion to mathematics? Sour grapes?

"Reality exists independently of any symbolic representations we might ascribe to it."

Isn't this statement a shot in your foot?

This is precisely what I have been saying.Thank you!!

"Isn't this statement a shot in your foot?

This is precisely what I have been saying.Thank you!!"

---

The foregoing representation included.

Loved it.

Is socialism inevitable then ?

Following the current trend for doom that is...

Check this out.

http://www.hytechapps.com/

Reeks of snake oil!

a good link. thank you

A good link than you.

Take a look to this site

http://www.technologyreview.com:80/energy/21485/?nlid=1415

The Aquygen thing has been around for several years and from what I've seen it's nothing remarkable.

As far as I can tell it's nothing more than electrolysis splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, except because they are using AC you end up with both gasses being produced at both electrodes rather than hydrogen from one and oxygen from the other that you get with DC.

Personally I wouldn't go within 100 m of a Aquygen system because mixing hydrogen and oxygen if bloody dangerous and you should only ever do it immediately prior to using it. Because their system has the two gasses mixed from production point on the resultant gas can ignite anywhere within the system and cause one almighty great explosion. Keep in mind you are literally playing with rocket fuel and to quote my old university chemistry professor

"The difference between rocket fuel and high explosives is marginal at best!"

Anyway, as I have been saying over and over, there is no such thing as a free lunch and you can't create energy. All they are doing is producing hydrogen and oxygen from water then burning it again. If you did a analysis of the system you would find that it consumes considerably more electrical energy than you get back at the point of combustion.

Relax Masu:

Hibrid cars burn H2 in their internal combustion engines -at no risk of explosion-. You have to drive such Japanese cars -on sale now, like: TOYOTA, HONDA, MAZDA, etc-. But be carefull if it comes with a Hidrogen tank intead.

Within your points of view, I see that you will never enter any idea to the crasy GOOGLE`s 10 millions dollars Contest -CALLED "X PRIZE CAR that runs 100 km per galon of fuel", which goal is to more than doble efficiency that we get from our cars -now a days-. And there are registered 12 teams -all ready-.

And my idea of halving fuel consumtion -without braking your physics laws- is by increasing cars efficiency -while producing H2 from H2O- by an ad-on fuel cell system that is powered with the 65% of wasted energy (heating the engine block, and that exausted from the muffler too). Such system could be mass produced for sale at US$400 -all includive- to convert to hibrids all fuel injection cars -new and used too-.

I want to point out that, this never intended to create energy , but will properly use the wasted energy -till now-.

I wonder if: is it OK or incorrect to you? .

Be happy. Regard.

Masu:

Hidrogen cars are right here and do not explode like bumbs or rockets, there are hundreds of projetcs on its way, get inside this topic more offen. check another....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu-Hg6ntgqI

To Masu, Europium, etc:

Thanks for attempting to steer CHEMA, etc in the direction of accepting science. I fear it is hopeless.

This link, presented as evidence that cars can "run on water" shows that certain people will throw out conventional science and rational though entirely to believe in the most ludicrous schemes. Even after having been tutored (though the considerable efforts of MASU) on the basic science involved.

Making HHO (which originally meant Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen, not the notion that there are two H indiviual atoms and one O, which it has popularly come to mean -- and which lends an air of magic: monoatomic voodoo) can be easily done, and has been done for years. There are legitimate uses for HHO (better called oxyhydrogen, a mix of H2 and O2 in the mass proportion found in water), the most common being for brazing or welding -- for a while it was the best method for joining platinum. Many years ago HHO was used in limelights.

Many deluded people think that the energy returned by burning oxyhdrogen is greater that the energy that went into creating it. This is, of course, entirely wrong. Even with 100 percent efficient electrolysis, the energy that you get out of burning oxyhydrogen will be less than the energy put into creating it. But electrolysis is never 100% efficient, and no porcess can be more than 100% efficient.

We know that internal combustion engines are roughly 25% efficient. We know that car alternators are about 67% efficient (that being surprisingly low efficency as electric machines go). Therefore, if our ICE is consuming fuel energy at a rate of 1kW, its output is .25 kW. The output of the alternator is .17 kW. Thus, if the process is to be self-sustaining, the electrolysis process must be (100/.17) 588% efficient. We know this "over-unity" efficiency level is impossible, and for people like MASU, Europium, me, (or anyone with a basic understanding of science) it is so far away from possibility that it makes us chuckle.

