Forget Hydrogen

This is the place for any magazine-related discussions that don't fit in any of the column discussion boards below.
User avatar
jwax
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 1:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Forget Hydrogen

Post by jwax » Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:08 am


User avatar
jollyrgr
Posts: 1289
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Northern Illinois
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by jollyrgr » Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:28 pm

This is always one of the most interesting lines of the story:
"Physicist Bruce DePalma has a 100 kilowatt generator, which he invented, sitting in his garage. It could power his whole house, but if he turns it on, the government may confiscate it."<p>For years I heard the story of the carburetor that would get 80 to hundreds of miles to the gallon of gasoline. Oil companies or "the government" would come and take these things away. Post the plans on a web site or send it as spam so that THOUSANDS of people can make their own. The Genie, as the saying goes, would be out of the bottle. <p>It is funny how real things such as programs to generate activation keys for software, programs for pirating satellite signals, or even gadgets for turning red lights green can so easily be found. But nobody can find one of these free energy devices in operation. But yet "the government" will know instantly when one of these free energy devices is activated and will come and take it away.<p>Thanks, jwax, you pulled my string and got me going! :)
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. But billions of electrons, photons, and electromagnetic waves were terribly inconvenienced!

Newz2000
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Newz2000 » Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:49 pm

Let me quote from Gerard Fonte's interesting In the Trenches article from the August 2005 Nuts & Volts (on the subject of listening to new ideas and how it can sometimes be difficult):
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>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.<hr></blockquote>
I think this is wise advice. It would be interesting to see an honest evaluation from a reputable journal on this subject. <p>By the way, the quote was from page 90, first and second paragraph under "Recognizing Good Ideas (Peer-to-Peer)."<p>[ August 13, 2005: Message edited by: Matt Nuzum ]</p>

Mike
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Mike » Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:53 pm

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>Sure something like this would be amazing, but until the world magically changes so energy can be manufactured from a big box of magnets, It's not going to happen.

User avatar
dr_when
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Milwaukee
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by dr_when » Sat Aug 13, 2005 2:44 pm

Hi,<p>I think Jolly Roger hit the nail on the head. It does not really matter what one thinks and you would go nuts trying to figure out who is lying and who isn't. All the great stories of the government squashing all the free energy inventors. Like anything else that really works, various people would stumble on "it" and be doing it themselves. It's pretty difficult this day and age to keep a good idea secret.
"Who is John Galt?"

User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 4325
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Bieber Ca.

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Chris Smith » Sat Aug 13, 2005 3:27 pm

I prefer those X-Ray Glasses in the back of comic books, Far more realistic and only a fraction of the cost.

User avatar
philba
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by philba » Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:15 pm

I keep an open mind but when an article starts with a conspiracy theory, it closes pretty quick. Even worse, the article never explained why the gov't would consficate it. <p>It is truely the case that if this gizmo was relatively easy to build then there should be lots of them out there. DePalma has a "paper" that google found that purports to give this technology "with no copyright, as a gift to the world". Funny, copyright protects the expression of the words, not the invention itself.

User avatar
jwax
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 1:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by jwax » Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:42 pm

I don't beleive this guy built a free energy machine any more than I did.
However, to say it isn't possible is to presume all is already known about the subject.
Think of this: A magnet can pick up an object against the force of gravity. (We put no energy in!) It will do this 10 times, 100 times, or a billion times. Explaining the source of that apparently limitless energy is what needs pursuing, don't you think?
"What the Bleep do we Know?"
:D

Robert Reed
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:01 am
Location: ASHTABULA,OHIO
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Robert Reed » Sat Aug 13, 2005 5:14 pm

Jolly Roger
Concerning the carburetor issue. I first heard of this in the late fifties. It was known as the "Pogue" carburetor, named after the man who invented it. Supposed to give a minimum of 75 miles per gallon. It wasn't the government who intercepted it, it was the oil companys that bought up the patent rights when they expired on their 17 year limit at that time, so the story goes. This invention was batted around mechanics magazines for several years after, and then dissapeared as it slowly lost steam.I never believed this was possible and as a matter of interest, no article ever mentioned what type of vehicle got this fantastic mileage (a soap box derby racer perhaps? ).
I've always put this in the class of the elusive brand new WW11 army jeep (still packed in cosmolene) that was supposed to sell for $50 on the government surplus market. Neither one was ever found, but it sure had a lot of people looking (and with their tongues hanging out) for a lot of years.

User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 4325
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Bieber Ca.

