Why it's good to fight the status quo

[corporate joe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZOsOB3z3IE

Newer better technologies have been held back long enough, just so a select few can fill their pockets. Say No to Oil.

[THEICEMAN]

That's incredible!

[Snowgoose]

Electrolysis is nothing new. A buddy of mine is an engineer at Hydrogenics and company that produces hydrogen making machines. Problem is that it takes more energy to electrolyze water that you get back when you burn it. So you have to get the surplus energy from somewhere, ie oil, solar, water.

Those old albums you used to spin on your record player, they're made of PVC, poly vinyl chloride. Part of the process is electrolyzing salt water for the chlorine source.

As for the cold tipped torch. I would like to know what the tip is made of. Some metals don't conduct heat, and the burning process is outside of the torch with a cool jet of air (the gases) behind it.

[ottawa,kan]

Just amazing to me that people still believe in the "perpetual motion machine" I realize that it's tougher than counting change, but you need to be able to follow the energy inputs AND the outputs. Anybody remember cold fusion??

[TopperHarley]

Electrolysis is nothing new. A buddy of mine is an engineer at Hydrogenics and company that produces hydrogen making machines. Problem is that it takes more energy to electrolyze water that you get back when you burn it. So you have to get the surplus energy from somewhere, ie oil, solar, water.

Those old albums you used to spin on your record player, they're made of PVC, poly vinyl chloride. Part of the process is electrolyzing salt water for the chlorine source.

As for the cold tipped torch. I would like to know what the tip is made of. Some metals don't conduct heat, and the burning process is outside of the torch with a cool jet of air (the gases) behind it.

Nerd!!!!

[Mr. North]

It was aired in '06... Rest assured, the all-powerful Oil Gods emerged from the darkness to discredit his claims, destroy his finances, bury his standing in society, and lastly terminate whatever sex life he may have enjoyed. How dare he challenge big bad oil!

[Phaedrus]

Yeah, we also need to be wary of the toxicity when dealing with potentially lethal substances like dihydrogen-monoxide.

[Blakey]

Yeah, we also need to be wary of the toxicity when dealing with potentially lethal substances like dihydrogen-monoxide.

Ah; so you didn't skip all your chemistry classes then!

[corporate joe]

It was aired in '06... Rest assured, the all-powerful Oil Gods emerged from the darkness to discredit his claims, destroy his finances, bury his standing in society, and lastly terminate whatever sex life he may have enjoyed. How dare he challenge big bad oil!

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. It's not a new technology, but some guy somewhere made something of it. Then there's that guy in the states who can get 100 mpg out of a Lincoln Continental, cut emissions by 80%, and double the horsepower all with spare parts (I posted this before but here goes : http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120 ... ssiah.html). Then there's that guy in France who modified his Diesel Renault again with spare parts and dropped emission by 80% and boosted fuel economy by 20% all from his basement. These people are all over the world making this stuff in their garage, yet the technologies aren't seeing the light of day. In a true free market, cleaner more efficient technologies should replace older more polluting ones. Yet that's not the case with Oil. There is collusion and monopoly from oil companies violating those market laws and preventing technologies from truly competing. An unhealthy dependence is forced down our throats. The many are paying for the select few, regardless of the consequences on our environment, on our economy and personal finance (with an ever increasing cost) and on the world as they try to secure more of it (middle east anyone?).

Seriously it's time to wake up, regardless of where you stand on carbon emissions. We need to get rid of our oil dependency.

[Snowgoose]

I'll let you in on another secret. The reason why hydrogen is not that popular as a motor fuel yet is its volatility. Fill a house with propane or natural gas (which are car fuels these days) and strike a match. The front door goes flying across the street, all the windows blow out and you'll probably have a nice fire. Do that with hydrogen and it disintegrates your house and probably the neighbours as well. You might find your roof a couple blocks over. Not so hot if you have a tank of that stuff in your car and get into an accident.

Plus, you need electricity to produce hydrogen. If you have a heat based (i.e. coal, natural gas) plant the highest efficiency you have is 66% (fuel energy consumed to usable power). In reality it's about 30-35% of the energy released in the fuel that can be converted into power. It goes up a bit if you have a co-generation plant (electricity and heat). So now you have this electricity and make hydrogen. You burn it in your car. You have a maximum of 66% efficiency, which in reality is about 30-35%. So if you burn 1000 horsepower of fuel you will get 90-120 horsepower with the hydrogen deal. Burn 1000 horsepower of gas and you get 300-350 horsepower.

If you're interested. The maximum Carnot efficiency, (not identified in this article is 65-66% IIRC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s ... ynamics%29

The alternative a couple years ago was the Ballard Power Cell. The membranes (the part that makes a fuel cell work) cost too much. They just sold that division.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... highlight=

Solar is expensive and so is wind power and geothermal. That leaves hydroelectric which is utilized to it's maximum amount.

There's no conspiracy, it's all about what people are willing to spend. Why do you think all the manufacturing jobs are moving to China? Labour is 10 cents an hour. There's container ships circling the globe (burning heavy fuel oil) so people can have a cheap pairs of sneakers.

[Snowgoose]

Nerd!!!!

