Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum free energy in the gulf of mexico

good news for all of you who enjoy a good shrimp barbeque

if you are fortunate enough to be able to buy gulf shrimp
you will soon be able to just toss these self ignighting shrimp into the barbeque grill , as the oil companies have found a way to produce shrimp that have a generous coating of crude oil marinated into the shrimp before the shrimpers catch them.

this means that no longer will you need to purhase charlcoal for your barbeque !!!

now unlike monsanto the oil companies will not be charging extra for their free oil coating that the shrimp bathe in , and
it is rumored that the free fish and sea life that will soon be available on the beaches and in the gulf and on the beaches of western florida will also be free of any type of cost to the general public these will also fry up in a barbeque and will be free for the picking!!!

in these hard economic times free fish ready to fry that comes packaged in its own cooking oil is not a bad deal , you just cant beat it.

and the greatest outflow of generosity will be evident as the currents deliver these free fish to the beaches along the east coast of the united states.

so blessed

it doesnt seem as though they are going to shut down the free energy that they are dumping into the gulf at a rate of apx 200,000 gallons of crude a day but you better hurry because fish and sea life eat dead fish and sea life also.

the one thing that I couldnt believe was that the oil companies now must admit that free energy is a fact.

they are proving it every second.
and every day it cost them millions.
of course they can handle the cleanup cost simply by
increasing the cost of their barbeque sauce.

Update:

this just in , the above 200,000 gallons was based on old news and facts and data and such , it is now being reported that the volume of free energy being dumped into the gulf is 5000 barrels a day , there are 42 gallons of crude in a barrel of crude.

so its 210,000 gallons a day.

GREAT NEWS !!! thanks oil companies.

Free alright. But free energy is old news. BP has been promoting free energy for years. They even changed their logo to look like the sun - representing the source of this free energy.

Of course free from $ isn't the same as free from energy input, which isn't the same as free software, which isn't the same as free love. Hehe well it is for some people :P

LOL

I dont call using a energy source that is the reason of
such great cost a free energy source.

pollution
climate change
wars

not to mention the dumming down of intelectuals for the
purpose of continuing its use.

no way , its not free when you use it.
and for decades after you use it it will cost you.

and the fake green image that BP advertises probably only
represents less than 1% of their energy sources.

they should have a single tiny green dot on their logo that
would truthfully represent their green impact on the world.

and the rest should be in blood red and smutt colored

the earth and the people of the earth have been paying dearly
for decades for the oil itself , and the results of using that oil.

finaly heres something we can do to show our appreciation.

SUE THEIR PANTS OFF

Dunno about you, but I haven't been paying dearly for oil. It's cheaper than food. The environment? Really? Where? Sure there's predictions of problems in the future, but for now everything's very fine.

Not only that, but the predicted future problems of climate change are quite manageable, they're bad, but not the end of the world.

Estimated global cost of climate change, last I heard, was $4 trillion over the next hundred years. So what? How much was the American bank bailout?

Believe it or not, we actually do have the proven capacity to move cities, build seawalls, and install air conditioners, all on large scales. Much better than sacraficing all the progress we've made because of oil.

The central business district of my city is built on what used to be sea. They created a huge area of new land just to put buildings and streets on.

UPDATE:

the cofferdam as they call it that they placed over the oil
leak in the gulf ... did not work.

now they are thinking of pumping golf balls and tire shards into the cofferdamm to try to stop the leak.

my obvious question is why didnt they put a valve
on the top of the cofferdamm when they built it?

the leak could have been stopped last friday when it was
installed.

why do I ask such a stupid question when I already know the stupid answer , they wanted to be able to pump oil out through the cofferdamm.

thats really all they were concerned with , otherwise they would have installed a valve that could have been shut off
when their plan failed.

what they should have done is install a valve to close the flow of oil , this would solidify the crude due to the temperatures , then they could place a larger cofferdamm over the first one and then pump concrete into it.


problem solved , but lets see if they really want to solve this problem , not olny would this solve the leak problem
but they could then pump the oil out if they choose.

The funniest thing is all this oil it totally natural. It's organic, it's recycled, and it's being forced out of the ground by natural pressure. It's actually nature causing all the trouble. Lucky they're releasing it now instead of leaving those time-bombs ready to burst open on unsuspecting future generations!!

well you betcha it is , why Im sure that BP didnt even have to
drill holes in the sea floor.

they just park their big oil rig over the top of the oil
and put a pipe into the ocean and let nature do the rest.

and your right this oil has been down there just laying around
for millions of years waiting for a oil platform to park above it
so it could spew oil out like a spore.

amazing how inteligent oil actually is.

better than a magic carpet , its magic oil.



you know I cant figure out why there is so much pressure
building up inside the earth , its like something is heating up the earths inerds more and more.

certainly this couldnt be global warming so what else could
it be?

could it be the removal of oil and replacement with water?

water absorbes heat faster than oil , but it doesnt hold heat as long as oil does.

the ground absorbs heat faster than oil but it doesnt
hold heat as long as oil does.

oil holds heat longer than water or the earth.

so by removing the oil you are removing a natural heat sink
that provides heat durring cold seasons.

this could cause sea life to die off in the gulf.

because in winter months the sea life would rely on warmth rising up from the oil below.

