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: 6
71
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
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.



Patrol indeed also has overhead, but so does the fuel used in power plants. I don't think it is realistic to have all cars drive on green energy (solar,wind,etc). Even today only a fraction of our total energy needs is from green energy, so that would need to be changed first. But even then, it seems to me electric motors are the preferable choice. I don't really see what the benefit of hydrogen combusion is over an electric motor. Maybe in some specific applications, but not so much for dayly use.




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Just Wondering
 

Looks like pretty standard pricing for that generator - not necessarily the best deal.
walmart.com...
walmart.com...



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandwiches
reply to post by Just Wondering
 

Looks like pretty standard pricing for that generator - not necessarily the best deal.
walmart.com...
walmart.com...
I didn't know WM sold 17kw generators...cool. Propane powered as well.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


The primary advantage of H over a pure electric car is the fact that most of us already own cars with combustion engines which can be converted to H. It is much more cost effective to convert an existing engine than to "feed the beast" of the international banking cartel by going into debt for the purchase of an electric car.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Oh, all right then. Hydrogen is a chemical.


I wrote, "Hydrogen is the MOST ABUNDANT chemical."

I did not write "Hydrogen is a chemical."

You aren't thinking in terms of various reactions across the world because I stated MOST ABUNDANT, that's why I specifically used the word chemical and not "atom" or "element." Hydrogen being the most abundant chemical means that is reacts with other elements all over the world and further and it in many different molecular structures besides H2.


any substance used in or resulting from a reaction involving changes to atoms or molecules



material produced by or used in a reaction involving changes in atoms or molecules


Source

I looked at your reply and noticed how quick you responded to my message. Noticed it is only 1 sec after my other post, which shows you are just being an arse about this.

You obviously realized your mistake and tried to say "Hydrogen is a chemical," which totally changes what I wrote without the significance of being the MOST ABUNDANT chemical.

Hydrogen is the most abundant "material produced by or used in a reaction(s) involving changes in atoms or molecules." Obviously we talked about this in context of hydrogen collection.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Reply email from United Nuclear when I inquired how much their complete ydrogen kit costed.


from: United Nuclear Scientific
reply-tosales@unitednuclear.com

to: JustWondering@gmail.com

date: Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:21 AM
subject: RE: Hydrogen kit
mailed-by: unitednuclear.com

9:21 AM (1 hour ago)

We have not yet gone into production and are still completing our real estate deal for the manufacturing facility building.
We’ll indicate when products will be available on our website…

-United Nuclear Scientific
239 E. Grand River Rd. (or P.O. Box 373)
Laingsburg, MI. 48848
517-651-5635
website: www.unitednuclear.com
Customer Service: customerservice@unitednuclear.com
Technical Support: sales@unitednuclear.com


[edit on 18-5-2010 by Just Wondering]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Just Wondering
 


That's cool. I wonder if Bob Lazar would come on ATS to discuss his particle accelerator if we invited him? Answer some questions about the cost, labor, etc.?

That would be interesting.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 

Whether or not hydrogen is considered a chemical or an element is a matter of semantics. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Whether or not it is the most abundant on Earth depends on how you look at it, by mass or number of atoms.

You avoided my question about how to collect hydrogen in space. You also avoided my question about what helium-3 has to do with any of this.


[edit on 5/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Phage, all I ever see you do is argue. Besides debunking stuff now and then do you ever contribue something positive to ATS?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Whether or not hydrogen is considered a chemical or an element is a matter of semantics. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Whether or not it is the most abundant on Earth depends on how you look at it, by mass or number of atoms.


That explanation only proves you completely missed the point and are just being an arse to nitpick meaning your way and not how I intended, as I have clearly explained TWICE now.


You avoided my question about how to collect hydrogen in space.


Where did I say to collect hydrogen in space? Again, you are twisting words into scarecrow semantic fallacies.


You also avoided my question about what helium-3 has to do with any of this.


Consider how fast you replied to the post (1 sec), it showed you given no time to study it. Why explain anything if you have already shown you aren't going to listen or take any time to study it yourself.

Why don't you just acknowledge you made a mistake to nitpick my post like you did and you could have been more considerate.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Just Wondering
reply to post by Phage
 

Phage, all I ever see you do is argue. Besides debunking stuff now and then do you ever contribue something positive to ATS?


Decreasing the ever-rising level of bunk on this site is a very positive thing. I'd do it myself, but I just don't have the stamina any more.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Decreasing the ever-rising level of bunk on this site is a very positive thing. I'd do it myself, but I just don't have the stamina any more.


