Forget Hydrogen

[jwax]

Steven- you're driving me back to the books!
Now I have to see how many other things can be explained with "The Residue Theorem"!

[rshayes]

There are probably easier ways to explain things than the Residue Theorem. It is mainly useful for evaluating wierd contour integrals in complex algebra. For example, sometimes you can evaluate an integral from minus infinity to plus infinity by integrating along a contour that consists of the real axis with a semicircle of infinite radius connecting the ends at infinity. Sometimes, you can show that the semicircle is zero at all points and thus the integral of that part of the contour is zero. The integral of the section along the real axis is then equal to the integral around the entire contour. But this integral is equal to the residues at any singular points enclosed by the contour. If there are only a few singular points, this may be much easier to compute that evaluating the integral directly.<p>The basic idea, from a physical point of view, is that the potential energy in a field (either electric, magnetic, or gravitational) is a single-valued function of its position. If this is true, then the work done to move an object from one point to another depends only on the change in potential energy betweeen the two points and not on the path taken between them. If the end point is the same as the start point, then the change in potential energy will be zero, and no net work will have been done.<p>[ August 25, 2005: Message edited by: stephen ]</p>

[Robert Reed]

I had a fall from a tree a few years ago and for that brief moment in time ,while accelerating, I knew I was losing weight and hoped to be light as a feather SOON. But wouldn't you know it, at the exact moment my body met earth I was back to my 180 pounds----DANG!!

[cwaugs]

On the Pogue carburetor,
It worked alright--at the time. The problem is as soon as it was set up for production-"or at the time it was set up for production" was at the same time the fuel manufacturers started thermal cracking fuel. Not sure if that is the correct terminology as it would seem to me that the term "cracking" would indicate "decomposing" the structure of fuel. Anyhow Pogue had many proverbial "irons in the fire" so to speak and held quite a few patents back when patents were something to hold so he wasn't "ruined" by his carb taking a dump. Just think about it though, why do we build fuel that don't completely burn, and then build things to completely burn fuel (I.E. cat converters) and ways to get rid of the rest of the energy that is converted into heat (which is the reason we burn fuel in the first place)? Something to ponder while we "buy into" (emphasis on buy) the system. Emmett

[Chris Smith]

Its called Catalytic Cracking. They use hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst to grow more strands, strings or chains of the fuel they want from the more complex strands that crude oil is made of. <p>And 75% of all the energy in gas, goes out the tail pipe and radiator while only 25% is used in forward motion.<p>This fact limits all increases in gas milage due to the fact that you can only squeeze a stone just so far?

[josmith]

Most of the inefficiency of a normal internal combustion engine is a consequence of the heat cycle it uses. The working fluid is heated once and discarded. Most of the combustion heat goes with it. Unburned fuel results from the mixture being cooled below combustion temperature by the cylinder walls A catalytic converter allows this unburned fuel to ignite at a lower temperature for the sole purpose of reducing HC emissions. No carburetor will undo either of these problems.

[terri]

Two quotes interest me:<p>From the DePalma article:<p> "DePalma may have been right in that there is indeed a situation here whereby energy is being obtained from a previously unknown and unexplained source."<p>From Mike:<p>"I don't belive this. No matter how hard you try this just isn't possible. There is NO POSSIBLE way to make 5 times the energy requred to power the device. Why do people waste their time trying to do something that is physically impossible?"<p>While conservation of energy is the Law (and I obey it, of course), this does not preclude the possibility that some device configuration might be possible which taps another energy source in previously unknown ways.<p>As an example, it is possible to obtain a voltage from a wire (not much current, hence not much power) stuck up in the air. This voltage is not due to friction due to the wind, or EMF generated by impinging radio waves. It is just there, because there is a difference in the number of free electrons with altitude. (There was an article in Scientific American a couple of decades ago on this phenomenon.)<p>Okay, now a lot of people are going to jump on this without understanding why I brought up this phenomenon --it is not a proposal to obtain "free energy," so don't call me out on that account.<p>The reason for this example is to illustrate that if the average scientist/engineer/tinkerer stuck the aforesaid wire up in the air and observed this voltage, and eliminated all the other variables without knowing that there is an actual potential difference with altitude, there might be the appearance of "free enregy," where in truth, it was just energy from a previously unsuspected source.<p>So. Point: There may well be experiments or tinkerings going on which might be tapping energy in unknown ways, and which would give the appreance of "free energy," where in reality, they are just converting it from some other previously unrecognized source.<p>One problem, of course, is that most of the time, the phenomenon observed is rather delicate in nature. I recall that all kinds of special precautions were necessary to observe the potential difference with altitude --which made it difficult to get a handle on it --which affected its "reproducibility."<p>The other problem is with the tendency to "capitalize" on any such phenomenon prematurely. This of course results in the "sales hype" mentioned several times in the above posts.<p>The last quote which interests me is from Matt Nuzum: "When a co-worker comes to you about an idea... remember that ideas are fragile, personal things. Even if it's a perpetual motion machine, take it seriously... be gracious." <p>Matt Nuzum is quoting the article here, of course, but I cannot help but agree with him that this is good advice.<p>After all, getting electricity from a spinning disc in a magneic field? Shades of Michael Faraday! Why this is contrary to all known physical law!<p>And I wonder about our arrogance in assuming we know all physical law.<p>[ September 01, 2005: Message edited by: terri ]</p>

[jwax]

Exactly, terri!
An open mind is essential to explore the mysteries of nature, and do not involve "fooling Mother Nature" in any way.
Thanks again guys!