Nothing to figure out. Pressure's not building up. Nor is it heating up, heat is generated inside by radioactive decay and released at the same or higher rate through the surface.


If the effect was significant at all, it'd be the opposite. Water conducts heat better than oil so there'd be hot spots above where water was put in. The animals can just swim a little deeper to get back to their preferred temperature.

It's easy to imagine damage to the environment because of human activity, but often good things happen too. I'd expect higher temperatures would increase sea life.

radioactive decay , why would you say that?

have you or anybody else sent a probe to the earths core to
measure its radioactivity?

can you prove that?
or is it just some other theory you have read in some
book by someone else.

it makes much more sense to describe the earths heat
by using pressure and friction.

because the earths inner core spins faster than the earth , still does I hope , and to claim that the earths heat is due only to or mostly because of radioactve decay and not the heat generated from friction tells me that you also know of a planet or moon that has a inner core rotation speed as fast as its planet or moon that also generates large amounts of heat via radioactive decay.

can you show me an example of this?

if you are saying that radioactive decay is the result of pressures and friction and the accompanying temperatures then that use is ok I suppose.

heres a example , the pressure and friction
of the earths outer core against the inner core is like the armature of a electric motor , electrical current flows through the magnetic field which turns the inner core faster than the outer core and the rest of the earth.

the earths inner core


anyway , theres still nothing natural about a oil spill due to some company drilling holes in the ocean floor.

Sorry, it's just some theory that I read in some book by someone else.

I don't know where you got all these crazy ideas about rotation, pressure, friction, magnetic fields and electric currents. Not from a book I hope. Inner core? What's that? Have you sent a probe down there and detected an 'inner core'? Why should there be any kind of core at all. The Earth's obviously flat. I've never seen a round Earth with a core, except in books.

Yea I know the spilling of the oil isn't natural. I was just trying to see it from another point of view.


That's the one use that isn't OK! There isn't a thermonuclear reactor going on down there.

yea I got that crazy stuff from physics books.
sorry.



the solid part of the core.



not me but the link I provided above tells of some who have
probed the core and found that the data gathered shows that the inner core spins faster that the outer core and the remaining earth.



how do you know?

we dont know whats under the inner cores shell.
there could be a tiny sun there.

Sorry but the internet isn't more reliable than books. Still doesn't count.



We know there's an inner core, and we know it's solid iron, but we don't know what's inside it? Curiously inconsistent set of knowledge we have. I wonder how scientists manage to study these things when they have to discard any information that an armchair obvserver doesn't like, and have to allow the possibility of things that would be impossible according to other people's research.

yes , it counts , it is data gathered & observed by a team
of scientist over years.

that is scientific , the theories in books are theories.
it counts more than books.

to scientist that is.



no we only know it has a solid shell.
a solid shell that seismic waves do not penetrate.

just like the earths crust is a solid shell , mostly.
yet underneath the earths crust there is liquid rock or magma.

underneath the inner cores shell there may be another metal in a liquid form.

or there might be a small sun.
which would explain the magnetic fields of the earth.

we dont know.

Any experiment depends on theories.

Theories come from other experiments.

How do we know how seismic waves should behave in the earth? Only from theories. Maybe the whole inside of the earth is solid but has tubes of different substances connecting all the locations of earthquakes to other parts of the world. Or maybe earthquakes occur at just the right magnitude and time around the globe to give the illusion of waves travelling through the earth. Oh well, we have to accept even the most complicated and unlikely possibilites so we'll never have any idea. Better burn all the geophysics books and throw our hands in the air.

If you're going to say a theory might be wrong, you have to explain how the experiments that led to it could have been wrong. Or show a fault in the logic. It's meaningless to just randomly say "any theory could be wrong". Sure it could, and there could also be invisible flying monkeys living on the moon. The whole point of science is to eliminate the infinite number of wild speculations and find out with more certainty what's most likely to be happening in nature.

If there was a sun inside the earth either the earth would be heating up, or all the heat generated by the mini sun would have to exit through the earth's surface. Evidence suggests the earth is cooling, so if we assume it's not heating up, then since we have a tiny upper limit on the rate of heat flowing out of the earth, we also have an upper limit on the rate of heat generated by the internal sun. But all that depends on theories of heat flow so I suppose it's invalid.

Or you could use theories of how nuclear fusion and gravity work and require a mass of 13 times that of Jupiter to cause sustained gravitationally confined fusion of deuterium - the easiest element to fuse.

So which theories are we going to throw out the window? And is there any reason to do so? If not then it isn't science and has no place in this forum.

I think the point I'm trying to get at is you seem to be accepting every theory that you personally understand, and doubting every theory that you don't have a clear grasp on. That's a little bit arrogant.

you arrogantly stated that radioactive decay was the reason that
heat is generated inside the earth , all I did was point to
some data a few scientist happened to find after years of work.

I would much rather believe data than theory as theory
in this case has nothing to back it up.



if someone had a theory that flying monkeys were on the moon
and someone else was taking pictures of them with a telescope
which person would believe?

the one with the theory or the one looking through the telescope taking pictures.

as you could see the monkeys yourself with the pictures / data.

or you could read the theory and wonder if the theory is correct.

Actually the spinning core theory is just a theory too. Sure it's based on some indirect analysis of observations, but all theories are like that.

"The change in the waves' speed showed that the fast axis was in motion relative to the Earth, proving that the core is spinning faster than the Earth, they said."

Wow. Who would have thought that changing wave speeds proves it's rotating. What a big leap of faith. See how indirectly they measured it? Their conclusion depends on all sorts of assumptions being correct. Most likely they are, just as the assumptions leading to the radioactivity theory are probably correct too.

Then you took a further leap of faith to suggest that this motion was responsible for the Earth cooling slower than expected or perhaps heating up. That violates thermodynamics which is based on a huge volume of experimental data. It would be a perpetual motion machine generating heat from nothing but its own magnetic fields, electric currents and friction.

If someone had a theory that flying monkeys were on the moon, of course I wouldn't give them the time of day unless they also had experimental evidence to support it. Maybe not their own experiments, maybe a new analysis of existing results. But if someone took photos of them, I'd be equally critical. Of course photos can be faked.

I think if you look up the radioactive decay theory, you'll find it's very palatable. There's no wild assumptions there. In fact why do you even doubt it? We find decaying atoms on Earth all the time. We know that generates heat. What's the problem?

That's the power of theoretical work. There's no need to wonder, you can just work through their calculations yourself without having to trust anybody else's word.

wrong again kallog
I said it was responsible for the earths heat.
not its cooling or heating up.
ie... not a decrease or increase in temperature.

that will come after the ice melts.
sorry.



wrong again kallog
its the speed of waves that pass slower through the inner core.
but its the "fast axis" that shows it rotates faster.

--------------------
The core's "fast axis" would emerge at an imaginary point on Earth's surface up to 10 degrees from the north pole, where the spin axis would emerge.

The Earth and the core are rotating on the same spin axis, but because the inner core rotates just a bit faster than the planet as a whole, the "fast axis" through the core moves eastward. Over the years, it traces a circular path around the north pole and moves to different positions relative to the Earth's mantle and crust. This basic feature allowed the Lamont scientists to make their discovery.

----------------------

yes it spins faster , and their theory holds more water than
the radioactive decay theory.

Again? Was I wrong about something before?

Are you saying the heat generated by the spinning core exactly matches the heat loss through the surface of the Earth?




I was using that language to show how theoretical the spinning core theory really is. It's a theory just like the readioactive heat theory. Neither is somehow "right" because it's got "observations".



Which you know nothing about. I think I really was correct before. You believe everything you understand and disbelieve everything you don't understand. Common problem I've seen with lots of people, including myself, but I try to avoid doing it myself.

you asked
"Again? Was I wrong about something before?
"














belief in a theory is belief in speculation.

nobody believes in theories , they are simply there because
no one has yet disproved them.

like those that have fallen before , such as your flat earth theory , that so many believed was true.

its not really that all theories are wrong or all laws are wrong , its the way the theories and laws are put to pratcice.

Hehe I was asking for that :P Can you show that any of those things are wrong tho?

There's a couple that are obviously wrong and I used them satirically to emphasise a point. I think that should be clear.




Sure. I agree with you here. But theories include those that have fairly direct observations to support them. The spinning core theory is also just a theory (I'm not saying it's wrong, and never did). So is the round Earth theory. Sure they may be very convincing but they all do depend on some logic applied to the observations, just like the radioactive heat theory.

After all how do you know the Earth is round? Because you read it in a book? I know you haven't seen a photo of a spherical Earth from space because photos are all flat and only show what could be a flat disk. Have you tried travelling to the same destination by different routes and measured the distances and directions you went and found that on a flat earth they would lead you to different destinations? Even if you did that, that required some maths, and oh dear that makes it a complicated theoretical conclusion, not a direct observation.

I'll pick the easiest one.



no one can truly know someone elses beliefs.



what about all the experiments that were conducted before
there were theories , such as rubbing sticks together to make fire.

I think your confussing thinking with theories , but I dont believe you are , I just think you are.

I dont think that I can show you how you are wrong concerning
the environment , so you can just wait and find out for yourself.

Its not like you can hide from it.

and I dont think the earth is flat , and my only proof is
everyday knowledge.

but it could be a conspiracy or a government coverup
I just dont believe that it is.

I havent seen a flat planet yet or a flat moon , however most galaxies are pizza shaped sort of , but I have never seen a spherical galaxy either.

Im sure that there could be disk shaped remains of planets cores
due to impacts and centrifugal forces somewhere in the universe , and this could form a flat planet where life could exist , but I never have seen one.

The meaning changes when you consider the sentence immediately preceding it.


