Forget Hydrogen

This is the place for any magazine-related discussions that don't fit in any of the column discussion boards below.
rshayes
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by rshayes » Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:22 am

If you do a google search for "pogue carburetor" you will get hundreds of hits. Some of these sites actually identify the patent numbers of Pogue's patents (1750354, 1938497, 1997497, and 2026798). These patents were issued between 1930 ansd 1936.They have been available to the public since their issue date, and are now available on line at the patent office web site.<p>The text and drawings of his patents have been available to the public for nearly 70 years. This is hardly suppression by the "big oil companies".<p>The patents expired by 1953. After that time, even if the "big oil companies" had been asigned the patents or had purchased exclusive licenses, they would have no right to stop any person from manufacturing and selling the carburetors. That was nearly 55 years ago, and so far no one has seized this obvious opportunity.<p>From the drawings, the design appears to have a lot of parts and would probably be expensive to build. That probably explains why it was not marketed as an after market item after 1953. No conspiracy or suppression required.<p>[ August 14, 2005: Message edited by: stephen ]</p>

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

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Robert Reed » Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:30 am

Interesting reply about the "pogue" website. Before the internet, you never knew what to beleive and took many of those old articles with a grain of salt. I think back then, each article 'leapfrogged' the prior, more for sensationalism rather than fact.
Still, it made for interesting reading at the time.

VIRAND
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 1:01 am
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by VIRAND » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:46 am

In the past we laughed at the idea of a car that could run on water or air. Lets have a look at a car that runs on air:<p>The compressed-air electric hybrid.<p>On the road, windmills power air-compressors, so when your car runs out of potential energy, the weather gives you more for free. And if there is no weather, you just have to plug in at a hotel.<p>Like most hybrids, the car's internal generator reclaims intertia by compressing air and generating electricity while braking or going down hills.<p>The mystery of the air powered car was always "compressed" air. Now it's not such a joke.
Air motors have existed for a long time.
And windmills. And sailing ships.

Bernius1
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 1:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Bernius1 » Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:59 am

Remember energy density.
Can't we end all posts with a comical quip?

User avatar
jwax
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 1:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by jwax » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:06 pm

Hmm. "Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume, and is most commonly denoted u."
How would you express energy density of a magnet that can do work (lift a piece of iron against gravity) an infinite number of times without depleting itself?
More importantly, how do we harness this energy source? :eek:

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

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by rshayes » Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:02 pm

The magnet isn't an energy source.<p>When you magnetize the magnet, energy is required and is stored in the magnetic field.<p>When the iron is attracted to the magnet, the magnetic field exerts a force over a distance and part of the energy in the field is converted to mechanical work. Note that the field is much weaker if you try to attract a second piece of iron.<p>When you pull the iron away from the magnet, you perform mechanical work, which is returned to the magnetic field.<p>You are now back at your starting point and the work done by the magnet is offset by the work you did to remove the iron. Net work is zero. You can repeat the cycle hundreds of times, but the net energy extracted will still be zero.<p>Its not a source of energy but it is a way of storing a finite amount of energy.

EPA III
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Beaumont, TX
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by EPA III » Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:02 pm

"Free" energy, sure. Just buy a photocell. <p>More energy out then you put in, sure, just convert some matter to energy inside it. (AKA, nuclear weapons). But, then you really did put it in, just in the form of matter. So, no, it will not work. <p>A violation of the law of conservation of matter-energy? I have never heard of one and I fully expect that I never will. You can't get something for nothing. Well, not since the big bang anyway. <p>All we do on our local level in the universe is move energy (and matter which is EXACTLY the same thing) around and change it's form. We have never found a way to create or destroy a single electron-volt of it. And I doubt that we ever will. <p>ANY device that claims to create more energy than it uses is a fraud. Bet on it. Bank on it. And take the sucker's money. <p>Paul A.
Paul A.

Ed B.
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Ed B. » Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:25 pm

Many years ago I had ideas - that when I tried them they didn't work.<p>Then an 'old timer' told me..."You can't fool Mother Nature."<p>Probably the best advice I ever received.<p>Ed B.<p>[ August 24, 2005: Message edited by: Ed B. ]</p>

User avatar
jwax
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 1:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by jwax » Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:27 pm

Thanks, Steven! Are you saying that lifting a weight with a magnet does exactly the same work as it does to release the object from the magnet?
Net zero? Now that the magnet has been lifted, once it is released from the magnet, it still has the potential energy of being lifted, no?
I certainly don't have any answers, but a ton of questions!
:)

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

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Chris Smith » Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:35 pm

A magnet will pull with a force of one, but it takes the exact force of one to let it go, thus a net ZERO is always achieved.<p> Now if you could command a magnet to pull and let go on command, you could pull again and again, but then we call that magnet the electro magnet, but its input never quite meets its out put for a loss every time.

Enzo
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Lansing, Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Enzo » Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:00 pm

jwax, your magnet is an energy source in the same sense that gravity is. Gravity is alwaqys there, and it will attract an object to the ground over and over without diminishing. Why don't we tap into this endless source of "energy?"<p>We have to add work to something to put it in a position to have gravity work on it in return.<p>Thus it is with your magnet. The permanent magnet has on ongoing attraction to feromagnetic materials. OK, now what? Just like gravity, how do you apply it to something like an automobile without having to put the energy into said auto beforehand?

User avatar
jwax
Posts: 2200
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 1:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by jwax » Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:34 am

Thanks again, guys. I suppose the differences between gravity and magnetism (or similarities) is what the Einsteins of the world have tried to explain.
Of course, gravity has so far been unidirectional, however, magnetism has opposite poles, thus pushes or pulls. And magnetism is a helluva lot more portable! And gravity does not deteriorate with temperature. And I wonder how much energy it takes to create gravity.
Anybody got a reference for that 1:1 relationship quoted for magnet forces? It's been said the work done by a magnet exactly equals the work it takes to separate the magnet from the object.
I've never heard of that law that before.

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

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by rshayes » Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:15 am

It is a mathematical theorem rather than a specific law. When you return to the starting point, you follow a closed path. The integral of a function around such a path is equal to the sums of the residues at the singular points enclosed by the path (Residue Theorem). Since the path does not enclose any singular points, the integral of a function (such as the force on the iron) will be zero.<p>Singular points are points where the function is not analytic. A function is analytic at a given point if its derivative exists at that given point. This will be true for most physical problems such as the magnetic field of a magnet.

Bernius1
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 1:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Bernius1 » Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:32 am

Good point, Steven. I've wondered, if gravity does work that moves something sideways ( no vertical deflection), does that object lose weight ? Not mass , of course, but a falling object technically loses weight as long as it is accelerating. Hmmmm. 1-800-Jenny Craig ???
Can't we end all posts with a comical quip?

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

Re: Forget Hydrogen

Post by Newz2000 » Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:33 am

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by no_vice:
... but a falling object technically loses weight as long as it is accelerating. Hmmmm. 1-800-Jenny Craig ???<hr></blockquote><p>Yeah, but it gains it all back at the end. I guess no different than most diets. Maybe we stumbled on the origins of the phrase, "crash diet."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests