Scientists planning massive march in DC

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Byrd

Our president seems to think that game theory applies to economics and politics.

I don't think either have much to do with zero sums.

He's remarkably bad at Prisoner's Dilemma, though.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman

The real story is they are suppressing this tech for H2, watch that and tell me it is not possible with straight face.

I wouldn't say the technology has been suppressed, it's more that it's not economically viable at todays energy costs. Pick up any lab catalog and you will find hydrogen generators. There needs to be infrastructure, networks of fueling stations, large scale H2 generating and compression plants....

Fair rebuttal but I have put a lot of time into that very thought and I disagree based on this one thing. Water is free and the tech to split it has been around quite a while. That current design uses Solar Panels for the energy to split it because the people who owned the patent to the Electric Hydrolysis (Electrolysis) device the ISS uses for the Astronauts wanted 1 million$ for about 20 years. A few years back Dr. Ricketts was telling me that the price was only 10k$ and I could use his design to run with it btw . And I think I might have to take him up on that offer when I retire and MAYBE I will have some free time if the wife, not at all scientific but an artsy type is she, will let me spend the money to build my own.

Nissan built the motor that was to use H2 on demand with the device on board and that build might cost me a bit steep if I ask them for one for me, I do realize. When we have them we will just pull up to a lake or maybe a pond in your backyard and about all is left is to filter that water before you use it in your car. Burning H2 in Oxygen creates H20 and O2 (the equation requires balancing) but basically that is the end product.

awww mad that they got their funding cut. Go get a real job like the rest of us.

a reply to: amfirst1

awww mad that they got their funding cut.

They did? All of them?

a reply to: Justoneman
I'm all for a Hydrogen economy.
The boys in the beanies need to get to work on this.

a reply to: amfirst1

awww mad that they got their funding cut. Go get a real job like the rest of us.

Most would consider scientific research a real job. What do you do for work?

This is what happens when Koch brothers influence and Big oil infiltrates our government.

a reply to: Jaellma

Sadly IMO it's too little too late.

As an uneducated man of science I believe protests will not achieve anything. If I were in the boots of those scientists who aim to better society by creating treatments for cancer or identifying Near Earth Objects I'd be on the next plane to Europe.

Here is a way to see where your governments money is going. Some are pretty interesting!!

Real engineers and scientists ignore politics altogether.

You are a poser.

I predict a grand total of maybe 31 (perhaps actually including the OP)
42

ubapoop , NASA scientists march in the front..

a reply to: Jaellma

This is funny. So scientists are mad because they may loose their job at a company that is phony. Well done scientists, get a grip and get a new job working towards something useful. This is only happening because America has been in such a comatose state for so long with those that have been in power, people gotten used to being comfortable while their country is falling to pieces. Sometimes cuts and changes need to happen for the country to prosper.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman

The real story is they are suppressing this tech for H2, watch that and tell me it is not possible with straight face.

I wouldn't say the technology has been suppressed, it's more that it's not economically viable at todays energy costs. Pick up any lab catalog and you will find hydrogen generators. There needs to be infrastructure, networks of fueling stations, large scale H2 generating and compression plants....

Fair rebuttal but I have put a lot of time into that very thought and I disagree based on this one thing. Water is free and the tech to split it has been around quite a while. That current design uses Solar Panels for the energy to split it because the people who owned the patent to the Electric Hydrolysis (Electrolysis) device the ISS uses for the Astronauts wanted 1 million$ for about 20 years. A few years back Dr. Ricketts was telling me that the price was only 10k$ and I could use his design to run with it btw . And I think I might have to take him up on that offer when I retire and MAYBE I will have some free time if the wife, not at all scientific but an artsy type is she, will let me spend the money to build my own.

Nissan built the motor that was to use H2 on demand with the device on board and that build might cost me a bit steep if I ask them for one for me, I do realize. When we have them we will just pull up to a lake or maybe a pond in your backyard and about all is left is to filter that water before you use it in your car. Burning H2 in Oxygen creates H20 and O2 (the equation requires balancing) but basically that is the end product.

Hydrogen is not a good way of storing energy under ambient conditions on Earth. Any source of power that would be used for large scale electrolysis can be more efficiently used by putting it on the grid. The least expensive form of hydrogen is made by reforming methane. The other product from reforming methane is....get ready....CO2. If transportation fuels are needed, reacting hydrogen with atmospheric CO2 can produce methanol and this could be used as a fuel or further converted to gasoline or diesel. Key is the use of liquids so that existing infrastructure will not be stranded.
With the advent of advanced, fast-charge batteries, hydrogen will have come and gone as a series of demos used in fuel cell development. It is difficult to base an economy on a derived product. The Toffler's never quite understood what they had written.

Using solar power for an electrolysis cell wastes at least 30% of the energy. Why not put that power directly on the grid?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

There was a TD plant in Carthage Missouri that was producing barrels of oil from turkey offal (organs, beaks, claws, pretty much anything not sold as meat) that was normally thrown out by the local Tyson plant

Huh.
If you mean by "oil", fat. Sure, why not. Biodiesel.

