fuel from Air

[scothunter 12,609]

is there not batteries that run off h20?

[pip1968 2,490]

free energy been out for years just that ruleing bodies brushed it under the carpet

[Born Hunter 17,640]

free energy been out for years just that ruleing bodies brushed it under the carpet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-CFU4MjaTA

 

Go on then...... enlighten us?

[pip1968 2,490]

free energy been out for years just that ruleing bodies brushed it under the carpet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-CFU4MjaTA

 

Go on then...... enlighten us?

well if they are made bigger they can be used to run turbines that charge batteries up that suply houses and most other things

use your imagination

[Born Hunter 17,640]

]It's based in France but its an international venture.

 

They're working on this now, it's forecast to output 10 times the energy it takes to run:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

 

Then if that all works out they're aiming for this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO

 

I'd like to be around to see it work!

 

I'll have a read.

 

Just to clarify about my statement "If they have produced something that's output energy is greater than it's input, they have created a perpetual motion machine!". It was specifically about the air+water to get a hydrocarbon to run an engine on because when the hydrocarbon is burnt it gives CO2 and H2O again (which were the initial reactance). You would in this case be creating energy from absolutely nothing. Even at 100% efficiency (which is near impossible and certainly impractical) it would only produce an equal amount of usable energy as what it took to make.

 

Obviously with a fusion reaction the stuff that goes in isn't the same as what comes out, so it doesn't break "thermal dynamics" ( )........... ahem, thermodynamics. Part of the input materials (essentially hydrogen) mass is converted to energy through that famous little equation that just about everybody knows...... Essentially the input energy does not exceed the output, it's just that matter is converted to energy so it appears that way.

 

Just wanted to clear that up incase I had missled you with my coment.

[Born Hunter 17,640]

well if they are made bigger they can be used to run turbines that charge batteries up that suply houses and most other things

use your imagination

 

Sorry, I can't see the vid. Didn't realise what you were on about. Can you give me a name so I can google it?

[scothunter 12,609]

if you dont mind me asking born,what do you do as a job?

[pip1968 2,490]

well if they are made bigger they can be used to run turbines that charge batteries up that suply houses and most other things

use your imagination

 

Sorry, I can't see the vid. Didn't realise what you were on about. Can you give me a name so I can google it?

george green free energy its on project camalot very intresting to watch

[Lab 10,979]

]It's based in France but its an international venture.

 

They're working on this now, it's forecast to output 10 times the energy it takes to run:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

 

Then if that all works out they're aiming for this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO

 

I'd like to be around to see it work!

 

I'll have a read.

 

Just to clarify about my statement "If they have produced something that's output energy is greater than it's input, they have created a perpetual motion machine!". It was specifically about the air+water to get a hydrocarbon to run an engine on because when the hydrocarbon is burnt it gives CO2 and H2O again (which were the initial reactance). You would in this case be creating energy from absolutely nothing. Even at 100% efficiency (which is near impossible and certainly impractical) it would only produce an equal amount of usable energy as what it took to make.

 

Obviously with a fusion reaction the stuff that goes in isn't the same as what comes out, so it doesn't break "thermal dynamics" ( )........... ahem, thermodynamics. Part of the input materials (essentially hydrogen) mass is converted to energy through that famous little equation that just about everybody knows...... Essentially the input energy does not exceed the output, it's just that matter is converted to energy so it appears that way.

 

Just wanted to clear that up incase I had missled you with my coment.

I agree with that.....

[Born Hunter 17,640]

if you dont mind me asking born,what do you do as a job?

 

I'm a Physicist in the loose sense of the term. I work for a large American oil services company in R&D. The area I work in essentially makes stuff that finds hydrocarbons and to a lesser extent minerals like Iron ore. It's not particularly exciting but I suppose it's a good starting point on for my career. I would like to go into more purist research but that doesn't pay the bills quite so well and tbh there's a lot better minds out there than mine.

[Born Hunter 17,640]

george green free energy its on project camalot very intresting to watch

 

First link I found http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/meier/gaiaguys/georgegreen.htm

 

There's no such thing as free energy mate.

[gnasher16 29,679]

I'll have a read.

