KATZ@USC-ISIF (12/30/82)
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@USC-ISIF> How it works: This is a really clever device. Inside the base there is a coil of wire, with a smaller coil of wire on it, a transister, and a battery. The top is a permanent magnet. The spinning top, therefore creates a time varying magnetic field. When the top spins near the center of the base, the spinning top induces an electric field in the smaller coil of wire which triggers the transister to switch power from the battery to the larger coil of wire. This in turn pushes the top away from the center, which turns off the system since the top is no longer inducing current in the smaller coil. So, as the top spins down, it goes to the center, which activates the system in the base to give it a push magnetically. There are indeed no permanent magnets in the base, however, the top has a permanent magnet in it. The energy to keep the top going comes from a nine volt battery inside the base. The device is called, believe it or not: TOP SECRET Alan -------
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (03/18/85)
All these stories about miracle inventions being suppressed are usually just so much rot. I've heard the same story for years about broadcast power and Tesla. I have yet to see any evidence that it is other than a fairy tale. --Lauren--
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/19/85)
> All these stories about miracle inventions being suppressed are usually > just so much rot. I've heard the same story for years about broadcast > power and Tesla. I have yet to see any evidence that it is other than > a fairy tale. > > --Lauren-- While it is certainly true that there is no concrete evidence for perpetual motion machines, the problem with them is really more fundamental. Since a PMM displaces air currents (and to the best of my knowledge, no one has tried to invent a PMM that works only in a vacuum), it must actually create energy instead of simply conserving it. According to Einstein, if you can create energy, you can also create *momentum*. The conservation of momentum is so fundamental (and easy to verify) that even most laymen be- lieve it; this is why there have been so few "momentum creating" machines. Unfortunately, most of the public doesn't know about this implication. Thus these "inventors" are trying to devise a machine which would break a law of physics which *they themselves* accept, although they don't know it. Therefore you don't have to wait to "see some evidence"; you can be almost certain that such people don't know what they are talking about from the moment they mention PMM's. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (03/19/85)
In article <608@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: >All these stories about miracle inventions being suppressed are usually >just so much rot. I've heard the same story for years about broadcast >power and Tesla. I have yet to see any evidence that it is other than >a fairy tale. > >--Lauren-- Tesla and broadcast power stories aren't COMPLETE rot. I grew up near Tesla's Colorado Springs lab (actually Manitou Springs and I grew up in Pueblo) and got interested in Tesla. I have spoken with old folks who remember Tesla driving a buckboard through the streets of Manitou, miles from his lab, with big flourescent lights burning attached only to copper plate antennae. But it apparently burned power like crazy -- effiency was *real* low. -- Opinions stated here. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
derek@uwvax.UUCP (Derek Zahn) (03/19/85)
> ...The conservation of momentum is so fundamental (and easy to verify) that > even most laymen believe it.... Wow. Thanx for the vote of confidence :-). > Unfortunately, most of the public doesn't know about this implication. > Thus these "inventors" are trying to devise a machine which would break a > law of physics which *they themselves* accept, although they don't know it. Well, I was more under the impression that most so-called Perpetual Motion Machines were never really that -- but rather got their energy from the Earth's rotation and things like that. As for vacuum PMM's, go out between the galaxies somewhere and spin a frisbee inside a perfectly evacuated box. > "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the > interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918 Phooey. -- Derek Zahn @ wisconsin ...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!derek derek@wisc-rsch.arpa
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (03/20/85)
> ... The conservation of > momentum is so fundamental (and easy to verify) that even most laymen be- > lieve it; ... Also, conservation of momentum is a direct consequence of spatial translation invariance of the fundamental laws of physics, and conservation of energy is a result of time translation invariance. The general relativist would point out that the corresponding exact physical law (vanishing divergence of stress-energy-momentum tensor) shows that the exactly-conserved quantity is not purely physical, and the purely physical quantity is not exactly conserved. However, I know of no "perpetual motion machine" that claims to exploit this. I certainly don't think professional physicists have a monopoly on truth, but the odds are very much against a "backyard inventor" being able to overthrow well-established theories of physics without himself having a coherent mathematical theory.
mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) (03/20/85)
> All these stories about miracle inventions being suppressed are usually > just so much rot. I've heard the same story for years about broadcast > power and Tesla. I have yet to see any evidence that it is other than > a fairy tale. > > --Lauren-- Please lets not forget the pogue carburetor. Mike @ AMDCAD
sck@elsie.UUCP (Steve Kaufman) (03/20/85)
> > Also, conservation of momentum is a direct consequence of spatial > translation invariance of the fundamental laws of physics, and > conservation of energy is a result of time translation invariance. > > The general relativist would point out that the corresponding exact > physical law (vanishing divergence of stress-energy-momentum tensor) > shows that the exactly-conserved quantity is not purely physical, and > the purely physical quantity is not exactly conserved. > Could someone kindly translate the above into English for those of us who don't often see phrases like "time translation invariance" and "vanishing divergence of stress-energy-momentum tensor"? Thanks.
snafu@ihlpm.UUCP (wallis) (03/21/85)
> All these stories about miracle inventions being suppressed are usually > just so much rot. I've heard the same story for years about broadcast > power and Tesla. I have yet to see any evidence that it is other than > a fairy tale. > > --Lauren-- Actually, Tesla could and did braodcast power through the air. He did it with a super-sized Tesla coil, which when operating would send lightening-like arcs for many feet. The power could be received miles away by a receiving antenna. What most people don't realize is that a Tesla coil operates at radio frequeuency. His transmitting station was really just a radio antenna - the arcs were caused by the fact that it was not tuned to the proper frequency, along with the tremendous power the coil generated. Telsa could have gotten much higer efficiency with tuned antennas, but the overall efficiency and practicality of such a power distribution system is much less than for conventional power distribution. Dave Wallis ihnp4!ihlpm!snafu AT&T Network Systems, Inc. (312) 510-6238
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (03/22/85)
> Could someone kindly translate the above into English > for those of us who don't often see phrases like > "time translation invariance" > and > "vanishing divergence of stress-energy-momentum tensor"? Sorry, that is as simple as you're likely to get. The first phrase is self-explanatory; just analyze the words. The latter requires a certain degree of familiarity with tensor calculus and general relativity. This IS net.physics (info-physics), isn't it?
jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (03/22/85)
In article <608@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: >All these stories about miracle inventions being suppressed are usually >just so much rot. I've heard the same story for years about broadcast >power and Tesla. I have yet to see any evidence that it is other than >a fairy tale. While I tend to agree with Lauren that there is a lot of garbage being passed around as truth, I have to wonder why our cars aren't powered by liquid hydrogen (a non-polluting fuel) rather than gasoline. And a host of other similar questions. There is all too much evidence that people tend to follow their own, very limited, self-interest, rather than look for ways to benefit themselves while providing for the common good. I have no idea whether this alleged invention is or is not what it claims to be, but I am sure there are people out there who think it will endanger their livelihood and would be only too happy to suppress it. -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} 13817 Yukon Ave. trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull Hawthorne, CA 90250
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/23/85)
>Well, I was more under the impression that most so-called Perpetual Motion >Machines were never really that -- but rather got their energy from the >Earth's rotation and things like that. > >As for vacuum PMM's, go out between the galaxies somewhere and spin a >frisbee inside a perfectly evacuated box. Won't work. Because the frisbee is an extended body and is not perfectly rigid, the tidal forces caused by the nearest galaxies will eventually slow it down and stop it. -- David Canzi "Women compromise more than a third of Britain's work force." -- The Vancouver Sun
david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (03/23/85)
Somebody mentioned having talked to people in Colorado Springs who
remembered seeing Tesla driving through town with flourescent bulbs
lit by power transmitted through the air from his lab.