Yea true, I suppose there are those experiments that are more like "playing". Just trying random things and seeing what happens. But for most productive experiments you have some idea of the expected outcome, which you worked out from theory - even a simple theory like "I saw somebody else starting a fire by rubbing sticks, I hope it works for me too".




I forget what this relates to..

Actually the whole meaning of 'belief' is vague. For some people it's something unshakable, but for others it's allowed to be wrong without contorting them into a paradox of self-contradiction. Similar to 'think' as you used.

I'd better not forget that I owe you back :P

those are all correct , except the sarcasim about BP.

which ones do you believe to be a mistake on my part?

and why?

The only information available to you, me and everyone else is that these statements are wrong. You've tried to show they aren't but weren't able to, so you also have no reason to accept them yourself.



We established later that it wouldn't.



We established later that it wouldn't.




The number of pig's feet on earth today is higher than it was 100,000,000 years ago.




No. Because the weight of the water at the top applies pressure to the water at the bottom.



The information in text books comes from the research that gains wide acceptance. Some research never gains acceptance and never makes it into books - except as examples of uncertainty or historical mistakes, such as this:
Cold Fusion




"the speed of earthquake-generated seismic waves that pass through the inner core."
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol22/vol22_iss1/Core_Spin.html

Regarding the issue of theories not being reliable. Here's an exert from a book I just found by accident, which is consistent with my idea that theories implicitly depend on experimental observations:

"1.4 Importance of Experimental Results in the development of Theories

This section is not entitled '.. Development _and Validation_ of Theories' because a theory is not developed until it is validated, so validation is an essential stage of development!"

so which is it?

or does it simply depend on which way you need to use it?

when a theory is validated it is no longer a theory it is a fact.

I want to get your opinion on something.

if there is a 5 inch inside dia pipe in front of you.
and it is 28 ft tall.

it has a cap on the bottom so that it can hold water.

it has a pressure guage on the bottom cap of the 28 ft tall pipe.
it will read apx 28 ft x .433 psi = 12.124 psi when filled with water.

you then fill the pipe with water.

and you have a cap that has a connection on it for a vacuum pump on the top of the cap.

if you then connect the cap onto the top of the pipe there will be a small area below the cap that has air inside it.

if you place a vacuum on that air at the top using a simple hand vacuum pump , what would happen to the guage pressure at the bottom of the pipe.

1) the pressure guage will remain at 12.124 psi , because of the weight of the water.
in other words no change because the pressure guage is still affected by the pressure gradient in the water in the pipe.
and there is still the same amount of water weight above the pressure guage even though it no longer has atmospheric pressure pressing down on the water.

2) the pressure reading will drop because the pressure at the top of the water has decreased below 1 atm.

3) you choose to allow mommos to intervene at this time.

did you overlook the above post , I noticed you replied to
all of my replies except the one above this one.

It's both. We design experiments using some things we already expect to happen from previously developed theories or maybe in the case of the first ever experiment, on some untested theory. And a theory isn't properly developed until it's been tested by experiments.


For any interesting theory we can't actually test every possible thing it predicts, so we can never be certain it's correct.

Yep I did overlook it sorry. Haha I might start losing my place as top poster of the month :P




I vote for 2. And also vote for both reasons 1) and 2)

being top poster just means that you post alot , nothing else , the quality of your post is what counts.

you can become top poster simply by adding some useless
post to every thread in this forum.

-------------------------------------------------------
selecting two choices is not voting.

it is speculation.

let me clarify this attempt to get a answer from you by not allowing you to have a choice.

will the water pressure at the bottom drop or remain the same?

I was just joking.


Drop, as I said before. That is your option 2. I selected both reasons last time, not both conclusions. That's clear from my post.

so you agree that the water pressure will drop at the bottom.
and it will continue to drop if you keep putting more of a vacuum at the top.

and the pressure will continue to drop even to the point that
there is little or no water pressure pressing down on the bottom
of the pipes cap if you keep applying more vacuum.

so that the pressure guage at the bottom will not read any pressure.

none.
zero.

the water still has weight and the pipe itself along with the water in it still weighs the same minus the weight of the air that was pumped out.

Yep it'll continue to drop like this in absolute pressure (psi):

Top: 15 , bottom: 12+15=27
Top: 10 , bottom: 12+10=22
Top: 5 , bottom: 12+5=17
Top: 0 , bottom: 12+0=12

It's impossible to go below zero at the top, so the bottom will never approach zero.

That assumes you can actually achieve such low pressure without the water being sucked out as vapour.

The pressure at the bottom of the pipe is the result of the air pressure at the top PLUS the weight of the water.
If you remove the air at the top (get a vacuum) the pressure at the bottom will be reduced (exactly by one atmosphere).
But the weight of the water doesn't change, the weight of the water is still exerting pressure at the bottom.

You can double, triple or multiply the amount of vaccum at the top - it won't change a thing.