It is obvious to us that Klein's "car that runs on water" is a scam, just as Stanley Meyer's was, just as Dennis Lee's HAFC (Hydro Assist Fuel Cell) is. Meyers and Lee are both convicted frauds. But for a very large element of the population, these schemes are believable.

I have made perhaps 1000 posts here about such issues. Some defenders of over-unity schemes can become very abrasive, and will assume that I am a pawn of the oil industry, the car industry, the Republicans, the Democrats, etc. But in fact, there is nothing I have said in those 1000 posts that cannot be found in the most basics texts on chemistry and physics. However, the believers in HHO, and other over-unity schemes and perpetual motion machines, believe that the science is all wrong, and then, to support their cases, bring up the history of flight and the like. The history of flight is a perfect example of science in action, yet they misinterpret that history (or are completely ignorant of it) to "prove" that science can be, and has been, "wrong." The fact is that the Wrights relied on textbooks on aerodynamics (by, for example, Chanute) and relied on the scientific method, and relied on the wisdom of others who had flown long before them. Nothing they did called into question any scientific principal of any sort. Certainly, some of the uneducated of the day said flight is impossible, but the people who were educated in the subject matter were saying anything but.

Sadly, many are lost in the belief that science is somehow wrong, and the the laws of thermodynamics are about to be overthrown by some breakthrough in producing HHO, or a magnet motor that not only runs on its own power but produces excess electricity to "cure the world's energy woes."

I have been backing off on comments to such threads, because I doubt there is anything that can be done for these people. The science behind perpetual motion machines, such as cars that run on water, is very basic: they cannot work. If there is no appreciation for such basic science, then no amount of argument will change that. The problem, I guess, is that science is inherently logical. The anti-science crowd rejects logical arguments. If such people cannot be bothered to read a physics text and a chemistry text, then we probably have no hope of changing their minds.

Despite the low probablilty of changing minds, perhaps it is worth the attempt, and I applaud the efforts of MASU, Europium, and others.

I really take exception with you, sir!!! Me and Dale and Hank were fishin' down by the river and knocking back a few beers. Anyway, we got tired of fishin' so we packed up the VW and made for home.

I was too drunk to drive, so I let Dale do it. Of course, Dale wasn't familiar with the VW shifting pattern, and managed to back us right into the river. But the point is that the VW didn't sink and we came back to town on water power! Good thing we were up stream!

Brings back fond memories of early VW ads.

Another car (from around the same time as VW started to take off in the US) that ran on water:

This one would go both upstream and down.

It is clear that You are to many years away in -what it is been done to develop hibrid cars- that run on air-gas, electro-gas, solar-gas, fuell celled, and so on.

check this link: http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22087/?nlid=1767

• Hybrids Powered by Air. Storing energy with compressed air, rather than batteries, could cut the cost of hybrid vehicles.

A good thing is, that ALL this Developers dont care what pesimistics comment could discourage some other guys.

• you may want to aknowledge the new of this link
• www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21155/?a=f

I thought it looked familiar...

But of course ! ! !

Brown's Gas ! - How could I forget ? It was last year's best goof by far

Unfortunately, the original hilarious "Brown Gas" website, where they claim it's flame, coming out of the water-separator is actually a minuscule nuclear reactor, is long gone by now, but fortunately, there is no shortage of successors.

Yes folks, step right up and purchase this wonderful elixir which will solve all your problems.

Become an official franchised Distributor for this marvellous Elixir for the very small sum of $20,000.

Apply to my agent in Lagos.

As far as nanotube technology goes, reputable researchers and scientists have been warning about these for years, as once made the nanotubes do eventually get loose, go wherever wind or water takes them, and the pollution caused is impossible to clean up, ever.

Kind Regards....

check this sites:

1) hho water for gas at you tube, many videos

or

2) www.hhowater4gas.com

There have been a whole stack of totally wacky lardaceous statements being bandied about in this thread. I haven't got time to properly address them at the moment but I will address them all in considerable detail in the next day or so.

Be prepared folks, there is going to be an awful lot of what has been referred to as "mathematical mumbo jumbo" so go and get your mathematics, physics and chemistry text books out and start brushing up.

If I'm really peeved there may also be a written exam at the end.

Consider yourselves warned!

G'day folks,

Arrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall!

As I promised in my last post I am going to go into the outlandish claims and statements that have moved this thread from the realms of science into science fiction.

Now before we go any further I would like to get a few real world truths straight.