That reminds me of a short I saw in a Pop. Elect. once. (Or some such
magazine). It showed a picture of a man standing under one of those
high-tension power lines holding a flourescent bulb. It was lit!
The article was some concerns that since those lines transmitted power
enough from them to light a bulb, what would it do to people that
live near them or work on them?
I suppose my concern is why is all that power being wasted? Or better
how not to waste it.
I would think that Tesla's broadcasted power thing was inefficient because
it wasn't focused. If it were focussed it ought to work a lot better.
-------
Another part of this debate, we're talking about companies buying up
inventions. And sitting on them. Supposedly so we remain addicted to
fossil fuels or some such.
Might they not be waiting until the time is right to introduce 200mpg
cars? The right time being when we're all paying $5 per gallon.
Just a thought.
--
--- David Herron
--- ARPA-> ukma!david<@ANL-MCS> or david%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpa
--- Or even anlams!ukma!david@ucbvax.arpa
--- UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!david
--- cbosgd!ukma!david
"The home of poly-unsaturated thinking".tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/24/85)
Although it's fairly obvious that the machine under discussion is a hoax, as evidenced by the conflicting stories the inventor gives about its mode of operation if nothing else, there isn't anything inherently ludicrous about extracting energy from the Earth's magnetic field, is there? After all, it does have the ability to do work -- just look at what happens with a compass needle. However, I have no idea what the theoretical maximum of extractable energy is. Can one of you physics types tell me, or correct my speculation? -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (03/24/85)
[] > > Also, conservation of momentum is a direct consequence of spatial > > translation invariance of the fundamental laws of physics, and > > conservation of energy is a result of time translation invariance. > > > > The general relativist would point out that the corresponding exact > > physical law (vanishing divergence of stress-energy-momentum tensor) > > shows that the exactly-conserved quantity is not purely physical, and > > the purely physical quantity is not exactly conserved. > > > > Could someone kindly translate the above into English > for those of us who don't often see phrases like > "time translation invariance" > and > "vanishing divergence of stress-energy-momentum tensor"? The basic message of the first statement is that conservation of momentum is deeply imbedded in modern physical theories, and cannot be removed without totally wrecking the theory. The second sentence depends on the distinction between "purely physical" quantities and something else (in the name of Murphy, what??). If we ignore this distinction, then it also says that you cannot get away from conservation of momentum without wrecking general relativity. Perhaps the writer's meaning is that in general relativity, no region of space-time can be truly isolated, and so any measurement of momentum is slightly affected by all the matter in the universe. And this effect is non-constant, because we can't get the universe to hold still while we do our experiment. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 870-5853
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/25/85)
I saw a film somewhere (whose name I forget) about using hydrogen as a fuel. It seems that John Q. Public isn't ready for it -- street interviews showed that everybody thought of the Hindenburg. They had a nice set of scenes where somone shot tanks of propane, something else, something else again, and hydrogen with a bullet from a rifle. The hydrogen was the only one that didn't go *BOOM*. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (03/25/85)
> > Could someone kindly translate the above into English > for those of us who don't often see phrases like > "time translation invariance" > and > "vanishing divergence of stress-energy-momentum tensor"? > > Thanks. "Time translation invariance" means that the laws of physics don't change with time. The results of an experiment are the same, regardless of when you do it. This law and the law of conservation of energy are equivalent. I don't know how to prove this, but I read it in a book on the fundamentals of physics. I don't know what "vanishing divergence of stress-energy-momentum tensor" means. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
carlc@tektronix.UUCP (Carl Clawson) (03/25/85)
In article <368@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) writes: > >According to Einstein, if you >can create energy, you can also create *momentum*. I don't believe Einstein said this. If he did, he was wrong. (Are you sure it wasn't Tesla? He seems to be the hero of the week.) Rather than me posting a more detailed explanation, try reading the first chapter or two of a freshman physics book. The other possibility is that you've done a terrible job of saying what you were trying to say, in which case make that a freshman English comp. book. snarl