---

But as long as the weight of the water exerts less force then the pressure of 1 atm, it would be possible to open the bottom of the pipe, presse a cardboard against it, and the air pressure would hold the cardboard and the water column in place. If the water column is higher then 10.3 m the weight of the water will exert more pressure then 1 atm and this becomes impossible.
Regardless of the amount of vacuum at the top.

----

Please consider again a vacuum chamber with a piston.
1 vacuum on each side, one bigger (in volume) one smaler.
Why do you think the piston should move?
There is nothing on either side pressing against it!
The piston doesn't care if there is 1 mm³ of vaccum on the left side and 100 km³ of vacuum on the right side.
How should it even know?


In a more mechanical concept pressure of a gas is the result of the average inelastic collisions of the molecules in thermal motion.
If you remove some of the molecules these collisions happen less often, hence the pressure (the outward force produced by collisions) is reduced.
If you remove all molecules, you get no collisions, ergo no pressure. But still nothing is exerting a "suction" of any kind.


Or maybe consider this:
you have a chamber divided by a piston (a closed system).
On one side of the piston the chamber is filled with a gas at 1 atm. on the other side as well.
Now remove half of the gas on the left side.
In your opinion the left side now has a "half vacuum" (ok for me) resulting in a suction force (wrong).
The piston is pressed to the left side, because the over pressure on the right side, not sucked by the low pressure on the left.
If we now move this chamber into space and open the right side to the vacuum of space (trillions of cubic light years of vacuum), the piston will be pressed outwards (by 0.5 atm pressure).
So in your world the "half vaccum" at the left is at the same time producing a "suction force" AND applying pressure.
Impossible. How should the gas in the isolated chamber know of the changed conditions in the other chamber?.


---

Sorry, somehow I got carried away...

Just get a plastic bottle, fill it with water and punch a few holes in it, at the bottom, in the middle and near the top. You can directly see the effect of the pressure gradient.

Well ,I wasnt wanting to actually perform the experiment
but you leave me no choice.

I personaly think the vacume in the top will cause a lower pressure at the bottom than the weight of the water could present to the bottom.

after all a 1" pipe can do the same job
and a pressure guage is cheap.

the whole test will cost no more than $10.00

and I can use a 10 ft lenght of pipe.

this way I can put this to rest and if you dont agree with
my findings then you can perform your own test.

If I poke holes in a closed container then its no longer a closed container.

I did ask you what the ("pressure guage would read")
and at a 28 ft height water pressure is only
28 x .433 psi = 12.124 psi

how are you geting 27 psi water pressure at the bottom?

because the pressure guage at the bottom is reading the pressure of the water weight (12 psi) AND the air pressure inside the tube.
At the beginning this will be the standard pressure of 1 atm = 15 psi.

Yea like Momos said. Sure I used absolute pressure instead of gauge pressure, but I stated that so just do the conversion.

Top: 15 , bottom: 15
Top: 10 , bottom: 10
Top: 5 , bottom: 5
Top: 0 , bottom: 0

I did not include the pressure that is the result of the
weight of the water.

only the pressure of the water that is the result of the
pressure above the water.

so its clear that with a few pumps on a hand pump you can
have a zero guage pressure at the bottom.

this means that you can generate HHO at the bottom of the pipe
for much less energy.

and you can extract energy from the buoyant HHO as it rises.

now when the HHO rises to the top you can convert it back into water in a fuel cell
(that doesnt care that its in a vacuum)
you get more energy out , than you put in.

and you still have the same exact vacuum.
and the same exact amount of water.

this can be a continous cycle.

that just outputs electricity.

according to a fuel cell described below
the annode and cathode are made of metals
and they sandwich the electrolyte between them.
therefore being in a vacuum wouldnt matter.

a basic fuel cell



and one other plus !!

a fuel cell generates much heat , so the water will absorb this heat along with the pipe , so a heat exchanger inside the pipe can be used to supply hot water , thereby removing the heat generated from the water inside of the pipe , and the entire pipe can be inside another pipe to remove the heat that transfers to the pipe itself.

thereby effectlively removing all heat generated durring the generation process and supplying hot water to a home
as a byproduct along with the excess electricity generated from the HHO and the excess electricity generated from the buoyancy of the HHO.

1 excess energy from HHO generation and conversion.
2 excess energy from buoyancy.
3 excess energy from hot water.

you will need to supply a constant vacuum at the top
that will allow for the start up process to begin.
and you will actually be pumping out HHO durring this
vacuming process as the start up processes begin.
ie...

the buoyant system is full of HHO and rotating.
the fuel cell is fully functioning and producing electricity.

then you can close the valve between the vacuum pump
and the process should continue.

OK yep, so it's as if you were generating it in the ambient air.

Importantly and going round in circles, as soon as you generate some HHO at the bottom, it'll fill the vacuum. Then you have to pump it out all over again.




Here's a better idea. Burn a pile of coal and supply the excess heat to a home as a byproduct of the heat you use to cook your dinner.

no ,its as if I am generating it in a atmosphere lower
than the ambient air.

yes it will fill the vacuum , thats why I said you would need to use a pump to maintain the vacuum as the statup processes begin.

