Posted by If I told U I'd have 2 kill U on July 27, 2004, 3:01 pm
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=sci.energy.hydrogen&selm6caa37d.0407262146.48e8675e%40posting.google.com
Posted by Ashley Clarke on July 27, 2004, 3:50 pm
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=sci.energy.hydrogen&selm6caa37d.0407262146.48e8675e%40posting.google.com
You see, more broohar. It`s just the sort of story telling that gets us
innovators bad names.
It may just as well be an Alice in wonderland story.
Anyway, "Free" Energy doesn`t use Fuel; in Meyers` Engine, Water is used as
Fuel!
Can you think beyond Fuel principles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
Email: ashley@a-clarke.demon.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Don Kelly on July 27, 2004, 7:45 pm
How come none of these schemes involve any measure of energy input and
energy output? Bubbles are fine but a claim of 100%+ efficiency is not-
particularly when not backed by proper measurements.
Sorry, no free ride- even with resonance.
--
Don Kelly
dhky@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=sci.energy.hydrogen&selm6caa37d.0407262146.48e8675e%40posting.google.com
> You see, more broohar. It`s just the sort of story telling that gets us
> innovators bad names.
> It may just as well be an Alice in wonderland story.
> Anyway, "Free" Energy doesn`t use Fuel; in Meyers` Engine, Water is used
as
> Fuel!
> Can you think beyond Fuel principles?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ---
> Ashley Clarke
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Email: ashley@a-clarke.demon.co.uk
> -------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Magneto on July 27, 2004, 9:10 pm
Well, even if these [premature] experiments aren't effecient enough to
be self-sufficient, it makes for a good "water + electricity = heat" or
"water + electricity = bang for car engine" machines.
The trend with technology is to start with a good idea, then improve its
efficiency. Let's say this one was 50% efficient. Just means you'd need
a lot more electricity and water to run your car. Depending on the
engine, this may still be useable.
I agree though, engineering & science folk work with quantitative info,
not qualitative.
Don Kelly wrote:
> How come none of these schemes involve any measure of energy input and
> energy output? Bubbles are fine but a claim of 100%+ efficiency is not-
> particularly when not backed by proper measurements.
> Sorry, no free ride- even with resonance.
>
Posted by Dan Bloomquist on July 27, 2004, 9:22 pm
Magneto wrote:
> Well, even if these [premature] experiments aren't effecient enough to
> be self-sufficient, it makes for a good "water + electricity = heat" or
> "water + electricity = bang for car engine" machines.
Electrolyses can already be done at 80% to 90% efficiency. There is no
meaningful room for improvement. And, rather than use electricity to
make hydrogen to power the auto, using the electricity to power the auto
directly is two to three times as efficient.
>
> The trend with technology is to start with a good idea, then improve its
> efficiency. Let's say this one was 50% efficient. Just means you'd need
> a lot more electricity and water to run your car. Depending on the
> engine, this may still be useable.
See above. And the limitations are physical, not technical.
> I agree though, engineering & science folk work with quantitative info,
> not qualitative.
??? :)
<Please don't top post>
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
XML site map