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Chris Smith » Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:06 pm

Robert, they never do the math?.....<p>Considering that every pound of Gas has its limits, and that is a finite number of BTUs, [I believe 17,000 per pound of fuel/ Cant remember if thats imperial gallons? ] and then considering that every ENGINE, not the carburetor wastes 75% of those BTUs out the Radiator and tail pipe, and so that only leaves you with 25% of 17000 BTUs to carry around a 2000 or 4000 pound car, “how many miles”? <p>[Was that a auto baun, or back bumpy road?]<p>A quick BTU to HP conversion doesn’t support ”their” numbers. <p>No wonder it was just a myth, It never figured on Physics getting in the way. <p>But a two stroke Japanese bike in the early part of the last century [1915?] did get 85 miles per gallon at 100 mph around a track. <p>It weighed in at 100 pounds.<p>[ August 13, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>

Mike
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Mike » Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:59 pm

Just rereading the entire website in that link - I found something to laugh even harder at. See the part where they say it weighs 20 lbs when off and 15 lbs when in use! So now it doesn't just break the laws of energy, but somehow also breaks the laws of gravity. And this guy is a scientist????????

rshayes
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by rshayes » Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:38 pm

One web site (http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/free_energy/dpalma5.html) has what appears to be the report by Dr. Robert Kincheloe. He was not very satisfied with the measurement technigue.<p>The generator was driven by a three phase induction motor. The generator was first run with no load and the power estimated by measuring the input current to the motor. Then the generator was run under load and the power to the motor estimated in the same way. It was noted that the power factor was estimated at 70 percent, but not measured, and that it was assumed to be the same in both cases. These are poor assumptions. The efficiency of the motor could well have increased under load, resulting in more mechanical power to the generator than estimated. This is likely, since the motor was a 40 HP motor driving a generator producing around 6 KW. The motor appears to have been fairly lightly loaded.<p>The output measured did not include the losses in the brushes, which seems to have been substantial, since the brush voltage drop was nearly as high as the output voltage.<p>The electromagnet also required about 4 KW of power.<p>The Kincheloe Report was not nearly as glowing as the web site would have you believe. It points out several measurement errors that could have large effects on the results.<p>The claims seem to be mostly based on misinterpretation of poor measurements.

Robert Reed
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:01 am
Location: ASHTABULA,OHIO
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Robert Reed » Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:12 pm

Stephan
I agree with your appraisal of this being a "sloppy" test. Years ago I had occasion to measure the current draw on a 5 HP motor for a woodworking machine, This was an induction motor (brushless).The no load current was not a whole lot less than full load current. This was puzzling to me as I expected a huge difference. Puzzling, that is until I did a vector analysis on it. The free running situation was almost purely inductive. As it was loaded ,the vectors closed until it was nearly resistive. Very lo watts at no load due to high phase angle;very high watts at full load due to narrow phase angle. The smaller difference in current I expected to initially see, had little effect on the work load. But closing the gap on phase angle made all the difference. My point being that by him ignoring or assuming an identical power factor, he missed the most important parameter of his test--true power for true work.

User avatar
jollyrgr
Posts: 1289
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Northern Illinois
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by jollyrgr » Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:21 pm

I would like to get on my soap box and expand about the carburetor issue. There are people that understand how engines work and those that don't. It is real sad when someone that KNOWS how an engine works and just parrots the myth of the super carburetor. How I explain the truth is to have them explain to me how an engine and specifically the carburetor works as if I had never worked on an engine before. Once they realize that all a carburetor does is mix air with a fuel (mostly it is gasoline) and regulate the amount of this mixture they see the light. For those that don't understand the operation of an engine it is much harder.<p>As a kid I wanted to get a large washing machine electric motor and an AC generator and connect them together both electrically and mechanically. I wanted to start the motor and generator to spinning by using an AC outlet then connect the motor electrically to the generator. Adults could not explain to me why this would not work until I got into high school. Conservation of energy is a good thing, apparently. But it is not understood by many. Hence how these psuedo science devices "exist".<p>I wish I could be proven wrong about some of these "inventions". There were nay sayers for the telephone, airplane, desktop computers, and hundreds of other items in common use today. If someone COULD invent a working model of a free energy device that I could examine and replicate (or minimally understand the real science of how it operates), I'd be more than willing to admit I was wrong. I don't plan on eating crow anytime soon.<p>[ August 13, 2005: Message edited by: Jolly Roger ]</p>
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. But billions of electrons, photons, and electromagnetic waves were terribly inconvenienced!

User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 4325
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Bieber Ca.

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Chris Smith » Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:43 pm

At every curve or conversion, there is a 25 % loss. Connect a motor to a generator and the minimum loss will be 25%. [more in the real world] <p>Pseudo scientists WISH these factors would go away, but they stay like stink, and so goes any pseudo scientists project. <p>Carbs, MUST mix oxygen and fuel at the precise mixture of 14:1, and pretending otherwise fouls the plugs up if its richer, or burns the valves out and knocks if its leaner. <p>A fact, that any “pretend carb” cant change, much like the laws of physics.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests