I know there is no such thing as 'free energy' but what if it was possible?

[BADecker]

The end of oil companies is here!

This film shows the first HHO central Heating System using only water for fuel. The unique patented burner converts water into HHO (water gas). The burner uses at full capacity 100ml
of water and only 1,4KW electricity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l6deTVgtmo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB0A99NIl3c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnuUfRXmdCo

Why would you use a whole lot of electricity to break up water into hydrogen and oxygen (HHO), and then burn them for heat, instead of just use electricity for heat directly?

Water us not in any way a fuel. A fuel is something that exists at a high energy state, and is burned or converted to a lower energy state, releasing heat in process. Water already exists at the lowest energy state.

Because the output energy is bigger than the input energy. Faraday wrote it requires 96Kj of electrical energy to split water into HHO with an increase of 286Kj of heat energy created when Hydrogen is recombined to make water. Gasoline and Diesel are around 90 Octane, but HHO is 130 Octane.

I think the original edition of "Brown's Alcohol Cookbook" explained it like this. Ethanol (alcohol) is partially burned ethyl gasoline. This gasoline has more power in it than the alcohol form of it, because it has not been burned at all, yet.

Brown ran ethanol in a motorcycle. He found that he had to increase the compression ration to 18 to 1 - normal for gasoline engines is less than 10 to 1 - so that he could get the same amount of power out of the alcohol that he got out of the gasoline. Yet, the gasoline had more latent energy in it because it was not partially burned like the alcohol was. The reason that Brown could run the engine at such a high compression ratio, was due to the high octane rating of the alcohol.

The point? Alcohol, that has less latent energy in it, can be made to do the same amount of work as gasoline that has more latent energy. This savings in energy is almost like a little free energy from something as simple as ethanol.

[1715471737]

1715471737

[1715471737]

1715471737

[1715471737]

1715471737

[notbatman]

You'll go farther on a litre of gasoline than you'll go on a litre of alcohol. There's no getting around the fact gasoline has a higher energy content.

[b!z]

the bitcoin difficulty would go up

[nsimmons]

The point? Alcohol, that has less latent energy in it, can be made to do the same amount of work as gasoline that has more latent energy. This savings in energy is almost like a little free energy from something as simple as ethanol.

No it can't, there are less bonds in ethanol than gasoline, which is primarily octane, decane and other long chain molecules.
The enthalpy of combustion can be calculated and verified with something as simple as a bomb-calorimeter where energy loss is minimal compared to something as stupid as an internal combustion engine on a motor cycle.

Gasoline    47.30MJ/kg
Ethanol    29.7 MJ/kg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

This is how much energy is required to bring the atoms together and assemble them. Hocus pocus, buzz words and marketing do not alter the molecular structure of a simple carbon chain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy

This is literally first year chemistry of which you can verify yourself at home, a calorimeter is not difficult to assemble.
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=ithfVI6DAeunmALWr4HwDQ#q=homemade+calorimeter

Comparing a poorly tuned gasoline burning engine to a properly tuned ethanol burning engine does not add more carbon-carbon bonds.
10:1 compression ratio is low if ones goal is as complete combustion as possible, an aluminium headed gasoline engine would run at 18:1 with proper anti-knock agents(tetra-ethyl-lead) and aggressive cooling.

[BADecker]

The point? Alcohol, that has less latent energy in it, can be made to do the same amount of work as gasoline that has more latent energy. This savings in energy is almost like a little free energy from something as simple as ethanol.

No it can't, there are less bonds in ethanol than gasoline, which is primarily octane, decane and other long chain molecules.
The enthalpy of combustion can be calculated and verified with something as simple as a bomb-calorimeter where energy loss is minimal compared to something as stupid as an internal combustion engine on a motor cycle.

Gasoline    47.30MJ/kg
Ethanol    29.7 MJ/kg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

This is how much energy is required to bring the atoms together and assemble them. Hocus pocus, buzz words and marketing do not alter the molecular structure of a simple carbon chain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy

This is literally first year chemistry of which you can verify yourself at home, a calorimeter is not difficult to assemble.
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=ithfVI6DAeunmALWr4HwDQ#q=homemade+calorimeter

Comparing a poorly tuned gasoline burning engine to a properly tuned ethanol burning engine does not add more carbon-carbon bonds.
10:1 compression ratio is low if ones goal is as complete combustion as possible, an aluminium headed gasoline engine would run at 18:1 with proper anti-knock agents(tetra-ethyl-lead) and aggressive cooling.

Are you including compression pressure and the resulting far-greater combustion pressure, along with the far greater heat drain into cylinder walls and head with the far hotter gasoline combustion? These reduce the effect of gasoline power?

However, the problem with higher compression/combustion pressures is that the lubrication of the engine may not be adequate.

[Rassah]

Because the output energy is bigger than the input energy. Faraday wrote it requires 96Kj of electrical energy to split water into HHO with an increase of 286Kj of heat energy created when Hydrogen is recombined to make water. Gasoline and Diesel are around 90 Octane, but HHO is 130 Octane.

This is impossible, not because we don't have the technology to make this work, but because that's not how the universe works. Note that NONE of the people who came up with any such "inventions" actually use them to power their houses and cars.

