In search of HHO power to anything always. Out of the claws, into.... something new.

E-Catalyzer Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer: Fast Facts

E-Catalyzer Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer News Pt 3

article text from the 2 vids above

It was initially skeptical reaction to the arrival of the E-Cat, or energy catalyzer, because allegations that the unit would work on the basis of cold fusion. It confirms that the device produces 2.6 kilowatts while the input is only 300 watts, reports the Swedish technology magazine NyTeknik. The technology was patented in April and is expected this fall in the market. Inventors Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi announced the E-Cat in January to by stating that they had created a reactor that produces huge amounts of energy by nickel and hydrogen nuclei to fuse at room temperature. If the invention proves real, it is a great scientific achievement and oil would be redundant. The unit produces virtually limitless energy with no radioactive waste products and carbon dioxide emissions. The inventors say their process eight units of output per unit input and generates about a penny per kilowatt-hour would cost several times cheaper than a coal plant. As expected, there are many skeptics who deny the existence of cold fusion. Focardi and Rossi have not released details about their process. However, they tested their device on several occasions publicly and more tests confirm that it works. Physicists who were present reported that there is indeed electricity was generated. The latest tests found the energy catalyzer on 28 April 1919 and last place in Bologna. During the tests, generated an output of 2.3 to 2.6 kW at an input of 300 watts. Professors Sven Kullander and Hanno Essen believe that the values ​​can only be explained by a nuclear reaction. Rossi will cooperate with the company Ampenergo the technology behind the E-Cat to spread. The Universities of Uppsala in Sweden and Bologna, Italy E-Cats will get your heart that can be tested.

2.bp.blogspot.com...

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours



I just watched your video on ATS. While it is true what you say, you have to realize that most web sites are government disinformation sites. They made the internet and they control it. But you have to know ho to find the truth through multiple sources of news, not just the ATS. I get threads banned, trashed, etc, all the time. In fact I put a post up, someone closed it down, and the next day someone else put it up as their own.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't depend on sites. If you can't realize that they are government run, you will be disappointed.

As for HHO, I saw everything and got right to it like millions of others out there.

Energy Tower: Power for 15 Earths

www.free-energy-info.co.uk...

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

 

I just watched your video on ATS. While it is true what you say, you have to realize that most web sites are government disinformation sites. They made the internet and they control it. But you have to know ho to find the truth through multiple sources of news, not just the ATS. I get threads banned, trashed, etc, all the time. In fact I put a post up, someone closed it down, and the next day someone else put it up as their own.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't depend on sites. If you can't realize that they are government run, you will be disappointed.

As for HHO, I saw everything and got right to it like millions of others out there.

The internet is monitored by the govt. via the NSA but it doesn't control the source of most of the information on the net itself. Which is the threat to the Govt. and those wealthiest 400 Americans who own and control our economy.

ATS aka AboveTopSecret.com has ties to the Department of Defense, but not all information posted by various members is necessarily Govt. disinformation.

IF the Govt. did control most internet content then they wouldn't be in such a hurry to pass legislation to censure the Internet. The recent legislation to make illegal the embedding of videos as well as ...more recently...

Senator Patrick Leahy (D. VT) and nine other senators introduced S. 968: Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP)

How about using Common Sense and Due Diligence ?

You can take a course in Chemistry online for example if you want to learn more about HHO production and understand the chemistry science behind it.

For example:

Many are currently using a derivation of this formula for Hydrogen generation in their automobiles.

This is an old chemical formula used to create Hydrogen for airships long ago.

It is very simple requiring only :

1.) Water - H2O
2.) Sand - Si
3.) Lye - NaOH -- Drain Cleaner as in Drano

Here's the chemical equation of the reaction:

Si + 2NaOH + H2O --> Na2SiO3 + 2H2

The reaction produces Water Glass which can be latersold to the glass industry and Hydrogen which could be used to power your Automobile or Home via a Hydrogen Fuel Cell for example.