 

Just to clarify about my statement "If they have produced something that's output energy is greater than it's input, they have created a perpetual motion machine!". It was specifically about the air+water to get a hydrocarbon to run an engine on because when the hydrocarbon is burnt it gives CO2 and H2O again (which were the initial reactance). You would in this case be creating energy from absolutely nothing. Even at 100% efficiency (which is near impossible and certainly impractical) it would only produce an equal amount of usable energy as what it took to make.

 

Obviously with a fusion reaction the stuff that goes in isn't the same as what comes out, so it doesn't break "thermal dynamics" ( )........... ahem, thermodynamics. Part of the input materials (essentially hydrogen) mass is converted to energy through that famous little equation that just about everybody knows...... Essentially the input energy does not exceed the output, it's just that matter is converted to energy so it appears that way.

 

Just wanted to clear that up incase I had missled you with my coment.

 

Look stop f****n about......OBVIOUSLY with a fusion reaction the stuff that go,s in aint the same as what comes out we know that what do you think we are daft !!!..............Tell us something we dont know....

I would tell you my opinion but i cant be bothered

 

 

Edited to add.................Born Hunter,you are possibly the brainiest bod i have ever communicated with.................not sure if that says more about me or you though

Edited November 20, 2012 by gnasher16

[Buch 145]

My understanding is that this technology has been around for a while. The problem is is that hydrogen is extremely explosive. So it is therefore very difficult to store safely in the domestic environment. With regards to its uses think of it more as a means of energy storage than production. Hydrogen is a fairly common product of many industrial processes. It could also be created when energy demands are low like sar night by methods such as wind or hydroelectric ect that are generally running at a constant rate.

[Malt 379]

]It's based in France but its an international venture.

 

They're working on this now, it's forecast to output 10 times the energy it takes to run:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

 

Then if that all works out they're aiming for this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO

 

I'd like to be around to see it work!

 

I'll have a read.

 

Just to clarify about my statement "If they have produced something that's output energy is greater than it's input, they have created a perpetual motion machine!". It was specifically about the air+water to get a hydrocarbon to run an engine on because when the hydrocarbon is burnt it gives CO2 and H2O again (which were the initial reactance). You would in this case be creating energy from absolutely nothing. Even at 100% efficiency (which is near impossible and certainly impractical) it would only produce an equal amount of usable energy as what it took to make.

 

Obviously with a fusion reaction the stuff that goes in isn't the same as what comes out, so it doesn't break "thermal dynamics" ( )........... ahem, thermodynamics. Part of the input materials (essentially hydrogen) mass is converted to energy through that famous little equation that just about everybody knows...... Essentially the input energy does not exceed the output, it's just that matter is converted to energy so it appears that way.

 

Just wanted to clear that up incase I had missled you with my coment.

I got you, just threw the fusion thing in because it was a thread about energy and something I'd recently read somewhere!

 

I'm not overly familiar with the 3 laws of thermodynamics, but doesn't one of them basically state that energy can neither be created, multiplied or destroyed, just changed from one form to another? There's a lot of stuff popping into my head about atrophy and thermal energy always trying to dissipate to colder surroundings but I'm not using my brain often enough to be able to join the dots and quote stuff without looking it up!

[Lab 10,979]

I'll have a read.

 

Just to clarify about my statement "If they have produced something that's output energy is greater than it's input, they have created a perpetual motion machine!". It was specifically about the air+water to get a hydrocarbon to run an engine on because when the hydrocarbon is burnt it gives CO2 and H2O again (which were the initial reactance). You would in this case be creating energy from absolutely nothing. Even at 100% efficiency (which is near impossible and certainly impractical) it would only produce an equal amount of usable energy as what it took to make.

 

Obviously with a fusion reaction the stuff that goes in isn't the same as what comes out, so it doesn't break "thermal dynamics" ( )........... ahem, thermodynamics. Part of the input materials (essentially hydrogen) mass is converted to energy through that famous little equation that just about everybody knows...... Essentially the input energy does not exceed the output, it's just that matter is converted to energy so it appears that way.

 

Just wanted to clear that up incase I had missled you with my coment.

 

Look stop f****n about......OBVIOUSLY with a fusion reaction the stuff that go,s in aint the same as what comes out we know that what do you think we are daft !!!..............Tell us something we dont know....

I would tell you my opinion but i cant be bothered

 

 

Edited to add.................Born Hunter,you are possibly the brainiest bod i have ever communicated with.................not sure if that says more about me or you though

I think taking Biology and Chemistry at school has left me at a disadvantage on this thread.................