But converting the other stuff into fuel may take more energy than is practical. The navy (with its nukes) can turn water into petrol.

That was the tricky part, yes. You need to know the right heat and times, crossed with the consistency of the materials you are starting with. You can't use the settings of animal organs on computer screens or wood and expect the same outcome. That's one of the challenges for a waste reclamation... some care would be needed for maintaining the right mix of refuse. That would be a glamorous job all right...

The Carthage plant claimed to be producing more energy than it was using, primarily from the use of modified autoclaves and efficient boilers to generate the needed steam and pressure.

As for what they produced, yes: "The product oil produced from the Carthage, MO plant is a high value crude oil that may be
compared to diesel fuel." But there were other petroleums as well. And most importantly, they were clean fuels. The very nature of the TD process cleans out impurities.

EDIT: Trying to fix the link to the pdf

originally posted by: Gothmog
I predict a grand total of maybe 31 (perhaps actually including the OP)
42

That is the answer, after all.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman

The real story is they are suppressing this tech for H2, watch that and tell me it is not possible with straight face.

I wouldn't say the technology has been suppressed, it's more that it's not economically viable at todays energy costs. Pick up any lab catalog and you will find hydrogen generators. There needs to be infrastructure, networks of fueling stations, large scale H2 generating and compression plants....

Using solar power for an electrolysis cell wastes at least 30% of the energy. Why not put that power directly on the grid?

Well that might have come into play but, since the Sun has lots to spare we can forget about that loss of energy, truly. We can also do this by using the motor to aid and the concept was you had to have a small amount created by the car battery at the beginning to get the motor turning then the energy to split was readily available from the excess energy the motor has similar to an A/C unit takes away. That car set the land speed record for H2 powered vehicle on the Bonneville Salt Flats.

edit on 28-1-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: MisterSpock
You'd think the vast majority of these people would be too busy to attend, too important to take the time off and too intelligent to fall for the usual brainwashed foolery common of party politics.

Quite the opposite, myself and my Uni science lecturers will be marching in solidarity in the UK avoid humanity going back to the stone age. Taking a day off to protest the future and funding of science and to show why it's lunacy to attempt to abolish it is perectly logical in long and short term.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I doubt your credentials as a scientist.

While I am not a scientist myself, I have cause to employ them. What field of research are you in? Hypotheticaly..

Doubt what you want. My degrees in Biology and Microbiology combined with 15 years in vaccine production and bioinformatics are what matters.

In the end, this is the internet and all we are is what we write for others to see. You aren't the first to think you have some means to judge my credentials, you certainly won't be the last.

Are you a mfg or process engineer for a pharmaceutical co? Or do you have PhD plus Post-Doc research. Do you spend time in the lab or time in production? Or bridging between the two, scaling vaccine production? I assume your BS was in Biology and MS in Micro-Biology.

Curious as to how you define scientist when you declare yourself one. I define Scientist as basically non-iterative, novel research. They don't optimize, they seek to answer questions that haven't been sufficiently answered before.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Justoneman

The real story is they are suppressing this tech for H2, watch that and tell me it is not possible with straight face.

I wouldn't say the technology has been suppressed, it's more that it's not economically viable at todays energy costs. Pick up any lab catalog and you will find hydrogen generators. There needs to be infrastructure, networks of fueling stations, large scale H2 generating and compression plants....

Using solar power for an electrolysis cell wastes at least 30% of the energy. Why not put that power directly on the grid?

Well that might have come into play but, since the Sun has lots to spare we can forget about that loss of energy, truly. We can also do this by using the motor to aid and the concept was you had to have a small amount created by the car battery at the beginning to get the motor turning then the energy to split was readily available from the excess energy the motor has similar to an A/C unit takes away. That car set the land speed record for H2 powered vehicle on the Bonneville Salt Flats.

It is not the loss of energy from the sun, it is the inefficient use of the power. Hydrogen is a poor energy storage medium. It has a low energy density and is more difficult to handle than liquid fuels. It will require a completely new infrastructure [think a few trillion dollars] for virtually no gain. Efficient use of hydrogen in transportation vehicles is via fuel cells. Fuel cells do not use all the hydrogen so a recovery scheme is necessary. They require platinum metals and, at the present state of development, would last about 1000 hours before requiring a rebuild. A better use of a low cost hydrogen source would be to chemically reduce atmospheric CO2 to methanol which could be converted to hydrocarbon fuels and fit the existing infrastructure. These would provide ease of handling and transport and provide a much higher energy density fuel.
As to the generation of hydrogen by an "excess" of energy. This doesn't work even of electrolysis cells were 100% efficient rather than about 70% [at best]. Do the calculations.

Here are the laws of thermodynamics for poets:
1. You can't get something for nothing.
2. The best you can do is to break even.
3. You can't even break even.