--------------------------------------------------

you seem to be clinging to the only remaining thing you can think of to try and explain it away , and that is
your insistance that somehow the water will still have
12 psi water pressure at the bottom of the pipe.

think of the water in the pipe as a long piston in a hydraulic system , because that is basicaly what it is.

sure the piston still weights the same , but in this scenario the piston is being pulled upwards.

to prove this if I were to poke a hole in the bottom of
the pipe and stick your finger in the hole , then apply the vacuum , would your finger be pulled in by the vacuum or would your finger be pushed out by the 12 psi water pressure that you are clinging to.

--------------------------------------------------

heres yet another method to determine that I am right.

place a valve between the bottom of the pipe and
a 1 ft riser pipe so that a hose can connect
at 1 ft above the bottom of the pipe.

connect a 27 ft see through water hose to the 1 ft riser pipe at the bottom of the pipe.

1) close the valve.
2) then fill the pipe with water.
3) then place the cap on top.
4) then place the vacuum on the air gap at the top.
5) get a ladder and take the other end of the hose
to the top of the pipe
6) pour in enought water in the hose at the top to
give the water in the hose a 1 ft height.
7) open the valve.

now carry the hose back down the ladder.

now look at the see through water hose !!!!

you will find that all the water pressure you are dreaming of is gone , and there isnt even enought to let you get any water out of the hose , even though the water is
at a 28 ft height inside the pipe.

why wont the water come out , it should come out because
of all the pressure gradient?
but where is the pressure from the pressure gradient now?

now as you know things get even simpler as we proceed.

to avoid the cost of a fuel cell , we can simply use a
rubber hose , like a water hose for a car , or a thick rubber balloon inside the pipe that is filled with water the balloon is confined so that it cannot expand further
than a desired expansion.

the expansion can be accomplished using a pipe with holes drilled in it.
the vacuum holds the rubber balloon expanded inside the pipe with holes drilled in it until the HHO
rises to the top.

then the HHO is ignighted , thus causing an explosive force to press down on the top of the water.

squeezing the now pressurized water in the balloon out through a check valve.

then the resulting vacuum pulls more water into the balloon through another check valve.

you can still have the buoyancy of the HHO inside the pipe
or you can just have a water pump.

So you actually mean "you need a pump continually as long as the machine is running", not just at startup. Please try to be clearer.



Hey how about from now on whenever we mention a pressure we explicitly state if it's absolute or gauge pressure? I think you're getting really mixed up. And I can never be sure which you mean.

Absolute pressure:
0psi = complete vacuum
15psi = normal ambient air pressure at sea level

Gauge pressure:
-15psi = complete vacuum
0psi = normal ambient air pressure at sea level


Here's the pipe with water, fully evacuated at the top, using _absolute_ pressures:

top pressure = 0psi
bottom pressure
= pressure caused by the weight of everything in the pipe
+ pressure at the top of the pipe
= 12psi + 0psi
= 12psi

Now here's the exact same system using gauge pressures:
top pressure = -15psi
bottom pressure
= pressure caused by the weight of everything in the pipe
+ pressure at the top of the pipe
= 12psi + -15psi
= -3psi

Regardless of which way you look at it, that's a little below ambient air pressure, so we could call it a 'vacuum' even tho it's filled with water.

If you think I said there's more pressure the bottom than the ambient, then re-read what I said, paying attention to what kind of pressure I was using.


It would be pulled in by the 12psi of absolute pressure, because that's less than the 15psi on the other side of your finger.


Now what's the point of all this?

I thought that I was pretty clear.



the point is that the pressure is lower at the bottom of the pipe where the HHO
is being generated , thereby using less energy to generate HHO.

the HHO can supply energy as it rises up the 28 ft pipe.

the fuel cell can recover more energy than the energy
that was used to generate the HHO.

and you also have whatever you can get from the buoyancy.

plus you have any heat that is the result of friction
and HHO generation.

OK I think I get it now.

It's exactly the same as before, but with a vacuum, right?

Make HHO down below, float it up, use it, drop the water exhaust back in.

The only advantage it has over no vacuum is you're generating the HHO at 3psi below atmospheric. That's all. So what? Just do it on Mars and it's even better.

What do you suppose the efficiency of HHO generation is in complete vacuum? Less than 100%? If so, then no amount of vacuum can be good. Maybe it improves from 80% to 90%, but that's not enough for perpetual motion.

Please stop talking about using waste heat. All engines generate waste heat, the less efficient they are the more heat they make. It's just a pointless distraction to an already confusing topic. Some of the heat from a car's engine is used to heat the cabin on cold days, but people don't actually drive round with coffee machines, so the rest is just dumped. Why do you think power plants have cooling towers? It's because they can't think of any use for all that heat, so they get rid of it by boiling water into the air. If you have a new idea for using waste heat, then make a new thread and keep it separate from HHO.

thats all so what?

so what !!!

HHO generated at 1 atm can deliver apx 43 liters a hour.
HHO generated at .75 atm can deliver apx 85 liters a hour.

using the same amount of energy...