[BADecker]

For once I agree with Rassah ^^... at least in part. Let's see somebody power their doghouse with something like this. After all, that would be a lot cheaper to build than powering your whole house... unless your wife has kicked you out, that is - in the doghouse.

 

[BADecker]

All energy is free. Why? Because it can't really be created or destroyed... at least not in any way that we know how to do.

The thing that is not free is converting it to our use, or converting it from one form to another.

[cocos]

Because the output energy is bigger than the input energy. Faraday wrote it requires 96Kj of electrical energy to split water into HHO with an increase of 286Kj of heat energy created when Hydrogen is recombined to make water. Gasoline and Diesel are around 90 Octane, but HHO is 130 Octane.

This is impossible, not because we don't have the technology to make this work, but because that's not how the universe works. Note that NONE of the people who came up with any such "inventions" actually use them to power their houses and cars.

A classic example of bigger output than the input, is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy uses the aether power. But you can see many other examples here:

It Runs On Water Full Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81RQ6XwaRyM

[kennenman]

damn, if it was free everyone would be mining forever. 

[nsimmons]

Because the output energy is bigger than the input energy. Faraday wrote it requires 96Kj of electrical energy to split water into HHO with an increase of 286Kj of heat energy created when Hydrogen is recombined to make water. Gasoline and Diesel are around 90 Octane, but HHO is 130 Octane.

This is impossible, not because we don't have the technology to make this work, but because that's not how the universe works. Note that NONE of the people who came up with any such "inventions" actually use them to power their houses and cars.

A classic example of bigger output than the input, is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy uses the aether power. But you can see many other examples here:

It Runs On Water Full Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81RQ6XwaRyM

good lord, no nuclear energy doesn't come from the 'aether'

the total energy in a system includes the binding energy and the inertial rest mass, e=mc^2 isnt the full equation


the rest of the equation is the rest mass.
The nuclear binding energy that overcomes the repulsive force of the protons, fission of uranium doesn't add extra energy, the energy is already there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy#Mass_defect

[cocos]

Yes, nuclear energy comes from the aether (zero point energy). Dont show me mathematics. Mathematics are not science. It is a tool for the science. Show me experiments. Science = experiment. Tell me the input and the output of an atomic bomb.

[nsimmons]

Yes, nuclear energy comes from the aether (zero point energy). Dont show me mathematics. Mathematics are not science. It is a tool for the science. Show me experiments. Science = experiment. Tell me the input and the output of an atomic bomb.

Math is a model useful for prediction, if the model if sufficiently accurate.
You think the Manhattan project just randomly blew things up in Nevada until they got lucky and used enriched 235, then just had also happened to be refining across the country?

Without math?
input=uranium
output=boom

Without math how can you quantify these inputs and outputs?
How much uranium do we use, lots?
What is the blast radius, really big???

you dont even know what zero point energy means...idiot.

I had a professor who's day job is at CERN, a student in class asked him about the zero point energy, "what does that mean, there is still a potential in the ground state?" He literally shrugged his shoulders and said "who knows, its interesting though".

So please tell me what use this is, how to harness it, and collect your Nobel prize.

[notbatman]

Yes, nuclear energy comes from the aether (zero point energy). Dont show me mathematics. Mathematics are not science. It is a tool for the science. Show me experiments. Science = experiment. Tell me the input and the output of an atomic bomb.

Math is a model useful for prediction, if the model if sufficiently accurate.
You think the Manhattan project just randomly blew things up in Nevada until they got lucky and used enriched 235, then just had also happened to be refining across the country?

Without math?
input=uranium
output=boom

Without math how can you quantify these inputs and outputs?
How much uranium do we use, lots?
What is the blast radius, really big???

you dont even know what zero point energy means...idiot.

I had a professor who's day job is at CERN, a student in class asked him about the zero point energy, "what does that mean, there is still a potential in the ground state?" He literally shrugged his shoulders and said "who knows, its interesting though".

So please tell me what use this is, how to harness it, and collect your Nobel prize.

a) It's magic space energy.
b) You harness it with giant pyramids.
c) I get a prize for this?

[rausvi15]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l1KpT8g2uk

 

[whymanti]

Have you guys heard about CETO? Pretty sick imo.
"CETO is a wave-energy technology that converts ocean swells into renewable power and desalinated freshwater."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CETO

[picolo]

The best energy we discovered is Oil, it doesn't pollute much to extract it and it has amazing powers

[cocos]

Tell me how much energy we need to create an atomic explosion and how much energy we take from the explosion. Is the output bigger than the input? Yes or no? What are you talking about? You are not a scientist. You are a priest or a mathemagician.

[notbatman]

I made this drawing as proof of concept. Does my Nobel come with a cash award?

[Aterna]

This was probably already commented on, but didn't Nicola Tesla find a way to tap into the earths...."hum"? Frequency, whatever you want to call it. I think that's what wardencliff was all about. But there we're some bazaar mental implications that came along with it. And he was afraid that it could be used as some kind of psychological weapon. It was also backed by a rockefeller who thought free energy would zap his plans at the money game. So it was scrapped.