To state a point and for other to refute that point is obviously an intention of this site. To state a point and for someone to argue about a different point to make a poster look bad is a hit below the belt.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 

Your post was at 42 minutes after the hour. My reply was at 47 minutes after the hour. That is not 1 second, that is 5 minutes.

You said:

Electrolysis is one way to collect hydrogen.

Vacuum and space is another way.

It sounded like you were talking about collecting hydrogen in space. I must have misunderstood.


[edit on 5/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Your post was at 42 minutes after the hour. My reply was at 47 minutes after the hour. That is not 1 second, that is 5 minutes.


dzonatas posted on 17-5-2010 @ 06:46 PM

Phage posted on 17-5-2010 @ 06:47 PM

That is 1 second apart. Go back and read it and it shows I already answered your questions.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 

To see what I was replying to, please click on the link in my post where it says:

reply to post by dzonatas
Apparently you put that up that second post at pretty much the same time I posted my response to your first one, five minutes after your first one. I didn't see your second post while I was posting my reply to your first. I can see no response to my question about the collection of hydrogen in space or the relevance of helium-3. All I see is this;

You aren't thinking on the macro level.


As I said, I must have misunderstood your reference to space and the collection of hydrogen. I do not see an answer to my question about helium-3. The use of helium-3 as an energy source depends on advanced fusion technology, not combustion. Helium-3 is not combustible.


[edit on 5/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
A particle accelerator. Wow.
Gosh! I have one right in front of me. And its pointed right at my head!

The cathode ray tube (CRT) of any TV or computer monitor is really a particle accelerator.

science.howstuffworks.com...


Assuming that the electrons you examine are being particles at the time instead of waves..

and assuming that for the sake of your quip, that an electron is as much a particle as something weighing 2000 times larger


For all intents and purposes, the electron is virtually massless, particularly when compared to protons and neutrons, which are the primary constituent particles responsible for the mass of an atom. The contribution of electrons to the mass of an atom is negligible. 2000 times as heavy as an electron
wiki.answers.com...]Link

Particle Accelerators refer to the acceleration of protons or other nuclei

Electrons moving in a vacuum under electric acceleration are called Cathode Rays... NOT called particles.

You are watching a cathode ray tube.


--note added-- To be specific, up to 40,000 Volts - it is a Cathode Ray Tube... Above 40,000 it becomes by FDA regulations as an X-Ray Machine....it is not a particle accelerator...unless, IMO, you are a 6th grade student bragging about the electron tube he built...

and you can't make isotopes with an X-Ray machine...

[edit on 18-5-2010 by seataka]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by seataka
 

Interesting point about the wave/particle duality. But it applies to protons and neutrons as well as electrons. All can demonstrate interference patterns and all are also absorbed as particles (or else your CRT wouldn't be worth much). Particles is particles (and elements are chemicals, I guess).

A cathode ray is a stream of negative particles (electrons or negative ions). An anode ray is a stream of positive particles (protons or positive ions). There is also such a thing as a neutron ray. Accelerate any particle and you have a particle accelerator, you get a stream of particles.

Call it whatever you want, a CRT is a particle accelerator. Even wiki says so.

Everyday examples of particle accelerators are cathode ray tubes found in television sets and X-ray generators.
en.wikipedia.org...
This guy made a different type of accelerator in high school.

This is a small electrostatic particle accelerator, built in my senior year of high school(2002-2003). It is designed for electron acceleration.

www.rtftechnologies.org...

[edit on 5/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
I do not see an answer to my question about helium-3. The use of helium-3 as an energy source depends on advanced fusion technology, not combustion. Helium-3 is not combustible.


This is about fuel cells & particles accelerators, who said anything about combustion? You really don't understand fuel cells, do you?

Now, with that one post that was one second before yours, what kind of hydrogen do we actually refer to? Ok, now put that name into the google search bar along with "helium-3." Oh yes, several PDF papers only fusion technology, fuel cells, and the most natural sources of both resources.

*facepalm*



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


Funny but not true. Its like the solar powered flashlight, the solar panels dont go directly towards the light. They store their power inside of batteries. So you can charge your car over night



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 

Lazar is not using fuel cells. He is burning hydrogen in his car's engine. His car's internal combustion engine.

While helium is sometimes used in fuel cells as an inert adjuct to pure oxygen, it contributes nothing to the production of electricity (which is what fuel cells do). It doesn't help produce electricity in a fuel cell for the same reason it isn't combustible, it is chemically non-reactive. Helium-3 would be no different and is so rare and expensive there would be no reason to use it instead of another inert gas.

Helium-3 is not hydrogen. Are we all going to have helium-3 fusion reactors in our cars soon?

[edit on 5/18/2010 by Phage]



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join