85 liters an hour buoyancy alone is pretty good excess energy.

and why should I stop talking about using waste heat when
waste heat uses up apx 77% of our energy resources.

I have stopped using my heat pump air conditioning that used to run all day long using up apx 3kWh every hour it was running.

I now use apx 300 watts in my geothermal cooling system.

and all it does is circulate water through a pipe and exchange the coolness of the water in the ground with the heat in the house.

so Im saving 2.7 kWh each hour on my electricity bill.

that adds up to quite a savings each month.
2.7 kWh x 24 x 30 days = 1944 kWh a month

or to compare the usage
3 kWh x 24 x 30 days = 2160 kWh a month
vs
.3 kWh x 24 x 30 days = 216 kWh a month

the way we use energy and the way we use heat is our main
problem.

and for you to sudgest that we shouldnt concern ourselves with waste heat just because all engines that we currently use waste heat , is like saying we should just throw our
money away because we have a trash can.

just because all engines that we currently use waste heat
doesnt mean we shouldnt try to remedy that.

Yea by all means finding a use for otherwise wasted heat is good. But this HHO machine doesn't depend on it, so talking about it just makes things more complicated to think about.

Geothermal cooling? Awesome. How much did that cost? How deep is it? I heard they were planning to do that with the London underground a few years ago.


1 liter of HHO at 0.75 atm contains fewer molecules, less mass and less energy than 1 liter of HHO at 1 atm. Why not just express it as efficiency? Then it's plain as day whether it's any good or not.

not really !!

its true that at .75 atm 1 liter of HHO has fewer molecules
by volume than it would have at 1 atm , but the number of molecules produced increases in .75 atm using the Faraday formula that I used.

this is because the water itself has not expanded because of the lower .75 atm pressure as water
does not stretch because of pressure or vacuum until it can vaporize , and if it vaporizes its no longer water its water vapor.

so your still producing a larger number of molecules.
only it will fill a larger volume in a .75 atm atmosphere.

like a balloon expands bigger and bigger as it rises higher
and higher into lower and lower pressure in our atmosphere , until it expands so much that it explodes.

the same amount of gas it just fits in a larger volume.

------------------------------------
the gothermal system was built by me.

I traded the use of copper for the economicaly priced pex tubing used in
geothermal floor space heating systems , I have 100 ft of the pex tubing
apx 25 ft inside a shallow well that I use for the garden.
I put the well down using water pressure !! and a 3" pipe with a city water
pressure hose attached at the top.

then I pumped off the well basin with a 3 hp air compresssor , simply by
running the air hose down into the well pipe and valving the air on and off
the air pressure builds up and then shoots a sand and water mixture up and out of
the pipe.

the circulation is done by a 1/40 HP circulation pump that uses apx 50 watts.


the heat exchanger inside the house is a commercial type heat exchanger
that circulates the cold transfered into the pex pipe in the well.
and the blower fan on it uses apx 200 watts , I have also installed a
roof mounted attic vent fan that removes the hotter air that was being
trapped in the attic.
the attic vent fan uses apx 50 watts

50 + 200 + 50 = 300 watts !!!!!

its funny because I use the cfl light bulbs also
and my geothermal system uses less energy than the lights !!!

alot of these systems use pumps to actually lift water up from a well
then circulate the cold water through a heat exchanger then they dump the
now warmer water back into a seperate well.

this method waste energy as simply circulating the water does not require the additional energy required to actually lift the water.

Regarding the HHO. Please give some proper numbers instead of the misleading /liter ones. Ideally the HHO produced would be measured in units of energy or power! But knowing the mass is a pretty good next best.

Have you found the pressure where efficiency is greatest? Is that at complete vacuum? Or maybe even at high pressure??



------

That cooling system sounds great. Is it 25ft deep or 25ft length spread around? How spread around it is?

I suppose you can get away with recirculating the same water because it's not using much. Perhaps if you cooled a whole building you'd need such a huge amount of piping underground you might as well just pay a bit more for pumping.

refering to the program I made you can set all the other settings to any combination of current , watts , volts , temperature , but when you reduce the pressure below 1 atm the output volume increases , likewise when you increase the pressure above 1 atm the output volume decreases , and it tells you the number of hydrogen molecules and oxygen molecules that is produced in an amp hour.

the lower the pressure , the higher the output volume.
I have my program set to deny anything over
29.92 inch Hg vacuum pressure (1 atm).

and at that pressure it shows the highest output volume.

my next addition to the program will be for calculating the
number of cells to use as the program now only calculates the volume of output of a single cell.
I will probably have paralell and series cells in a
arrangeable visual display.

I might then include a circuit board diagram that will
assist in the building of the circuit that controls the current going to the cells.

its much better to build it , and test it , in a simulator first , given your simulator includes the proper factors involved.