If you were doing the age old coordination test of taking variously shaped objects and placing them into the appropriate shaped holes do you try every shape in every hole or just match the shapes to the holes?

A 2 year old child may try shapes in holes until they find a match but very quickly they learn the mechanics of the problem and can visually match the shapes and holes without having to try them.

Well it's like that with science and physics. There are a lot of real world things that we have an extremely good fundamental understanding of and we don't have to try something to know that it won't work.

Something else that has been bandied about is the ability of Jules Verne to come up with science fiction that at the time seemed impossible yet was very close to what happened a century later.

Do you know why and how he could do this?

He read at least seven newspapers a day and had a card file system with over 100,000 cards full of scientific facts and data.

In his book "From the Earth to the Moon" many of his predictions were almost spot on the mark when the Apollo missions finally did put a man on the Moon 104 years after the book was published.

Now do you know why he got so much right?

Because he understood the science and he realized by doing the mathematics behind it that there was only one way you could possibly get to the moon. No looking into the future and making bold ludicrous statements, just good old fashioned SCIENCE and PHYSICS with no fiction.

What is more interesting in his work is not what it got correct but what he got 100% wrong. In "From the Earth to the Moon" his intrepid explorers were launched at escape velocity using a huge gun. Now that's nothing like the Saturn V rocket they used and it would be absolutely impossible to launch people using a gun as they would be turned to something akin to pizza toping by the acceleration.

So why did he get it so wrong?

Simple, liquid fuel rockets like the Saturn V hadn't yet been invented and therefore he had no idea how you could really do it so he had no option but to use a technology that was available at the time.

Jules Verne's predictions were accurate because he had a fundamental understanding of the science behind it and by applying the science he could extrapolate into the future and write accurately about future events.

That's why scientists and engineers can tell you that something works or doesn't without trying it themselves because the have a fundamental understanding of the science behind it and can use that understanding to predict the outcomes. It's no different to putting the round pegs in the round holes and square pegs in the square holes, just at a different and more complex level.

I will go into specifics of the various outlandish claims in a subsequent post, but for the moment I will leave it there.

Dear Masu,

is E really=Mc²??

Let's take 1 unit Mass (whatever) of H₂O.

Is E (1 unit Mass of H₂O(Ice))=E (1 unit Mass of H₂O(Liquid))=E (1 unit Mass of H₂O(Steam/Superheated steam))=1 unit Mass Mc²??

There is no mathematical basis for E=MC²; Einstein simply made it all up!!

This is the mumbo jumbo of maths in physics that is not tenable.Besides, Newton's LAWS are also untenable;

In a so called expanding universe (Big bang et al), how can a body be at rest or in uniform motion (where does its energy get replenished to sustain uniform motion?), will a body change its direction of motion in the direction of the disturbing force regardless of its magnitude wrt to the object; No reaction can be equal and opposite to an action even if the object acted upon is perfectly elastic-it is bound to absorb some energy before it perfectly reacts and gives off some, withholding what it needs to react!!

Any engineering based on these laws is intrinsically flawed! No wonder then why we have so much of INEFFICIENT ENGINEERING causing Global warming!What of the education system sans morality giving rise to a Financial meltdown causing misery and irreparable damage to humanity.

Present day science is still mimicking that 2 year old and has not grown up.

Galileo Galilei was victimised into submission by the Church (apologised for it 400 years later)! This is the dogma of those who swear by Physics with Maths!

All the engineering taught thus far is useless as it does not take a HOLISTIC view of the universe!!

Wright brothers demonstrated "Learning by doing" and that's what engineering should be.There is no substitute for Activity based learning, experimentation, observation-based conclusions-not depending on triple integrals and such like.

Sometimes, it is better to give up the comfort of habitual thought process, take a step back and view the grandeur of the CREATION without tieing it down to maths.

Highest regards

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

G'day D.RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU

• There is no mathematical basis for E=MC2; Einstein simply made it all up!!

This is a public forum and aghast as my initial response upon reading the above quote would be inappropriate so the sanitised version will have to suffice:

• Any engineering based on these laws is intrinsically flawed!
• How the hell did you come to such utterly ludicrous and completely erroneous conclusions?

What you are saying is that people like Einstein, Newton etcetera were wrong and that all the engineers that have used applied physics and mathematical models to design things didn't know what they were doing.

