The alternative energy research forum

I would like to start a thread where we can put ideas, both our own and others, here in a central location. I believe replacing fossil fuels with more eco friendly alternatives is the most pressing issue of our times. I find it hard to believe that we put a man on the moon 40 years ago, but cant get off oil. I am looking for opinions, fact, links to projects, and even info on how we can contribute personally to this cause. I ask for civility and decorum of course.

We should be using geothermal heat.
All we gotta do is drill down to get it. In some places we dont even need to drill.
Its there forever and does NOT pollute.

reply to post by VoidHawk


When you say "does not pollute" how so?
In order to drill, drilling mud must be used and we have no idea how toxic and polluting that is because the oil companies don't have to disclose what its made of so competitors cant steal the formula.
However, I have seen a few water wells drilled and calling that stuff ''mud" is a misrepresentation, as it looks and smells pretty toxic to me.

Originally posted by zoso28
I would like to start a thread where we can put ideas, both our own and others, here in a central location. I believe replacing fossil fuels with more eco friendly alternatives is the most pressing issue of our times. I find it hard to believe that we put a man on the moon 40 years ago, but cant get off oil. I am looking for opinions, fact, links to projects, and even info on how we can contribute personally to this cause. I ask for civility and decorum of course.

There is a good reason to find it hard to believe that a man walked the moon 40 years ago. The Moon Landing Was Faked, It Was Filmed In London By Stanley Kubrick, on the set of 2001: A Space Odyssey, also produced by Stanley Kubrick.

To the topic at hand. I have been working on two distinctively different engines. One is a magnetic engine and the other is a water dissociation gas engine.

I have a short video to that effect.

Also, there is a manuscript available on the website Project Nsearch. which is full of successes and failures.

reply to post by zoso28


I think a bit of smelly mud with a few bacteria is preferable to nuclear waste.

good idea for a thread op
and i heard on the news the other day, that their is a project in the sahara desert now,
where they are building massive solar power instalations,they said its possible to generate enough energy
to supply the entire world of enough energy, five times over !!
meanwhile the powers that be are bailing out countries,when if they invested that money in this project
the entire energy problem would be solved in a few years
but somebodies working on it
il see if i can find a link
well the project i was referring to seems to be called Desertec
blessedsun.wordpress.com...
www.desertec.org... there is some info on it here and u can also wiki it

very interesting in my opinion and also our best bet at really solving the energy crisis

Originally posted by zoso28
The alternative energy research forum

Occasioanlly I visit overunity.com to see how they're getting along.
Its a forum of people investigating this very question. Busy out in the garage tinkering and putting together various ideas...
...that never amount to free energy.

In summary - there are so many stories of individuals who over the years have invented free energy machines and then been silenced that you'd believe someone reinvents the technology ever few years... but a whole forum of people can discover nothing.
Nor can they ever get previous inventions to ever work quite right.

reply to post by zoso28


Very nice Glargod, this is exactly what i'm looking for.

As for the moon conspiracy reference, lets please not derail this thread.

With that being said, forget the man on the moon and just look at drilling tech for example. It is amazing the things that they do, and they figured out how to do it because-
A- There is money in it, and
B- There is money behind it

My point is that if the same tech, dollars, minds, and resources were used on alternatives that are used by big oil, we would not be having these problems.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by zoso28

 

I think a bit of smelly mud with a few bacteria is preferable to nuclear waste.

True, but how do we know its just "a bit of smelly mud"?

For all we know it could be as bad as nuclear waste!

But surely the powers that be are looking out for our and the earths best interest and know this mud is safe, right?

Originally posted by zoso28

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by zoso28

 

I think a bit of smelly mud with a few bacteria is preferable to nuclear waste.

True, but how do we know its just "a bit of smelly mud"?

For all we know it could be as bad as nuclear waste!

But surely the powers that be are looking out for our and the earths best interest and know this mud is safe, right?

Given the choice of mud or nuclear waste I think I'll take the mud.
Many volcano's that blow spew up millions of gallons of mud and yet I've never heard of volcano disease,

Believe me, I so want this too.

We can't get off oil, so much of our industry revolves around it. The computer your using has it (at least in the case unless its non plastic)

Just think of all the stuff that oil is used for, its just insane. Polyester, nylon, just to name a few (very few in fact)

Its not just about the energy use, this stuff is all over the place.

www.ranken-energy.com...

This URL is a partial list for items used from petroleum.

I remember coming across a HOJO motor, thought it was funny because I stayed at a hojo once.

The information linked to 2 patents and since I ain't no engineer, I couldn't understand it (although, truth be told, If I wanted to understand it, I could get me some more edumacation)

Originally posted by zoso28

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by zoso28

 

I think a bit of smelly mud with a few bacteria is preferable to nuclear waste.