I have about $50.00 in the 1/40 HP pump.(used)
$30.00 in the pex pipe
probably another $50.00 in the pipe and fittings between the pex and the heat exchanger.
and apx $100.00 in the heat exchanger.(new but old)

and $70.00 in the attic vent.

so I have around $230.00 tied up in it -- LOL

the more pipe you have , the number of sharp turns , the smoothness of the pipe , along with the inside area of the pipe , and the cooling fluids mass and viscocity are the most important factors.

yes you most likely will need a large pump for a large building
and according to the area inside the building , you will need more heat exchangers.

a pump can only supply a certain rated pressure and flow rate.

but a well designed pipe system can mean the difference between a 10 HP pump and a 1 HP pump.

the 100 ft of pex is at the bottom of the 25 ft shallow well
and coiled around inside the well basin that I pumped off.

Maybe this whole idea of more efficiency at lower pressure was a complete mistake. Maybe it was just that more volume comes out?



Wow. Wouldn't it be an idea to simulate the critical and nobel-prize-winning aspect of it before worrying about such details?





Yea I was referring to dumping the hot water into the open ground instead of recirculating it like you do. That would save you the loads of extra piping you'd need for a large system.

why bother with a geothermal system then.

just use a pile of air conditioners = no piping , just thousands of dollars each month to pay for the electric bill.

Huh? Why?

Of course if it's a big enough building that it needs a vast network of underground pipes with installation costs that have a payback period longer than the building's life, then no, don't bother with a closed loop pipe.

It may also use _less_ electricity to pump up from an open pipe and dump the hot water back in somewhere else. Just because of the resistance of the water against that huge length of pipe wall you would have to have otherwise.

Sure, in a small system like yours a closed loop pipe is probably best. But it isn't necessarily always best for everyone.

great idea.

it might cost more initialy , but the savings over the life of the building or complex would pay for the building or complex.

I say this strictly because of the cost of electricity.

say your paying out 10,000 a month for electricity , and that would be a relatively small building compared to the bill at the
empire state building for instance.

you can reduce that 10,000 to apx 3,000 each month.
over a 30 year period you save
7,000 x 12 x 30 = 2.52 million dollars.

I hardly think that the pipes and the geo installation would
cost any where near that amount , unless your being gouged by
companies that gouge , perhaps with kickbacks involved.

Yea the pipe installation cost might be easier to overcome. But I think if your building was large enough, you'd reach a critical point where it uses less electricity to have two seperate wells than a long closed loop of pipe.

Why? because the longer the pipe, the more resistance, and the more power needed to pump water through it.

when a engineer designs a pipe system , he takes into account the pipe resistance.

and increases pipe size as required.

thereby reducing the pipe resistance from
friction,turbulance,etc.

this is why engineers are used in pipe design and pipe system design.

the only thing that can possibly reduce flow in a circulation
system other than obstructions , viscosity and fluid temperature is pipe resistance.

by increasing pipe size the resistance is greatly lowered.

the reason there is pipe resistance is the tendancy of fluid to cling to the walls of the pipe , this is called surface tension.

and this surface tension causes turbulance to build inside the flow area.

and this turbulance due to surface tension will slow the fluid that passes through the pipe , but if a larger pipe is used then there is a much larger area inside the pipe that is not affected by the turbulance due to the surface tension.

by increasing pipe size , you can effectively lower the pump size , or you can add more pipe lenght to the system.

because pumps utilize pressure to push fluid through pipes.

and by increasing the pipe size you reduce the resistance to flow inside the pipes.

in other words you reduce the resistance downstream of the pump.

it is clear that you dont have a working comprehension of pipe systems.

Yea sure, but it also lowers the rate of heat absorption/dumping per volume flow rate. That means you have to pump more water to get the same amount of cooling, and overcome a higher back-force from the bouyant hot water you're pushing in.

Maybe the reduced resistance compensates for that at any scale, but you can't be sure without actually calculating or testing it.


I have to nit pick again, but the fluid clinging to the walls on its own is bad enough, even without turbulence. Many industrial pipe systems are designed to have laminar flow just so they can save power, but they still suffer the losses you mentioned.

its a sealed pipe system , so higher pressure in the system
due to temperature changes that would affect the pumps pumping ability is null , and the hotter water will flow much easier than the colder water due viscosity changes that occur with water temperature changes.

so its a trade off , pretty much.

I totally agree that testing is necessary to find optimum
system design , as system design will vary greatly between designers.

unless norms are established throughout the industry.



I agree these will never go away.
1) temperature changes
2) viscosity changes
3) pipe resistance

and power requirements are mandated by these.

the most you can do is assist the flow by increasing fluid temperature or increasing pump pressure given that you are using water only.

but most have begun to use antifreeze as it has a low viscosity rating and a high heat rating , allowing the fluid to flow smoother through the pipe system.

and removing the need to drain the system in colder months.

note: I dont use antifreeze, I only use water.

I suppose I could get better results if I used the biodegradeable antifreeze available on the market.

I just dont like the idea of putting my well water in any jeopardy.

besides its not just my well water.

"Sorry but the internet isn't more reliable than books. Still doesn't count."

I don't think so, internet and books are both reliable because they are both the source of information so they are counted.