I suppose man didn't go to the Moon, skyscrapers don't exist, aeroplanes don't fly, bridges all fall down………

Clearly the scientists and engineers did know what they were doing and did understand the real world because they did build the Saturn V Moon rocket and got to the moon, the Boeing 747 flies, skyscrapers are now pushing the 500 m barrier and most of the worlds 6 billion people will cross at least one bridge every day.

Your post is so far off mark that I could probably build a career out of correcting it so for the moment I will just respond to one of the more unintelligent paragraphs.

• Wright brothers demonstrated "Learning by doing" and that's what engineering should be. There is no substitute for Activity based learning, experimentation, observation-based conclusions-not depending on triple integrals and such like.

You clearly haven't look into how the Wright brothers actually managed to get their machine to fly. While there was a considerable amount of trial and error nearly everything they did was based on research and work done by others.

Lawrence Hargraves was an Australian engineer that used his scientific and mathematical skills to analyse different aerofoil configurations and is one of the pioneering aeronautical engineers. Ultimately he used his scientific and mathematical training to develop the equations following aeronautical engineers like the Wrights used to design the wings used to lift their craft into the air.

Otto Lilienthal was a German engineer that used scientific procedures and principals to design gliders that were capable of carrying a man aloft.

The Wright brothers didn't just dive straight in and try to build an aeroplane. They used the work, scientific and mathematical tools that other aviation pioneers like Hargraves and Lilienthal had previously developed to build the basic concept of their flyer. Only then and after considerable scientific testing and analysis did they attempt to build a glider capable of lifting a man. While it was the Wright brothers that were ultimately accredited with the first successful heavier than air craft they didn't develop anything from scratched. What they did was to use scientific principles and mathematic models to combine the work of the many predecessors to develop a basic design. It wasn't till they had done all this work that they started with the trial and error part of hands on construction and experimentation. The point is that the so called "mathematical mumbo jumbo" that you decry and say is garbage is exactly what the Wright brothers and all those who's work they drew on used to ultimately produce a workable aeroplane.

Anyway, it's getting late here in Australia so I will leave it there for the moment.

Dear Masu,

your observations neatly sidestep the issue.Please explain how the energy of some unit of mass of matter existing in different states (Solid,Liquid,Gaseous, plasma) be equal.

Wright brothers started with experimentation and then theorised-please visit the Aeronautical museum at Dayton.The superb workmanship of the Flyer leaves one aghast-they were after all bycycle mechanics and not some "Researchers", initially.

Highest regards

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

G'day

• your observations neatly sidestep the issue. Please explain how the energy of some unit of mass of matter existing in different states (Solid, Liquid, Gaseous, plasma) be equal.

Why would I bother, it contains a whole stack of "mathematical mumbo jumbo" that your either won't be able to understand or reject.

If you are willing to read what I write with an open mind and allow me to explain how the mathematical models work then I will address your queries. However, I have a couple of other projects that require urgent attention so it may take me a few days in order to devote the time and effort it requires.

• Wright brothers started with experimentation and then theorised-please visit the Aeronautical museum at Dayton. The superb workmanship of the Flyer leaves one aghast-they were after all bicycle (sic) mechanics and not some "Researchers", initially.

If you ever have the chance to come to Australia then I would recommend you visit the Power House Museum in Sydney and I would gladly spend a day or two showing you through it.

The reason I mentioned the ph^m is because they have an extensive collection of flying machines that were designed by Lawrence Hargraves. You would be astonished at the similarity of the Wright brothers flyer to several of his lager man lifting kites that he constructed and flew at Stanwell Park south of Sydney. In effect he built the first hang glider and Stanwell Park is still and active hang gliding site over 100 years later.

The Wright brothers used Hargraves' designs extensively and as a result their earlier machines including the Wright Glider, Wright Flyer, Wright Flyer II and Wright Flyer III have a lot in common with and bear a great resemblance to Hargraves's work. You should also check out the Timeline of aviation development that shows where the Wright brothers came in the general development of aviation.

What you saw was pretty much the end result and it is extremely unlikely that the Wright brothers would have been able to develop and build their flying machine without the work of numerous aviation pioneers.

The one thing that the Wright brothers did manage to address that was lacking in most of the other flying machines of the era was lateral or roll stability. The physics behind the aerofoil had been understood for a considerable time and there were numerous examples of gliders that could lift a man into the air. However, most were lacking a third axis of control that is necessary with a machine that is flying in three dimensional space. They initially used what they called wing warping to achieve roll but ultimately abandoned the technology for ailerons which again were initially invented and developed by other aviation pioneers.

