It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bob Lazar Has His Own Particle Accelerator

page: 4
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


We have one year left to go on a two year laboratory test with the California Air Resources Board Fuels Division; so far all looks good. My hope is to have a marketable product for consumer consumption sometime in 2012; perspective cost of the retro fit to your vehicle will be around $3200; as you can imagine we have a rather large waiting list for this technology. As soon as the EPA gives us their stamp of approval our company will be the first company to receive EPA approval for this type of technology; that being a hydrogen on demand system for use in your automobile, heavy equipment vehicle, or semi truck.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Just Wondering
You don't need a particle accelerator, I purchased my hydride tanks already full and ready to go from these guys.
www.hydrogencomponents.com...



Do you mind if I ask what you use them for? Just curious.


________________________
Molecular phd: Fantastic! Best of luck with this. Perhaps it will improve our world, and make you very rich. I hope so


[edit on 5/17/2010 by ladyinwaiting]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


It is funny that there are no posts from skeptics addressing how their arguments to discredit Bob Lazar's education (and credibility) don't appear to be consistent with the evidence presented on this video. So what does that tell us about Bob's testimony on S4 and UFO's? What about those arguments that he must have been a janitor at area 51? anybody?

-rrr


Lazar has now said he is thankful for his life, but that his entire background, including his professional one, has been destroyed or wiped out.

When listening to him speak, and watching him, he seems very credible. What others say about him brings his veracity into question. Was his reputation destroyed by design? Or is he truly a hoaxer? I guess it's just a matter of who you believe.....



[edit on 5/17/2010 by ladyinwaiting]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


I would not go as far as saying that Bob's background is not still in question; as far as the alien technology that he speaks about goes anyways. It is obvious Bob has some scientific knowledge whether or not it is backed up by real credentials is a whole other subject.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

[edit on 17-5-2010 by MolecularPhD]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Well, i wasn't talking about the costs involved in obtaining petrol or hydrogen, but more on the efficiencies once either one is burnt in an engine.

If we are adding the costs you mention to the overall efficiencies though...

One could also argue the efficiencies of gas/petrol fall further once you factor in costs of oil prospecting and extraction, costs of transportation to refineries, costs to refine into petrol, transportation to the pumps, power to the pumps...

Where as for Hydrogen, if we are talking costs of electrolysis, it's basically electricity (which if need be, can be derived from sustainable sources such as wind, solar, wave, hydro, or even from waste fired power stations) and water.

No extraction, transportation, refining, and all of the other costs associated with petrol, including the environmental costs.

Hydrogen is also the most abundant substance there is. It's in virtually everything in a surprisingly high percentage. Not just in water, although water is the preferred and easiest way to obtain it. Liberation of it though, is where the smart research is at the moment. And efficiency progress is being made constantly. More H for less energy cost, is something that is getting a lot of attention these days, for obvious reasons.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Water is not the most efficient way of obtaining hydrogen nor is it the most cost effective. An Electrochemical process of breaking down deuterium oxide is the preferred method at the moment; at least by the top scientists in the field of hydrogen research; myself included.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
This would be true if we had a natural source of hydrogen, but we don't.


Hydrogen is the most abundant chemical.


In practice we need electricity to convert water to hydrogen.


Electrolysis is one way to collect hydrogen.

Vacuum and space is another way.

Ever heard of Helium-3?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
Water is not the most efficient way of obtaining hydrogen nor is it the most cost effective. An Electrochemical process of breaking down deuterium oxide is the preferred method at the moment; at least by the top scientists in the field of hydrogen research; myself included.


When are people gonna simply gonna put hydrogen collectors at the bottom of the ocean where there is heavy water.

*tap* *tap* *tap*

Oh wait... they are still to busy with oil drills and "killing" people (that make water engines) to cover up the fact of a natural resource for hydrogen that replenishes itself by the sunlight and gravity.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 

Hydrogen is an element, not exactly a chemical.
How do you collect hydrogen in space?
What does helium-3 have to do with hydrogen?


[edit on 5/17/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You aren't thinking on the macro level.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Bob and his wife Joy are in Laingsburg, MI, where he moved the company a couple of years ago. (Used to be in the Sandia Mountains)...

Here's a pic of the MI storefront...




Why does the storefront look so fake?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


When it makes sense to carry 45 to 75 gallons of compressed hydrogen around in your car; pretty much never.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

P.S. I thought I also might mention that you still have to convert that heavy water into hydrogen; hint hint hint



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I also noticed Lazar said we can't buy hydride to store the hydrogen, but then someone posted a link saying where we can buy it. I guess we have to look into the efficiency etc, but I find Lazar's comment misleading at best. He didn't say "you can buy a less efficient hydride that's not as good as what I use" he said "you can't buy it" which apparently isn't true, right?

It's my understanding that elemental palladium and titanium are very good hydrogen absorbers. In fact, palladium can hold 900 times it own weight in hydrogen. Titanium holds about 60% of its weight. While the cost of palladium is prohibitive (about $500/oz), titanium is only about $8.00 per pound.

These elements are widely available and have no restrictions on sale or possession. I would think they would be a satisfactory substitute for lithium-6 deuteride.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
When it makes sense to carry 45 to 75 gallons of compressed hydrogen around in your car; pretty much never.


Hydrogen leaks, so even smaller amounts of pure gas are not even practical. Note how hydrogen fuel cell vehicles don't guarantee long term storage. hint hint hint


P.S. I thought I also might mention that you still have to convert that heavy water into hydrogen; hint hint hint


Polymerized meshes... patented information... very simple process.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting

Originally posted by Just Wondering
You don't need a particle accelerator, I purchased my hydride tanks already full and ready to go from these guys.
www.hydrogencomponents.com...

Do you mind if I ask what you use them for? Just curious.


I use them to power my home emergency gennie:
www.peakpowertools.com...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
reply to post by spikey
 


Water is not the most efficient way of obtaining hydrogen nor is it the most cost effective. An Electrochemical process of breaking down deuterium oxide is the preferred method at the moment; at least by the top scientists in the field of hydrogen research; myself included.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

Ok so regular water isn't preffered but heavy water is, why not just say that?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dzonatas
 

Hydrogen is an element, not exactly a chemical.

Uh, actually it is a chemical element.

Hydrogen is the lightest chemical element... www.chemistrydaily.com...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


This states that his company is in Laingsber Michigan, I thought he lived in New Mexico.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Just Wondering
 

Chemical element. As in an element of chemicals. Hydrogen and oxygen are the elements of the chemical H2O.

Oh, all right then. Hydrogen is a chemical.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
When it makes sense to carry 45 to 75 gallons of compressed hydrogen around in your car; pretty much never.


Hydrogen leaks, so even smaller amounts of pure gas are not even practical. Note how hydrogen fuel cell vehicles don't guarantee long term storage. hint hint hint


P.S. I thought I also might mention that you still have to convert that heavy water into hydrogen; hint hint hint


Polymerized meshes... patented information... very simple process.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by dzonatas]



This has been resolved... They're now using layered "sheets" of super thin tubes.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join