This is taken from an old book published in 1919 used by the Royal Air Force to produce Hydrogen for Dirigibles and AirShips during WWII entitled:

The Chemistry and manufacture of Hydrogen
P. Litherland Teed

If you google this book title you can find it online and learn this basic knowledge yourself.

Here at the Internet Library based at The University of California:

www.archive.org...

Where you can read it online:

www.archive.org.../n5/mode/2up

Or download in PDF or Kindle format:

ia600309.us.archive.org...











www.rense.com...

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by spikey

 

Posted by spikey
Losing 20-40% of..what?

You are talking about using the system that gets electricity from running water down hill, getting energy from it, then pumping at an it back up at a 20-40% loss.

It's easiest to explain the loss if you plug in some numbers.

Let's say you can get 150 megawatt hours out if you don't pump it back up. Call that option A.

Option B is to get 50 megawatt hours out, use some energy to pump it back up, then let it flow back down and get another 50 megawatts out. Total megawatts out=100 , since there's a loss of 33% of the 150 megawatts you could have had.

So, both the 100 megawatts from option B, and the 150 megawatts from option A, could be called "free". But you have 50 megwatts less free energy with option B.

I actually like the idea of pumping water back up into a reservoir for certain applications. Wind power and photovoltaic cells provide power sporadically sometimes in excess when it's not needed, and in insufficient amounts when it IS needed. Even with all the losses involved, pumping water uphill for later energy extraction is a great way for time-shifting the energy production from solar and wind from when it's made, to when it's needed.

Originally posted by Fromabove
As for HHO, I saw everything and got right to it like millions of others out there.

Meaning what? You fell for one of the scams claiming that HHO will increase your gas mileage, when controlled tests show that it doesn't?

Or you think you're going to run your vehicle on water, with no gasoline?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Gasoline is actually a Hydrogen fuel in itself

Honda already has a Hydrogen Fuel Cell powered electric vehicle on the market. Today !
This is FACT.
No conspiracy theory or "Fool Conspiracy Theory" website based information.

Go to Honda and look up the FCX Clarity...You or I could buy one today.....if we were living in California.





No gas is required, only Hydrogen and with 0-60 times of 9 seconds and a top speed of over 100 mph, the FCX Clarity emits only water vapor for exhaust....which we can use as RAIN and drinking water from our atmosphere.

My previous post describing the basic chemical reaction of 3 common ingredients (Water,Silicon and Sodium Hydroxide(Lye)) generates Hydrogen could theoretically be used to power the Hydrogen Fuel Cell instead of the proposed Hydrogen Filling Stations and Currently in use by Honda...

But Honda is also in the process of marketing a home based Hydrogen Generation Filling Station in the future ....elimating the need for a Hydrogen Filling Station infrastructure.

It's time for a paradigm shift....We have to get our heads out of the sand....for Gasoline is a really only a Hydrogen based fuel in itself....and hence the term "Hydrocarbon".


Wake up People and let's Collaboratively Deny Ignorance.....Please.


Here is the link and introduction video at the Honda Website...

automobiles.honda.com...

Go HONDA !!!!

My Classic 1975 Honda CB 550 SuperSport.....4 Cylinders, 4 Carbs ,Racing Header 9500 RPM Redline.....Spells Big FUN !!!

reply to post by nh_ee


Please tell me what the difference would be if natural gas, coal and nuclear were powering the process that separates Hydrogen for fuel use...be compared to using gasoline?

Explain the difference.

Or why it would even be better.

70% more energy out then in

Personalized Energy is Key to our Future Energy Needs

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by nh_ee

 

Please tell me what the difference would be if natural gas, coal and nuclear were powering the process that separates Hydrogen for fuel use...be compared to using gasoline?

Explain the difference.

Or why it would even be better.

With our traditional paradigm we could possibly be limited to only producing hydrogen via natural gas, coal and nuclear.

But there does exist other means of producing Hydrogen chemically that do not require any external energy.