PS By the way, do you think you could possibly add a space after punctuation marks like commas (,) and periods (.) The lack of a space is sending my spell checker into meltdown.

I consider you lucky to be able to understand the question• in the first place.

If so, you are in a much better position than yours truly.

It may just be my ignorance, but please:

- Is it about E=MC² in regard to atomic mass of elements, exchangeable to energy via Fission or Fusion? - because if so then look into nuclear element transmutation. Right?

- Is it in regard to potential kinetic energy of a given mixture or compound in those mentioned states?

- Is it in regard to potential chemical energy, exchangeable via chemical bonding or disassembly by reaction?

I mean, for the life of me, I cannot figure out in what sense "...energy of some unit of mass of matter existing in different states (Solid,Liquid,Gaseous, plasma) be equal..." should we ponder upon it?

- be equal in what sense, please?

- Is it: how can different states still have the same mass? - if so, then look for Mass Conservation

- Is it: how can the same mass in different states have the same energy? - if so, then what energy are we talking about: thermal, kinetic, gravitational ? - Different states of the same mass may have different potential energy, be it kinetic, thermal, call it whatever, depending on ambient thermodynamics.

• ("...Please explain how the energy of some unit of mass of matter existing in different states [Solid,Liquid,Gaseous, plasma] be equal....")

Can any one here, make a better, more defined phrasing of the alleged question?

Is it: how can the same mass in different states have the same energy? - if so, then what energy are we talking about: thermal, kinetic, gravitational ? - Different states of the same mass may have different potential energy, be it kinetic, thermal, call it whatever, depending on ambient thermodynamics.

Different states of the same mass may have different potential energy, be it kinetic, thermal, call it whatever, depending on ambient thermodynamics.

You have said it precisely.So , what energy is implied by Einstein's E (?) in E=MC² ??

E (there) is in units of Erg

Quote - "...The erg is the standard unit of energy in the centimeter-gram-second ( cgs ) or small-unit metric system . It is an amount of energy equivalent to that expended by a force of one dyne acting over a distance of one centimeter . This is a small unit of energy, equivalent to 0.0000001 (one ten-millionth) of a joule . To convert from joules to ergs, multiply by 10 ⁷ . Conversely, multiply by 10 ^-7 .

It has been suggested that 1 erg is approximately the amount of energy required for a mosquito to take off. This unit is seldom used today, but it can be found in some older scientific literature, especially in Europe.

Compare joule . Also see energy , International System of Units ( SI ), and Table of Physical Units ..." - End of quote

It can be clearly converted.

However,

I honestly have difficulties to understand your question to Masu:

- equal in what sense please ?

Simply by examining the way you use the equation, it's obvious that you haven't got the slightest knowledge of what you're talking about. The only thing "Really" here is how really humorous your posting is.

Of course, if you were going for humor, and I simply misinterpreted it as ignorance, then I do apologize.

Herr Doktor K. profundicates:

"In a so called expanding universe (Big bang et al), how can a body be at rest or in uniform motion (where does its energy get replenished to sustain uniform motion?), will a body change its direction of motion in the direction of the disturbing force regardless of its magnitude wrt to the object; No reaction can be equal and opposite to an action even if the object acted upon is perfectly elastic-it is bound to absorb some energy before it perfectly reacts and gives off some, withholding what it needs to react!!"

---

By golly, you're absolutely right, Doctor K! I've been studying this Hubble Deep Field photo for several minutes now and not one of these galaxies has moved.

Keep up the good work.

-e

There is no spoon.

Hello europium

Yes, here it is, courtesy of my old friend

Kind Regards....

Einstein simply made it all up!!

All the engineering taught thus far is useless

Pack up your bags and go home folks, it's all an illusion. Al-Jazari, Newton etc etc.....all garbage......we've been suckered. I'm going to sit cross-legged in a dank cave, munching caterpillars, and waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive. His holistic smile will enlighten me.

Hey, vermin,

This ultra-porous nano-form of "pillared graphene", having it's fantastic surface-area, can also be your dream-material for the cell-divider membrane you were looking for in your experimental battery design, and unlike conventional polymers it is nearly, chemically inert

D.RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU,

You've got to see this!!! There's this new thing that scientists have come up with! It's called "fire." Not only doe it eat up wood, but it gives off heat and light at the same time!!!

Someday, whole communities may run off of this "fire" stuff!!!