[cwaugs]

I totally agree that no carb ever built will burn the sludge they sell us for $3-6.00 a gallon. the formulation is the problem.

[Chris Smith]

The trick of the gas motor is to find out how to use that wasted heat. It represents 75% of all the energy in a gallon of gas, and yet it is wasted completely. <p>So the fact that the energy is there means we can find a way to use it, and its not fooling nature, its using nature and the laws of conserving energy, if we solve the puzzle.<p>Remember the Turbo knows how to recoup some of this wasted energy.

[sofaspud]

My own reading of Gerard Fonte's column was also, "When a co-worker comes to you about an idea... remember that ideas are fragile, personal things. Even if it's a perpetual motion machine, take it seriously... be gracious." I have not taken it upon myself to revise his statement so that "a co-worker" becomes "absolutely anyone." I agreed with his statement as printed. No change was necessary.

[Will]

" After all, getting electricity from a spinning disc in a magnetic field ' doesn't this contradict all the laws of physics "<p> Let's not confuse the issue with over-simplification - electric generators based upon the initial discoveries of Michael Faraday do not produce energy - they simply convert it from one form to another i.e. If an electric generator puts out (has a connected load of) 0.746 kW then it needs the order of 1.05 hp mechanical energy input via its' shaft. If its' driven by a gasoline engine then it probably requires the order of 4.2 hp i/p.
We can and do use gravity to generate electric power - the trouble is that if you use the effect of gravity on (say) a falling weight to produce power then you either have to haul up the weight again or leave it in a pile at the bottom and use another one. The Blenheim Hydro-electric power plant in NY state uses gravity (Falling water) to produce electricity during the day. During the night it runs its' generators as motors and its' turbines as pumps and pumps some of the water back up into the reservoir. Since the turbines/pumps/motors run at reasonable efficiency (83 - 86% I believe) that doesn't sound too bad - but when the fact that said overnight electricity is produced by thermal power plants (Which also run during the day) operating at efficiencies of the order of 30% - it doesn't look so bright. It can, apparently, be justified by obviating the necessity for duplicate thermal plants.

[Bernius1]

Excellent observation, Will. But remember, in NYS, the the right and left hands of commerce and jurisprudence are Nepotism and the Almighty Dollar.
Sad, but true. So WHO builds the plant , and WHO benefits HOW MUCH from its operation determine its existence. Like toll booths.
Re: the car(b); Fossil fuels will most likely run out in our lifetime, so our 'chemical dependency' will have to be revised. And , contrary to public ignorance, Nuclear is the best available energy density. Hmmmmm... an incendiary comment ??

[terri]

Let's not confuse the issue with over-complication, either. The point was not that energy appeared from nowhere in Faraday's experiment. We all know where it came from.<p>Nowadays.<p>An ex-post facto understanding of the phenomenon, especially a couple of decades later, when the phenomenon becomes almost "second-nature" and well-understood, does not diminish the initial surprise at the unexpected results --and does not diminish the question-marks which occur.<p>Imagine the surprise when the first "tinkerer" immersed a dye from a plant in vinegar, and then into a lye solution, and watched the colors change back and forth from this treatment.<p>I'm sure we now know exactly what bonds are shifted such that the "litmus paper" changes color under baths of hydrogen ions versus a bath of hydroxyl ions.<p>But what a surprise, when it was first observed!<p>And, no doubt, to some, the phenomenon was "contrary to all the laws of nature!"<p>At least then. To some. Faraday, of course, had a pretty good idea what would happen, otherwise he would not have built the first homopolar generator.<p>My plaint and plea is for us to open our eyes to the possibility that we do not know all the laws of nature.<p>My plaint and plea is for us to not "knock" a purported observation just because we don't understand exactly what might be going on, or because its reproducibilty is on the low end of the "reproducibility scale."<p>Of course, one should not naively just "take things for granted" in these matters, just because someone reported an observation.<p>But to offhandedly dismiss observations that are in William James' "dustcloud of the unexplained residuum of scientific observations," to me, smacks of the utmost provincialism in science. Science, after all, is supposed to seek knowledge, not just passively sit on present knowledge.<p>And one cannot seek if one's brain is hidebound by what one simply knows now, at this point in time.<p>And to some, Becquerel's observation of the fogging of photographic plates by ordinary rocks.... was.... guess what...?<p>...contrary to the known laws of nature.

[Chris Smith]

Keeping our sights simple, we can reclaim the energy that is wasted every day in gas motors, tidal movements, water falling, the wind and sun. These are realistic goals because they are there, they exist, and we are ignoring them for the most. <p>A turbine driving off a exhaust pipe driving a generator reclaims what would otherwise go out the tail pipe untapped. As much as 25% of the theoretical wasted energy of a gas motor can be reclaimed [not including electrical loss] and the same goes for tidal power, wind power, etc. <p>This is where we need to focus. <p>We walk around, side step, and dance around this untaped energy in search of a golden fleece, which is so typical of man kind. Cant see the trees from the forest.