Don't make me send . your way

[corporate joe]

I'll let you in on another secret. The reason why hydrogen is not that popular as a motor fuel yet is its volatility. Fill a house with propane or natural gas (which are car fuels these days) and strike a match. The front door goes flying across the street, all the windows blow out and you'll probably have a nice fire. Do that with hydrogen and it disintegrates your house and probably the neighbours as well. You might find your roof a couple blocks over. Not so hot if you have a tank of that stuff in your car and get into an accident.

Plus, you need electricity to produce hydrogen. If you have a heat based (i.e. coal, natural gas) plant the highest efficiency you have is 66% (fuel energy consumed to usable power). In reality it's about 30-35% of the energy released in the fuel that can be converted into power. It goes up a bit if you have a co-generation plant (electricity and heat). So now you have this electricity and make hydrogen. You burn it in your car. You have a maximum of 66% efficiency, which in reality is about 30-35%. So if you burn 1000 horsepower of fuel you will get 90-120 horsepower with the hydrogen deal. Burn 1000 horsepower of gas and you get 300-350 horsepower.

If you're interested. The maximum Carnot efficiency, (not identified in this article is 65-66% IIRC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s ... ynamics%29

The alternative a couple years ago was the Ballard Power Cell. The membranes (the part that makes a fuel cell work) cost too much. They just sold that division.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... highlight=

Solar is expensive and so is wind power and geothermal. That leaves hydroelectric which is utilized to it's maximum amount.

There's no conspiracy, it's all about what people are willing to spend. Why do you think all the manufacturing jobs are moving to China? Labour is 10 cents an hour. There's container ships circling the globe (burning heavy fuel oil) so people can have a cheap pairs of sneakers.

Demand is related to offer which is related to cost (or profit potential) which is related to demand. Manipulating one of those key factors automatically affects the other two. That's what's happening right now mixed with a bit of misinformation. Think of the oil sands in Alberta. At first the cost to extract them did not justify the extraction. As cost of oil increased around the world and technologies allowed for cheaper extraction, the cost was justified and the extraction began. So what SEEMED to expensive at first became viable because of free market laws. The same market laws should be making alternative fuel sources viable, but they're not.

The first major problem is that the real cost of oil is not being factored in. We're partially paying for what it costs to extract, refine and distribute. We're not paying for what it costs to burn it not to mention the side costs that come with extraction (pollution) and securing it (geo-political issues). Oil should be a lot more expensive than it is now if all those costs were factored in. If we were paying the true cost of oil, we would reconsider our position on which technology seems more expensive. The second major problem is that alternative technologies that could directly compete with oil are not given a fair market chance. Economical bullying is taking place as well collusion within the few large players controlling too many marbles. The influence is not only economical but political. People all over the world are getting REAL results in efficiency at low cost (check those links out) but those results are not being mass-marketed. Hydrogen is only one example of so many and even though there isn't a perfect solution, there's definitely better ones out there. Some would say that there's even a conspiracy where the oil industry is buying out those technologies and burying them. Maybe, maybe not. That's speculation at the moment. However, the previous points have nothing to do with that conspiracy theory. Market manipulation is on the other hand evident regardless of your stance on the conspiracy.

Finally there's the infrastructure argument. The infrastructure for oil is already there, it's too expensive to change it (gas stations). That's a flawed argument because oil isn't going to last forever and when it runs out, if we need to make a sudden and drastic change in the infra-structure rather than a gradual preemptive conservative change, the cost of will be much higher. Also, it's like the chicken and the egg problem. If the infrastructure is not put in place, people will not buy cars with alternative technologies (demand) because the infrastructure doesn't support that alternative choice (offer). Inversely, investors won't build another infrastructure (offer) because the demand isn't there. Something has to give. The status quo has been in place for so long that better technologies SEEM to costly, but in reality it's market manipulation and established beliefs that's not allowing a level playing field. We've been using the same base fuel for over 100 years, yet our technology has advanced drastically. What's missing is the will to change because of the profit potential for a few individuals (profit most of us aren't benefiting from, on the contrary).

[xsbank]

Hi Joe!

Goose, I think you're confusing the relative efficiency of fuels with their relative ability to release energy per volume measure of fuel. The vessel you burn it in is how you achieve efficiency. For example, I just replaced an old gas furnace that, at best, was 60% efficient, meaning that only 60% of the fuel actually heated the house, the rest was just lost to the environment. My new furnace is 96% efficient, which means that only 4% of the fuel does not heat the house. Course, this machine cost $4500 and will take about 10 years to break even in fuel savings, but there ya go.

Another example is my Golf - old VW diesels were just gas engines converted to diesel and were very inefficient (better still than gas) witness the black smoke. My new diesel doesn't smoke and is so efficient that it needs electric "glow plugs" in the water jacket to give you cabin heat. If you start it in the morning and leave it, the temperature gauge won't move all day as almost all of the fuel goes to running the engine and very little is lost to the atmosphere. The glow plugs (not to be confused with engine-start glow-plugs) really don't help.

