"Water, Plasmoids and the Zero-Point Energy" by Moray B. King

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey


I didnt say the water IS the fuel.
And sprouting your "inteligence"
doesnt help...

I as in ME still need water to get to the hydrogen,
so i can burn it. Right


 


No you don't. Technically you could do this (among others):

H2SO4 + Zn ===> ZnSO4 + H2

Novice chemistry.

High School Chemistry Guide




posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Serdgiam
I based it on what they said they were doing and the references they state?


Apparently, we don't know what they are doing because one has to create an account to view and post comments:



Am I wrong?



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Mary Rose
"Moray King: Closed-Loop Water Fuel Cell - Water Cohering Zero-Point Energy: A Self-Running, Open Source Project."


From the Introduction:


A hypothesis for explaining excess energy production is that the pulsing electrolyzer produces charged water gas clusters, which activate and coherently capture zero-point energy into the cluster, thus raising the water’s energy state [1].


The footnote links to a page that has this diagram:



"LBL" is Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. There is a link to this article:

"Hydrated Electrons Can Take More Than One Guise":


BERKELEY, CA – Scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) appear to have settled a long-standing scientific question about water clusters – aggregates of water molecules that feature unique properties, somewhere between that of liquid water and steam. Experiments led by Daniel Neumark, director of Berkeley Lab's Chemical Sciences Division, have identified two distinct forms of negatively charged water clusters, thereby providing new insight into the fundamentally important interaction between electrons and water. . . .



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


I just wanted to say that post is an incredibly fascinating read!

Have you done much experiments based on this math? It seems to be missing a some key factors (which, coincidentally, are also skimmed over by our current understanding).

You seem to have a better grasp on these things than anyone else talking about a toroidal structure. Good job.


How do you feel things like the "Lisi Lie Group" (E8 Theory) fit into your hypothesis?



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   

boncho
reply to post by Miccey


I didnt say the water IS the fuel.
And sprouting your "inteligence"
doesnt help...

I as in ME still need water to get to the hydrogen,
so i can burn it. Right


 


No you don't. Technically you could do this (among others):

H2SO4 + Zn ===> ZnSO4 + H2

Novice chemistry.

High School Chemistry Guide


Ah, so i take some other mtrl and heat it up and get Hydrogen.
Cool...Must tell ya, i was kind of an "abscent" student, when
i actaully WAS in school. Regret it deeply to day so please
dont rub it in...

So the example at the top, the one with MG, how "effective"
is that compared to splitting water....



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey


Ah, so i take some other mtrl and heat it up and get Hydrogen.

 


Electrolysis is somehow different?




So the example at the top, the one with MG, how "effective"
is that compared to splitting water....


Depends on your definition of effective. Electrolysis does not have perfect efficiency. So when you consider the whole system, you need coal, nuclear, gas, wind, solar or whatever first, long before you get your hydrogen.
edit on 15-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Oh sorry, didnt get that we are looking at the WHOLE picture
all of a sudden...

And the example with heating vs splitting,
you tell me...I have no idea. I know that
using electricity to split water and heating
an "element" are kind of different, thats
why i wanted to know wich one is MORE
effective. Im the novice....
Teach, if you can. But be careful.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Miccey
Oh sorry, didnt get that we are looking at the WHOLE picture
all of a sudden...

And the example with heating vs splitting,
you tell me...I have no idea. I know that
using electricity to split water and heating
an "element" are kind of different, thats
why i wanted to know wich one is MORE
effective. Im the novice....
Teach, if you can. But be careful.


Where did I say anything about heating?




posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I said be careful...
Using a bunsenburner is heating right???

Im the novice here remember...



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Miccey
reply to post by boncho
 


I said be careful...
Using a bunsenburner is heating right???

Im the novice here remember...


You don't need a bunsen burner, it's a slow reaction because if the acid is concentrated it forms oxides, so dilute acid is used. Heating it speeds it up.

No different than heating in electrolysis, (which is done as well.)


