Hypothetical situation... Would appreciate honest opinions!

mysterioustranger
reply to post by bbracken677

 

Insulting much? Of course DB's magic is fake. I was attempting use of a metaphor you obviously didn't get...

And so...you are aware Im sure, that there is an engine that runs on water, and there are also patents on ways to get 100 miles to the gallon of gas?

Both have been pretty much surpressed/bought out by the oil companies who stand to lose BILLIONS of $$$. Just like Tesla's "free energy for everyone". Its there, its here, its real...and we haven't got it. Big business has kicked it off to the side over $$$$.

All of these individual items are easily researched on the internet...and Im sure you do know right...that they are real proven facts??

edit on 09-22-2013 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)

and, just as obviously, you failed to get the metaphor I presented using DB's "magic".

Throughout the ages there have been many many cons and snake oil salesmen and until I see some kind of proof that makes sense logically and scientifically I will not buy into the hoaxes.

Please, please tell me how you can split water into hydrogen and oxygen, burn them and then repeat the process with a gain of energy? This is the modern day equivalent to a perpetual motion machine. Violates the laws of physics.

There is no way you can use less energy to split water than you will gain by burning it (resulting in ... water). To split water, then burn the hydrogen and oxygen, resulting in the byproduct of water and receive energy in the process to power anything is totally against various laws including the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Please explain "free energy".

One of your last sentences...proven facts? lol seriously?

I have some beach front property for sale in New Mexico...interested?

captaintyinknots
reply to post by gspat

 

Ill put it like this:

The technology exists now to make every single new home built completely energy neutral. Meaning they would not have to be on the grid.

Why do you think they dont?

Cost and return on investment. The concept of "free energy" is ridiculous at best. There is always an initial outlay, there would be maintenance costs as well.

You can build a house powered by solar panels and if you live in the best places in the country for solar you would get energy, but there would be a cost associated. One that currently exceeds the cost of just tying into the grid. Same with geothermal and wind technology. The costs are prohibitive.

I do not know about geothermal (been years since I last looked into it) but the cost/kwh for wind sourced energy is much higher than natural gas generated energy and will likely remain that way until natural gas costs go sky high...There is little chance of reducing the cost of wind energy.

It's possible that solar cells can become truly cost effective to the point of using them in housing, but that may be another decade or more away.

Personally, I think Fusion has the best long term chances...provided we can get past the tech hurdles. The initial costs will be high, but once the generating equipment is up and running the cost to maintain the process should be pretty low. That is a SWAG by the way. It assumes that we have a process that is self sustaining and requires very little in the way of fuel and the only energy input into the system is to get the reaction started.

With any energy source, in order to be truly cost effective the energy required to generate has to be lower than the energy you get out of the process by several factors.

reply to post by bbracken677

Cost and return on investment. The concept of "free energy" is ridiculous at best. There is always an initial outlay, there would be maintenance costs as well.

So youre telling me the installation and maintenance of, say, individualized solar paneling would be more than the lifetimes worth of power bills paid, plus maintenance and repairs on existing electrical wiring? Please. Average house spends around $1400 a year on power bills. Do the math.

The bottom line is there is less profit in it for MANY major industries if each home is neutral, or able to generate its own power.

reply to post by bbracken677

I didnt come up with these things. All are researchable and search-able. Im not going to walk you through the processes....

mysterioustranger
reply to post by bbracken677

 

I didnt come up with these things. All are researchable and search-able. Im not going to walk you through the processes....

Didnt say you did. Here is the dope on your "water powered car". I did some research and I verified that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does, indeed, still reign supreme.

Problem: It takes exactly the same amount of energy to pry those hydrogen and oxygen atoms apart inside the electrolysis cell as you get back when they recombine inside the fuel cell. The laws of thermodynamics haven't changed, in spite of any hype you read on some blog or news aggregator. Subtract the losses to heat in the engine and alternator and electrolysis cell, and you're losing energy, not gaining it--period.


HHO enthusiasts--from hypermilers to Average Joes desperate to save at the pump--suggest that hydrogen changes the way gasoline burns in the combustion chamber, making it burn more efficiently or faster. Okay, there have been a couple of engineering papers that suggest a trace of hydrogen can change the combustion characteristics of ultra-lean-burning stratified-charge engines. Properly managed H2 enrichment seems to increase the burn rate of the hydrocarbons in the cylinder, extracting more energy. However, these studies only suggest increases in fuel economy by a few percentage points and don't apply unless the engine is running far too lean for decent emissions. That's a long way from the outrageous claims of as much as 300-percent improvements in economy that I see on the Internet and in my mailbox.