I have a book from the turn of the last century that was used to study the chemical production of Hydrogen gas used by the Royal Air Force to create Hydrogen for inflating their Blimps, formulated from only three chemical elements, Sand + SodiumHydroxide(Lye) + Water. Here is the formula:

Si + 2NaOH + H2O --> Na2SiO3 + 2H2 = ( Sodium Silicate"water glass" and Hydrogen)

The sodium silicate aka water glass can be sold as a commodity to the glass industry...it is their key ingredient in the glass smelting process.


Another means is via Solar energy and artificial photosynthesis.
There actually exists a new startup company in Cambridge, MA founded by MIT Professor of Chemistry Daniel Nocera, that is creating Hydrogen by artificial photosynthesis

Here's Dan Nocera's concept of our Hydrogen Based Fuel system of the future and why it's crucial that we address our future energy needs.

Or why it would even be better.

It would be better for the following reasons:

Not to mention that 2/3rds of our planet is covered in water. The primary difference in burning Hydrogen vs hydrocarbon based fuels is primarily, air pollution, whereas burning Hydrogen fuel in Oxygen only emits water vapor. In fact, combining Hydrogen with Gasoline acts as an octane booster creating a more efficient burn inside internal combustion engines and hence the increase in mileage as well as lower emissions.

Or as in the Honda Clarity, the generated Hydrogen would be used in a hydrogen fuel cell used to generate electricity to run an electric motor. They hydrogen fuel cell also producing only water vapor as a by product.

That is fundamentally why it's better.

And not to mention, my electricity bill keeps going up faster than my wages.....when will it ever end ??
Not until we begin to think outside of the box and begin producing our own energy.

The Chemistry and manufacture of Hydrogen

Here's the book on chemical hydrogen production in which I was referencing in my previous post first published in England back in 1919. As I'd mentioned, this book was used to train the Royal Air Force in Hydrogen production used to inflate Dirigibles and Blimps.



Here's the Hydrogen producing Formula - And No external energy is required whatsoever.
Sand + Lye + Water are all of the necessary ingredients necessary to produce pure Hydrogen.


Si + 2NaOH + H2O ---> Na2SiO3 + 2H2


And finally here's the Hydrogen producing chemical reaction in action.






Book:
www.scribd.com...

IMA, I have no affiliation with the Posters of this embedded video.

reply to post by nh_ee


The very first thing you should do is ask a chemist what it's like dealing with a runaway reaction.

en.wikipedia.org...




If I'm not mistaken a cubic foot is around 30 liters and from the old hydrogen from chemical reaction books, they are saying 111lbs of caustic soda is needed to produce 1000cubic feet of Hydrogen = 30, 000 liters. (apx)

0.01079 x 30,000

323 MJ/ 30,000L




Which means:

You need 111lbs of Caustic Soda, just to get the energy equivalent by hydrogen, from just over two gallons of gas....


Energy content of Gas...


Hydrogen and other references:

Density (0 °C, 101.325 kPa) 0.08988 g/L

1 cubic foot = 28.3168466 litre

Hydrogen, Gas 0.01079 MJ/L

(energy density)

Conventional gasoline 34.8 MJ/L

There are more than 352[31] thermochemical cycles which can be used for water splitting,[32] around a dozen of these cycles such as the iron oxide cycle, cerium(IV) oxide-cerium(III) oxide cycle, zinc zinc-oxide cycle, sulfur-iodine cycle, copper-chlorine cycle and hybrid sulfur cycle are under research and in testing phase to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water and heat without using electricity.[33] These processes can be more efficient than high-temperature electrolysis, typical in the range from 35 % - 49 % LHV efficiency. Thermochemical production of hydrogen using chemical energy from coal or natural gas is generally not considered, because the direct chemical path is more efficient.

None of the thermochemical hydrogen production processes have been demonstrated at production levels, although several have been demonstrated in laboratories.

1

Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.


...what utter nonsense...