G'day CHEMA

• If a same size of a duck -very light- Model Plain is send flying from Mexico to Canada -6500 km away- it needs at least 650 lts of fuel to physicaly acomplish the travel. It is a Masu`s real wold thing and seem to be no other way to get it there.
• However, The ducks migrate yearly from Canada to Mexico and dosent need those 600 lts of fuel to acomplish the same travel. It is a real world thing too -that Ramakrishna sees in his lense- but seem to show that there is another way to get there with little or no energy -and it dosent fit manmade physics-.

Before you analyse any problem you first have to set the parameters or boundaries you are working with. The problem with the ducks and aeroplane are no different and in this case can not be directly linked as you have stated.

Why,

The main reason is that the scale is vastly different, a duck is a small creature when compared to even the smallest of powered aircraft that are capable of the migratory flight you quoted.

Nevertheless, the world record distance for flying a glider without landing and being relaunched is over 2,000 km. That's about a third of the migratory distance you quoted with absolutely no apparent energy input.

So how does the glider pilot manage to achieve this?

Simple, he uses rising air that is moving upwards faster than the glider is moving downward to gain height and ultimately add to the potential energy the glider and pilot posses. Ultimately when the pilot has determined the glider has sufficient height to reach a given goal he/she heads towards that goal.

Migratory birds use a similar technique to gain height and you will often seed them flying round in circles rather than flapping to gain height and remain airborne.

How do I know this?

Because I have done it myself and have spent several hundred hours airborne in the glider in the photograph on the right. It has no engine, fuel or any other form of propulsion yet can remain airborne without breaking any laws of science.

When we see something that apparently happens contrary to the physical laws of science it invariably (actually to date always) means you are not looking at the problem as a whole and are not taking everything into account that you should be.

In answer to Mr Mathematical Mumbo Jumbo's ^{Note 3} question

• Please explain how the energy of some unit of mass of matter existing in different states (Solid, Liquid, Gaseous, plasma) be equal?

Well actually they aren't, however, I think what you were really trying to ask was how can Einstein's equation:

as it applies to matter be constant across the solid, liquid, gaseous and plasmatic states of matter?

The answer is it doesn't apply to normal reactions or changes of the state of matter between solid, liquid, gas and plasma. The energy Einstein is referring to is actually the relationship between matter and energy and shows that matter and energy are in reality the same thing, just different manifestations of the same it.

This energy is normally locked up in matter itself and is not easily accessed. In fact in all chemical reactions, changes of state (solid, liquid, gas & plasma) this energy takes no part and doesn't change. In order to access this energy you have to destroy matter itself and that something that is not easily achieved on Earth.

However, it is very easy to achieve on a galactic level and each of the stars you see shining in the night sky (that includes our own star the Sun) the energy you see streaming from them comes from Einstein's equation. Stars are primarily made of hydrogen which consists of a single proton and electron. However, the temperatures inside stars is too high for the electrons to remain associated with their nucleus so you end up with just hydrogen nuclei which are just single protons.

As any school student knows like charges repel and as a result the hydrogen nuclei push each other apart. However, the sheer mass of stars means that the gravity they creates is so strong that the temperature and pressure within the core of a star is high enough to overcome this electromagnetic repulsion. As a result you will have hydrogen nuclei colliding and when you push four hydrogen nuclei together they change slightly. Two of the hydrogen nuclei or protons become neutrons which then stabilize the other two hydrogen nuclei or protons so that together they form a single helium nucleus.

The problem with this is that the helium nucleus doesn't have the same mass as four protons or hydrogen nuclei which would seem to violate the law of conservation of matter. Ah, but it doesn't because the lost matter is turned into energy that radiates outward in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

Now guess what, if you measure how much energy is created by a given amount of matter being destroyed what do you think the relationship would be?

Yep, that's correct and it's a hell of a lot of energy because the E is measured in Joules ^{Note 2} not Ergs as Yuval put forward in one of the posts in this thread. To give you some sort of idea about the amount of energy in a single gram of matter its roughly 90 TJ which is around 25 million kilowatt hours of electricity.

By the way, energy and matter are really the same thing and the reason we need to add the c² bit comes from our system of measurements and numbers. We could use a different system of weights and measures so that the equation became

but it would result in a system that was particularly unwieldy and difficult to use in the world of non-nuclear physics.