True, but how do we know its just "a bit of smelly mud"?

For all we know it could be as bad as nuclear waste!

But surely the powers that be are looking out for our and the earths best interest and know this mud is safe, right?

More than just "smelly mud", also a nifty earthquake machine.

Personally, I like the idea of using solar energy in a place with large sunlight coverage, while also having access to water where it can be split using hydrolysis.

The first thing that comes to mind is the inefficiency of hydrolysis. (70%ish) Yet, if it were to be done in an area with longer sun coverage, the inefficiency would be offset by the extra hours of sun.

But why not just use the energy direct from solar energy collected? Why convert?

2 reasons:

1. Transferring a load through hydro wires is extremely inefficient. Resistance builds of over distance and so does energy loss.

2. If direct energy were to be used to power vehicles we have that battery problem. The one where a limited supply of lithium is a setback, and disposal of spent lithium is a nightmare.

Transporting the hydrogen allows the fuel collected and converted from the sun, to be used virtually anywhere.


Drawbacks:

Top ones in my head are the inefficiencies of solar cells. The reluctance to use hydrogen given its properties. And the limited energy density of the gas.

Is it feasible? Not sure, but I like to daydream about the whole thing some days.

Originally posted by zoso28
I would like to start a thread where we can put ideas, both our own and others, here in a central location. I believe replacing fossil fuels with more eco friendly alternatives is the most pressing issue of our times. I find it hard to believe that we put a man on the moon 40 years ago, but cant get off oil. I am looking for opinions, fact, links to projects, and even info on how we can contribute personally to this cause. I ask for civility and decorum of course.

It is a great idea for a thread, a forum even.

Big Oil has such a deadlock on people we are hesitant to even try other ideas. All those energy efficient cars got scrapped or their patents bought up by those who sell us oil, and by others in synch with them who already had a backlog of gas eating vehicles and an assembly line to make them. Big oil. That is about the entire state of Texas and the coal mining states like Virginia, the Carolinas, and many more states and places beholden to Big Oil. PLUS Right now there's an effort afoot to discredit all environmentalist. Sort of a mass attack in an effort to protect the status quo. Nasty attacks made people afraid to comment on climate change and there are people who still believe it is all hoax. This is dangerous and irresponsible and it baffles me why people can't see it is all oil companies behind it. Pick up a sciencedaily for Earths sake.

reply to post by newcovenant


Which energy efficient cars got scrapped exactly? And which patents exactly?

reply to post by boncho

Good idea, the main problem is the energy density and transport of hydrogen.

I saw a suggestion somewhere that we cover a large proportion of the Sahara with solar cells and use the energy to produce nano scale metal powders. These powders can be used in modified internal combustion engines etc. There would be enough energy collected to supply the entire energy needs for the world.

After the combustion cycle the metal oxide remaining can be returned for reprocessing.

Nanowerk

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
reply to post by boncho

 

Good idea, the main problem is the energy density and transport of hydrogen.

I saw a suggestion somewhere that we cover a large proportion of the Sahara with solar cells and use the energy to produce nano scale metal powders. These powders can be used in modified internal combustion engines etc. There would be enough energy collected to supply the entire energy needs for the world.

After the combustion cycle the metal oxide remaining can be returned for reprocessing.

Oh and storage too. Unless there is an unlimited supply of hydrides out there. I will have to look into what you mentioned, sounds interesting...

reply to post by newcovenant


While I like environmental sustainability, I don't think that our 200 or so years of collecting data is sufficient for declaring climate change. The climate gate emails make it even less believable.

That being said, I would rather be off oil and not pollute our environment if we don't have to.

I do have a dream that one day we will not be using oil, natural gas, or coal.

One thing I don't get is, why don't we have electric cars with solar cells and wind turbines?

Surely if your going 25 mph or faster you would have enough wind to charge a battery? And solar, we only use our cars a fraction of the day if at all.

Better batteries are definitely needed.

reply to post by boncho


You replied before i inserted the link Its a very interesting read for all in this thread methinks. And it comes from Oak Ridge National Labs.

3 times the energy density of petrol, no pollutants and recyclable!

Originally posted by calnorak
One thing I don't get is, why don't we have electric cars with solar cells and wind turbines?

Surely if your going 25 mph or faster you would have enough wind to charge a battery? And solar, we only use our cars a fraction of the day

This is a common question and it is because the engine would effectively have to drive the wind turbine. Look what happens to fuel efficiency if you stick a large box on top of your car.

A system to capture all the waste heat from the exhaust system would be a good idea.