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/25/85)
> In article <608@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > >All these stories about miracle inventions being suppressed are usually > >just so much rot. I've heard the same story for years about broadcast > >power and Tesla. I have yet to see any evidence that it is other than > >a fairy tale. > > While I tend to agree with Lauren that there is a lot of garbage being > passed around as truth, I have to wonder why our cars aren't powered > by liquid hydrogen (a non-polluting fuel) rather than gasoline. And a > host of other similar questions. There is all too much evidence that > people tend to follow their own, very limited, self-interest, rather > than look for ways to benefit themselves while providing for the > common good. All right, I confess. *I*'m the guy who bought up all of the liquid hydrogen producing wells, and I don't plan to sell until energy prices rise by a factor of 10 or so. I'm currently storing about 20,000 gallons of it in my basement, which certainly helps my air conditioning bill in the summer. <sarcasm ends> Just in case some of you out there haven't figured this out yet, it takes a lot of liquid hydrogen to run a lot of liquid hydrogen burning cars. Since there aren't any liquid hydrogen wells, it takes a lot of electricity to tear water molecules open to get the hydrogen from them. In order to get all of that electricity, you usually create pollution in one way or another. Since the cycle from fossil fuels => electricity => liquid hydrogen => go-power for your car, is not particularly efficient, you have to burn much more fossil fuels to make liquid hydrogen for your cars than it would take to just make your car run off fossil fuels in the first place. Too bad. It's nice to think that all of your problems are caused by some conspiracy among humans. Just as often, however, the laws of physics make life tough, without any help from villains. But liquid hydrogen burning cars will be great once electricity can be produced more cheaply and without causing pollution. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "War is peace."-the ministry of truth
gv@hou2e.UUCP (A.VANNUCCI) (03/25/85)
> In article <608@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > >All these stories about miracle inventions being suppressed are usually > >just so much rot. I've heard the same story for years about broadcast > >power and Tesla. I have yet to see any evidence that it is other than > >a fairy tale. > > While I tend to agree with Lauren that there is a lot of garbage being > passed around as truth, I have to wonder why our cars aren't powered > by liquid hydrogen (a non-polluting fuel) rather than gasoline. And a > host of other similar questions. There is all too much evidence that > people tend to follow their own, very limited, self-interest, rather > than look for ways to benefit themselves while providing for the > common good. A few years ago I read a very interesting article in Scientific American about the technology of hydrogen-burning cars. The hydrogen was not to be stored in liquid form in pressurized and cooled tanks (too dangerous and too impractical) but rather as a hydride in a low-pressure room-temperature tank. The technical problem to be overcome was finding a suitable material for the hydrogen to form a hydride with; i.e., a material that would be sufficiently inexpensive to produce, effective and environmentally safe. Of course, this research for a *practical* hydrogen-powered car was being supported entirely by those "ogre" companies that are so often blamed for suppressing innovations, etc. etc. etc. I work for a big company and, based on my experience, the opposite is true. Without the support and conducive environment that my employer provides me with, I would be hard pressed to come up with any research results that are worth anything. There are always exceptions and I'm sure that in many cases big business is to blame for stifling innovation and suppressing initiative. However, I'm convinced that, by and large, when people complain about big companies suppressing innovative research they usually don't know what they are talking about. Giovanni Vannucci AT&T Bell Laboratories HOH R-207 Holmdel, NJ 07733 hou2e!gv
jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (03/26/85)
From davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > I've always thought that ... hiding ideas or patents which are so >potent as to revolutionize (and thus undermine) their field of activity > is self-contradictory. > > The obvious reason is that if those ideas or patents are so potent, then > billions of dollars could be had by exploiting them, *not* hiding them! Could you please move this discussion to net.politics. Please note the Followup-To line above. Be prepared for flames as various conspiracy theories have been discussed there already. -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} 13817 Yukon Ave. trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull Hawthorne, CA 90250