In conclusion, yes the energy remains constant across the four states of matter, but the energy we are talking of is the energy that is tied up in the matter itself or rest state matter which is usually not accessible and therefore not taken into account in everyday science and physics. In reality the total energy possessed by a given object includes the normal kinetic and potential energy as well as the rest energy then it is referred to as the relativistic energy but that's a whole different story and gets extremely heavy with "mathematical mumbo jumbo".

This is as good as I can do with a wordistst's ^{Note 1} response to your question and you will have to take my word for it as to explain it properly I would have to switch from my the wordistst's hat to my physicist's hat.

Would you and any of the others following this thread like me to go into the physics behind this or is my answer sufficient as is?

Note 1 wordistst I just made that up to go with physicist and it really means wordsmith

Note 2 Joules are the standard unit of energy in the metric or SI system of weights and measures and are equivalent to kg m² s^-2 .

Note 3 Calling the science and physics engineers rely so heavily on as "mathematical mumbo jumbo" on an engineering site like this can severely damage your credibility and have long term consequences. In this case the consequence is being associated with the statement you made so from now on your stuck with being called Mr Mathematical Mumbo Jumbo.

The same miss-application was used years ago to calculate that the Kangaroo couldn't eat enough in one day to power it's leaps across the desert. Nevertheless, Oz is teeming with the things bounding all over the place, ask Masu!

What had they done wrong? Well, nothing. the amount of energy they calculated for the beasty to jump into the air was correct. The observation of how they moved was faulty. A Kangaroo bounces. Once it gets going, it's like a big rubber ball, needing only a small amount of energy to maintain.

The point? The calculations were correct, the conclusion was wrong due to poor observation. What were the calcs based on? .....

Same thing was widely said about Hummingbirds at one time. No, not how they leap across the desert ! You know, all those amazing flying skills and the energy etc etc. Somewhere I read they have the biggest brains of any bird, size-for-size. Maybe that's where the Duck thing entered this thread.

Hola Masu:

Incorrect.

I said a model plain same size of a duck -and satelite remote conrtroled- but -not sscaled up-.

Hence, the plain has to make pauses to replenish 650 lits of gasoline.

And the duck pauses too, but to rest and drink some drops of water and a few seeds for snack, since apparently -as you rightly spell it- need no energy to fly, and it is not fiction move.

As you see, both facts happen in the same real wolrd, but once again -who`s magic physics it that?-, I want to understand it rightly, to apply it in developing usefull and problem solving ideas. Dont you?.

And, going back to the topic that unlease all this debate, hydrogen cars running with H2 -from water- atracts more developers, than cars running with liquid H2 -from a tank - as we know from daily news. Check another fellow sintonized in my channel:

http://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?id=43

Hello CHEMA

Your hyperlinked weblink article and recorded sound has not factored in the proper costs of the materials which are consumed in making the hydrogen to burn in the engine.

<"....THE CAR THAT MAKES ITS OWN FUEL

Friday, February 03, 2006

A unique system that can produce Hydrogen inside a car using common metals such as Magnesium and Aluminum was developed by an Israeli company. The system solves all of the obstacles associated with the manufacturing, transporting and storing of hydrogen to be used in cars. When it becomes commercial in a few years time, the system will be incorporated into cars that will cost about the same as existing conventional cars to run, and will be completely emission free.....">

That car does not actually make its own fuel at all, and the energy which goes into making the Zinc or Magnesium or Aluminium is far greater than the energy obtained by the burning of the Hydrogen.

So the Headline is misleading at best, deceptive at worst.

All energy eventually decays to the lowest point, and that is heat energy.

The heat energy tries to raise the temperature of the created Universe, by conduction/radiation/convection.

The car may well be "emission free" but not so when you include all the mining, refining, transport, conversion, metallurgy, and all the various polluting factors which result in the Zinc/Aluminium/Magnesium etc which is transported to be reacted with water.

Just do your sums, you should easily see that I tell the truth.

I do note that it is quite common for the "alternative fuels and over-unity brigade" to exclude facts and figures which do not agree with the supposed benefits of this impossible technology.

As I have stated before: Come up with proper facts, and facts which may be tested and researched, not forgetting to add in all the figures involved, then you may be believed.

Kind Regards....

Indeed. The total energy cost and viability is the critical issue (in environmentally safe machines), not the method of production, or technique of propulsion.

However CHEMA made earlier, a simple but very interesting remark, which, if I'm not mistaken, got beyond initial development in China, and it's about pressurised-air turbine engines to be filled on the street, vial filling stations.