Read more: The Truth About Water-Powered Cars: Mechanic's Diary - Popular Mechanics
Follow us: @PopMech on Twitter | popularmechanics on Facebook
Visit us at PopularMechanics.com

Here is another:

So what happened to Stanley Meyer? He was sued by potential investors, it was determined that his device was nothing revolutionary and simply uses the process of electrolyses. His claims were determined fraudulent, and his technology was under investigation by a number of investors, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Defense.

Do not assume because I understand the laws of physics and do not swallow BS like this that I am too ignorant to "search the web". I am bright enough (perhaps just barely) to understand that there is a lot of BS on the web also and when that BS makes claims that violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, for one, I recognize it as the BS it is.

captaintyinknots
reply to post by bbracken677

 

Cost and return on investment. The concept of "free energy" is ridiculous at best. There is always an initial outlay, there would be maintenance costs as well.

So youre telling me the installation and maintenance of, say, individualized solar paneling would be more than the lifetimes worth of power bills paid, plus maintenance and repairs on existing electrical wiring? Please. Average house spends around $1400 a year on power bills. Do the math.

The bottom line is there is less profit in it for MANY major industries if each home is neutral, or able to generate its own power.

edit on 28-2-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

I don't have to tell you anything. Check out how much it would cost you to install enough solar cells on your house and wherever else you would need them (not sure of required area vs energy production your needs would be). Then look at the average lifetime of those cells and calculate replacement costs and then tell me if it cost effective.

I don't have to tell you a damned thing...work it out yourself, I am sure you will believe yourself over anything I could tell you.

If it were so cost effective then you would see it happening everywhere... it would make too much sense not to install them IF they were, indeed, cost effective.

I just did a quick search and found a midpoint cost of $500for a 250 watt solar panel. There will be other costs associate with the installation not to mention I am pretty sure that one panel will not be sufficient. Solar panels last 30 years, on average but lose 1/2 percent conversion efficiency per year.

From what I just read, you will need 430 to 550 sq ft of solar panels to power the average house. The solar panel I priced above is roughly 17sq ft. This means you would need 29 or 30ish panels. $15000 for the panels and that does not include the other equipment needed, but lets just say you do it yourself and all the rest of the hardware is $3000 for ballpark.

Using your number of $1400/year that means that you will begin to see a return on your investment in almost 13 years.

That actually isn't bad, even though I did not incorporate efficiency loss nor did I include rising costs of electricity.

So if you have at least $18000 (assuming my ballpark of $3000 is accurate) and you do it yourself (since if you hire someone you will likely pay another 18k for labor) then it is not such a bad deal. This means that it will not be long before we start seeing solar powered homes that are more than just a curiosity.

However, assuming my ballpark estimate of another $18k for labor, that extends the break even point out to 26-27 years, not counting rising energy costs and loss of efficiency of the panels. At 26 years your loss of efficiency is around 13%.

Interesting exercise. What we determined is that if you are willing to do all the work yourself you could reach a break even point likely before 13 years, cause we all know that energy costs will rise. If you hire someone to install it for you then...well, the picture is not nearly so rosy unless energy costs double or triple over the next 15 years or so.

I just inquired about installation costs with a company that does just that and from what they said your material costs (panels and equipment) are about 1/3 the total costs, so I underestimated severely in the above exercise. That kinda blew the whole cost effectiveness out the window. However! There are tax credits that can help offset some of the costs. Not enough to make it totally cost effective, but definitely an incentive.

reply to post by bbracken677

I don't have to tell you anything.

You sure dont, and you sure arent.

Check out how much it would cost you to install enough solar cells on your house and wherever else you would need them (not sure of required area vs energy production your needs would be).

Youre making the mistake of looking at current cost of production as opposed to how much lower that cost would be if it were the new standard, and mass production took over. You know, the real world.

I don't have to tell you a damned thing...work it out yourself, I am sure you will believe yourself over anything I could tell you.

The fact that you are deflecting and defensive before the conversation has even started tells me that I certainly shouldnt put much stock in anything you tell me.

If it were so cost effective then you would see it happening everywhere... it would make too much sense not to install them IF they were, indeed, cost effective.

You are still ignoring the loss of profits, as well as social control, that it would cause.