Gasoline engines produce lots of waste heat and are therefore very inefficient. When gas cars have no heat coming out of their exhaust pipes and the engine gets cold at idle like my diesel (getting stuck in traffic in Montreal in the winter meant getting cold in the car!) you will be approaching a more efficient, fuel-saving gas engine.

Both of these are examples of technology improving and reducing the consumption of the same old fuel.

I read somewhere that if the US bought just 10% of its cars as diesel, they would not have to import any oil from the Middle East.

[Snowgoose]

Nope actually not confused.

We used a P51 example when I was in engineering school. That's probably why I payed attention

It has a 1600 horsepower engine. That's the work able to be done by the crank after burning fuel.

The energy released from the fuel in order to get that is about 5000 horsepower. Some is lost in mechanical inefficiencies, a large portion is lost through exhaust heat.

That's 32% efficiency.

That's what Carnot is saying. An engine that relies on heat can only be so efficient. The maximum is 65-66%

On your furnace you are talking about Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) (not engine efficiency)

The efficiency of new furnaces is measured by the annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE), a measure of seasonal performance. Furnaces today are between 78% AFUE and 96% AFUE. Traditional "power combustion" furnaces are 80-82% AFUE. Above 90% AFUE, a furnace is "condensing," which means it recaptures some of the heat wasted in traditional systems by condensing escaping water vapor.

Basically the fuel burned produces 100% heat.

Your furnace is able to capture 96% of it and pump it into the house. The other 4% goes out the chimney.

Remember the EGT gauge on an engine. It's really hot, like hundreds of degrees F. That's energy being dumped overboard, and there's no real way to use it.

[Walker]

Remember the EGT gauge on an engine. It's really hot, like hundreds of degrees F. That's energy being dumped overboard, and there's no real way to use it.

What about the 6+ stroke engine?



And I would beg to differ on the idea that big oil would gobble this guy up and make him go away. In my mind its in big oils best interest to have this sort of thing on the news..... Why you ask? well the same reason its in their best interest to have people talking about H2, etc.... Because most of these are totally bunk ideas that would be extraordinarily expensive to implement, there is no available infrastructure to support these technologies, and there are numerous environmental, social and macro economic issues that are likely going to preclude the mass implementation of these technologies for the foreseeable future, if not indefinitely. However by putting these sorts of things on TV, (Geese guys look at the source FOX NEWS?!!?!?) from a sociological perspective its likely going to have the effect of disarming peoples drive to actively seek out FEASIBLE alternatives NOW.
And alternatives go beyond biofules etc (which are also highly dubious as for large scale feasibility.) Rather alternatives would be living and working in denser locals. Purchasing locally produced products and foods, not having a need to jump in a car to drive to wallmart to buy a bundle of bananas that was shipped from the other side of the world. Rather walking to the farmers market to buy apples, that were grown in an orchard 12km away. Issues of city design, social norms, and national/international economic structure is really where we should be looking, a car in everyones garage is unfortunately not a sustainable idea, irregardless if they run on gas, biodiesl, electricity, hydrogen, fat people, or clown excrement. All will require an energy input and energy supply is finite, and remember H2, HHO, electric, etc all need electricity as an input. In most of the world the main source of electrical production is still Coal, (I think North America is ~60-70% coal, but someone look it up please.) And don't put all your faith in wind/solar/tidal/geotherm, they all have major limiting issues... Maybe nuclear is a conceivable alternative, but we all know how the hippy, turned SUV driving soccer dad/mom crowd feels about that.

It is in big oli's best interest to keep consumption maximized until we truly do start running dry,

[Dust Devil]

The oil companies could give a shit if people use oil till the end of time. People who blame the oil companies for killing alternative fuels know nothing about business. The fact is if any of the alternative fuels were economical the oil companies would be all over it to make a buck. The fact is due to the infrastructure that is in place no other source of energy in more economical than oil. People should not think of these companies as "oil companies" they are "energy companies" and when the technology and infrastructure are economical you will see the companies shift their direction.

[corporate joe]

The oil companies could give a @#$! if people use oil till the end of time. People who blame the oil companies for killing alternative fuels know nothing about business. The fact is if any of the alternative fuels were economical the oil companies would be all over it to make a buck. The fact is due to the infrastructure that is in place no other source of energy in more economical than oil. People should not think of these companies as "oil companies" they are "energy companies" and when the technology and infrastructure are economical you will see the companies shift their direction.

Almost but not quite. You're missing a key point. It is true that if oil companies could make a buck with an alternative energy source they would be all over it in a second. It is also true that due to the current infrastructure that the oil companies have invested in, there are no other sources of energy as profitable FOR THEM. That does not mean that there are no other more efficient and less costly sources out there, for another company that did not invest in the current infrastructure. Oil companies have to account for their current infrastructure cost to determine what is profitable, the market of offer and demand does not. That's why another energy source may not be profitable for oil companies but may be beneficial for the rest of the economy by being more efficient. Usually market laws will take care of something like that on their own, where a better product (alternative energy) will spur demand from the consumer and replace the older less efficient fuel source that oil is. However to protect their interests and profit oil companies are violating our market laws to make sure that the energy source being used is the one most profitable for THEM, and not for the rest of the market.