In general, turbine engines have excellent power to weight ratio, they need relatively low intake pressure to produce a lot of power, and air, as an intake and output gas, is relatively safe to handle , not very corrosive to proper metal construction, and environmentally safe. The range is obviousely dependant on cannister capacity, the regulation of pressure level is also an engineering consideration, but all-in-all, a simple and effective idea.

Instead of debating hydrogen to death, why not attend to this ?

I think it has a lot of substance and reason, and the total cost for building and maintenance of a good reliable support infrastructure, tentatively looks very promising.

What do you think ?

Hello Yuval

The energy required to compress that air, is not all able to be released as actual work in the turbine or engine.

The inevitable huge losses do occur.

The system efficiency of compressed air is quite low, because the medium is not dense, and unlike petrol/diesel/oil fuels the energy is not stored in a chemically bonded form which may be broken when burned.

While the "compressed air" system sounds good, when the energy required/pollution emitted in generating the electricity to run the compressor, the many losses (percentages are multiplied each step of the way), the compressed air system comes out right at the bottom for stored energy quantity.

If such were really possible, many researchers, myself included, would be cruising around right now, using that energy storage and form.

It is not generally realized how much energy density is fully available when petrol is exploded.

The rough calculations were published way back in the mid 1950's by the "Readers Digest", and I well remember that the statement went: "If a pint of petrol was fully vaporized in air, and detonated, enough energy would be released to lift the Empire State Building a foot.

From the website facts: Empire State Building Weight: 365,000 tons.

Now at that time I thought that the "Readers Digest" had made an error, but as most realize by now, petrol is rarely fully vaporized in air and detonated, generally the mixture is far richer and slower burning, thus only a small amount of the available chemical energy is released.

Kind Regards....

"The answer is it doesn't apply to normal reactions or changes of the state of matter between solid, liquid, gas and plasma. The energy Einstein is referring to is actually the relationship between matter and energy and shows that matter and energy are in reality the same thing, just different manifestations of the same it.

This energy is normally locked up in matter itself and is not easily accessed. In fact in all chemical reactions, changes of state (solid, liquid, gas & plasma) this energy takes no part and doesn't change. In order to access this energy you have to destroy matter itself and that something that is not easily achieved on Earth."

Thanks Masu for the above.This is all that was required."it doesn't apply to normal reactions or changes of the state of matter between solid, liquid, gas and plasma."..........None of the rest of the stuff.

As per our knowledge, "Energy" is an attribute of matter* and not its alter ego.If inter-molecular bonding energy is released by breaking the bonds, the so called loss of rest mass being accounted for as Energy (as having been converted from a part of that mass) is again untenable, because, Energy by definition does not have existence independent of matter. The radiation into space is due to the propagative factor of particles (closely packed) in space- does it happen in a vacuum?

*E=∑((Mass*Acceleration*Distance)/Time)*time (Duration)

Did Einstein mention rest mass? This is the mumbo jumbo that exists-interpretable in as many ways as there are physicists.Mass in the universe can never be at rest-only when it (the universe) ceases to exist in its present form and solidifies into a singularity-perhaps.

With your intimate knowledge of Physics and Mathematics, I'd've expected an award of something more than a Nobel prize.Did Einstein get his Nobel prize for this E=MC² statement? As per my information, the answer is - NO!

It would be worthwhile for all those loud speakers to do some original thinking on their own genius, instead of going into overdrive on Einstein.He had relied on J.C.Bose (an eminent Indian Professor -refer Bosons), with hardly any mention of his contributions.

Highest regards and happy landings,

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

Neils Bohr

A profound aspect of complementarity is that it not only applies to measurability or knowability of some property of a physical entity, but more importantly it applies to the limitations of that physical entity's very manifestation of the property in the physical world. All properties of physical entities exist only in pairs, which Bohr described as complementary or conjugate pairs (-which are also Fourier transform pairs). Physical reality is determined and defined by manifestations of properties which are limited by trade-offs between these complementary pairs. For example, an electron can manifest a greater and greater accuracy of its position only in even trade for a complementary loss in accuracy of manifesting its momentum. This means that there is a limitation on the precision with which an electron can possess (i.e., manifest) position, since an infinitely precise position would dictate that its manifested momentum would be infinitely imprecise, or undefined (i.e., non-manifest or not possessed), which is not possible. The ultimate limitations in precision of property manifestations are quantified by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Planck units. Complementarity and Uncertainty dictate that all properties and actions in the physical world are therefore non-deterministic to some degree.