Using your number of $1400/year that means that you will begin to see a return on your investment in almost 13 years. That actually isn't bad, even though I did not incorporate efficiency loss nor did I include rising costs of electricity.

So, in other words, you are admitting I am right. On the normal timeline of a home, the return on investment would happen relatively quickly.

So if you have at least $18000 (assuming my ballpark of $3000 is accurate) and you do it yourself (since if you hire someone you will likely pay another 18k for labor) then it is not such a bad deal. This means that it will not be long before we start seeing solar powered homes that are more than just a curiosity.

You are speaking of retrofitting. I said from my very first statement: "all NEW homes". Nice try though.

reply to post by bbracken677

Again...come to your own conclusions after your own research. The rest of us shall as well. Thank you

mysterioustranger
reply to post by bbracken677

 

Again...come to your own conclusions after your own research. The rest of us shall as well. Thank you

I did come to my own conclusions. It's hokum. Violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and hence falls into the class so many other "perpetual motion" machines fell into: Hoax.

An engine that can split water, then burn the h2 and o and get more energy out than it takes to split the water in the first place is not going to happen. Any first year physics student would laugh at this, let alone someone with more training and knowledge.

Is it any wonder the company is being sued by investors? lol Most often, if an investment opportunity sounds too good to be true it likely is. The company made claims, built a model and bilked investors...it happens lol

As P.T. Barnum once said: There is a fool born every minute.

If you want to believe, no one is stopping you. I am sure you can invest your life savings if you want to.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Youre making the mistake of looking at current cost of production as opposed to how much lower that cost would be if it were the new standard, and mass production took over. You know, the real world.

lol the real world ... the new standard. So you are saying that the govt should require new homes be built with solar panels?

Create the demand, then count on prices to drop. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know enough about what the projected productions costs vs demand ratios are estimated to be. It could work, but frankly, at least initially the costs would be high. Are you willing to pay the higher costs or are you advocating this from the safety of not being a home buyer?

Your claim that I was deflective and defensive was wrong. Take your strawmen somewhere else. Skeptical would have been a better claim. Healthy skepticism is just that: healthy. I didn't get to where I am today by believing in BS crap like water fueled cars and not researching investments before I make them.

You are still ignoring the loss of profits, as well as social control, that it would cause.

Not really, there have been other tech advances prior to the energy market. Granted, this is a whole different ballgame, but if there is a market and it is cost effective, it will win out. As with other tech changes, they do not happen overnight. People will not lose their jobs by the millions the world just doesn't work that way. Change is always gradual, driven by potential profit. The most cost effective answer will always win out in the long run. This is why it cannot be forced. As jobs are lost in one field, they are gained in another. Besides...solar panels will not eliminate the need for lubricants, for specialized uses of natural gas and consider plastics which are heavily dependent on petroleum. It's not like one industry wipes out the other.

If cars were to switch over to an alternate fuel, how many years do you suppose it would take before all the petro's were off the road?


lol you were quick to jump on me "admitting you were right". I ran through an exercise in costing for both our benefits, not just mine and apparently you have never actually looked into it to that degree.

But then when the numbers went a bit south, you were quick to point out that I was looking at a retrofit vs installation in new homes. (thereby proving I was wrong??)

The costs I looked at would apply to a new home as well as a retrofit...if not, please explain how costs would significantly differ with new home installation. Not opinion but actual details. Cost components I presented would be required for any new construction and indeed with a new construction you would have to include the wiring whereas with a retrofit the wiring would already be in place. With a new home you would have the wiring either way so it is a neutral cost, in and of itself.

You seemed to ignore (or that is my perception) the actual conclusion which was not totally unfavorable to your initial point. Given that energy costs will no doubt continue to rise, and assuming that solar panel costs continue to drop this exercise was not far from being cost effective.

My conclusion is simply this: It is not terribly cost effective right this moment, but given historical expectations as extrapolated forward it very soon will be cost effective. Unless the shortage of rare earth metals used in solar panels reach new heights cost-wise which is a real world concern. There are already shortages of these metals, what would additional demand do to costs?

reply to post by bbracken677

I never said I believed...yet here you are trying to convince me...

mysterioustranger
reply to post by bbracken677

 

I never said I believed...yet here you are trying to convince me...

your implication was clear:

reply to post by bbracken677


I didnt come up with these things. All are researchable and search-able. Im not going to walk you through the processes....

I was not particularly trying to convince anyone of anythng other than the fact that the water powered car was a hoax, which it clearly is.

Should I walk you through the process?