High-temperature electrolysis[edit]
Main article: High-temperature electrolysis
High-temperature electrolysis (also HTE or steam electrolysis) is a method currently being investigated for water electrolysis with a heat engine. High temperature electrolysis may be preferable to traditional room-temperature electrolysis because some of the energy is supplied as heat, which is cheaper than electricity, and because the electrolysis reaction is more efficient at higher temperatures.[10][11]
*

Like I said, if you goal is simply to make hydrogen, you can make hydrogen either way. Neither way will provide hydrogen in a cost efficient way, or anything practical on the end user level.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Ok cost efficiancy...

Gasoline or hydrogen...

In terms of making it yourself...
I as in ME, must be able to do it.
Here and now...Not as in a oilshiejk.

Ordinary 95o gasoline is 14.33swe kr/L
ca... little over 2$ PER LITRE...
If my calc is correct thats about 8$/g



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Miccey
Ok cost efficiancy...

Gasoline or hydrogen...

In terms of making it yourself...
I as in ME, must be able to do it.
Here and now...Not as in a oilshiejk.

Ordinary 95o gasoline is 14.33swe kr/L
ca... little over 2$ PER LITRE...
If my calc is correct thats about 8$/g


If you are going to make hydrogen yourself you are going to use electricity from nuclear, gas, solar, wind, coal, etc (As I stated before.)

So if you are buying energy for $0.09 /kWh, you are only going to get back whatever your efficiency is in your electrolysis. Industrial methods which include heating to high pressure some hundreds of degrees centigrade are not feasible in your home.

You will (if you are lucky) obtain something nearing 50% efficiency. So right off the bat you are paying 18 cents per kWh. This doesn't include storage, the materials needed, the chemicals used (for efficiency). Nor does it include the burning of hydrogen and conversion to mechanical or electrical power.

- - - Let's say you are working under ideal conditions:

You are going to use 4 kWh to initially change 1 litre of water to 1358 litres of hydrogen. It's going to cost about $0.40 (sort of) but alas, you have your 1358 litres of hydrogen gas now.

Now we check the energy density of hydrogen:

Hydrogen, gas[7] (MJ/L) 0.01005
x1358 = 13.6MJ

And gasoline:

Gasoline (petrol)[11] (MJ/L) 34.2
34.2MJ

So, you did your fancy hydrolysis and ended up with 13.6MJ for all the work you did. Now times your costs by 3 to get the same out of a litre of gasoline.

Even under perfect conditions it is costing you $1.20, and we haven't even factored in efficiency loss, catalysts cost, etc.

I think your costs are going to be in fact a lot higher. At least x2.

You see, a "gram" of gasoline is arbitrary. It means nothing without an energy equivalent.

*



You can search out other threads where myself and others on the forum have debated the feasibility of hydrogen alternatives. And there are many smart people working on the same in the "mainstream". Even BMW.

But if you truly think it's as easy as dipping two electrodes into water and suddenly you have unlimited hydrogen power for the rest of your life, you really need to stop listening to whoever you are getting your information from.
edit on 17-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Miccey
Ok cost efficiancy...

Gasoline or hydrogen...

In terms of making it yourself...
I as in ME, must be able to do it.
Here and now...Not as in a oilshiejk.

Ordinary 95o gasoline is 14.33swe kr/L
ca... little over 2$ PER LITRE...
If my calc is correct thats about 8$/g


Why make it yourself, you can buy 100g for $12.


Cost, pure: $12 per 100g

Source: Hydrogen is prepared commercially by reacting superheated steam with methane or carbon. In the laboratory, hydrogen can be produced by the action of acids on metals such as zinc or magnesium, or by the electrolysis of water (shown on the left).


www.chemicool.com...

Of course, 100g of hydrogen has 14.18MJ of energy in it, and gas which is $2/ litre as you say, for the same price you can get 6 litres of petro = 205.4 MJ, vs the 14MJ you can get with the hydrogen.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Well as for this im getting my information from you...

You said 100g, is that gram or gallon?
If gallon, how far in Km/kilometer
would i get on that, compared to
an ordinary petrol car on 6litres..
With MY car i wold get some 60-70km
on 6L petrol...





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join