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (03/26/85)
In article <5226@tektronix.UUCP> carlc@tektronix.UUCP (Carl Clawson) writes: >In article <368@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) writes: >> >>According to Einstein, if you >>can create energy, you can also create *momentum*. > >I don't believe Einstein said this. If he did, he was wrong. >(Are you sure it wasn't Tesla? He seems to be the hero of the week.) >Rather than me posting a more detailed explanation, try reading >the first chapter or two of a freshman physics book. > The problem being that you read *Newtonian* physics/mechanics in the first couple chapters of a freshman physics book, and the person is talking about General Relativity here... This is referring to the something-energy-momentum tensor that was bandied about in this same group really recently. -- Opinions stated here. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
scw@cepu.UUCP (Stephen C. Woods) (03/26/85)
In article <491@spp2.UUCP> jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) writes: >In article <608@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: >>All [...] rot. I've [...] fairy tale. > >While I tend to agree with Lauren that there is a lot of garbage being >passed around as truth, I have to wonder why our cars aren't powered >by liquid hydrogen (a non-polluting fuel) rather than gasoline. Well there's a whole bunch of reasons: (1) It's MUCH MUCH MUCH (is that enough MUCHes?) more hazardious than Gasoline. Remember that you're going to have grade school dropouts pumping this stuff into your car. (2) It's about 4 times as bulky as the energy equivalent ammount of gasoline. Most people would not appreciate having to fill their tank with $10/Gal LH2 every 50-100 miles. Not to mention the insulation on your tank to keep it from evaporating. (3) It's much more expensive to make. (a)extraction from H2O (about 50% efficency?) (b)Cooling it to (whatever degrees K 10? 20?). Totally lost energy here (it's not useable to make your car go). (c)Keeping it COLD. > And a >host of other [...] themselves while providing for the >common good. Ah! yes, the famous Quarterly Report syndrome. > >I have no idea whether this alleged invention is or is not what it >claims to be, but I am sure there are people out there who think it >will endanger their livelihood and would be only too happy to suppress >it. I suspect that some people would be happy to supress it (if it were genuiner), but somehow I just can't see it as a real item. > Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"
wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) (03/27/85)
> While I tend to agree with Lauren that there is a lot of garbage being > passed around as truth, I have to wonder why our cars aren't powered > by liquid hydrogen (a non-polluting fuel) rather than gasoline. > Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} You have got to be kidding. Liquid hydrogen is DANGEROUS. At atmospheric pressure it boils at 20 degrees Kelvin == -253 degrees Celsius one of the lowest boiling points known next to helium. You have to allow blowoff from a container (pressurized or not) container to keep it from blowing up as the liquid boils and the pressure builds up. The blowoff is VERY flameable. It took quite a bit of effort for the space program to work up the technology to keep the liquid hydrogen fueled rockets from blowing up on the pad. I would be very leery of having it in general by any other than very highly trained people. Pressurised hydrogen though ... well, maybe. -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (03/27/85)
Re: use of hydrogen ...
NO FLAMES PLEASE!
--
Norman Diamond
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (03/27/85)
There is only ONE renewable energy resource on this planet: Solar Energy. If you take a large solar collector array, and plug the electrodes into the ocean, you get hydrogen and oxymorons. Bottle the hydrogen, put it into the tanks of the hydrogen burning cars (which burn it catalytically in a fuel cell) and you get electricity to run your electric motor). There, wasn't that easier than mounting a collector array on your car or running at the end of a long extension cord? No pollution! (As long as we make solar collectors cleanly). Now, what was the problem? > > In article <608@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > > >All these stories about miracle inventions being suppressed are usually > > >just so much rot. I've heard the same story for years about broadcast > > >power and Tesla. I have yet to see any evidence that it is other than > > >a fairy tale. > > > > While I tend to agree with Lauren that there is a lot of garbage being > > passed around as truth, I have to wonder why our cars aren't powered > > by liquid hydrogen (a non-polluting fuel) rather than gasoline. And a > > host of other similar questions. There is all too much evidence that > > people tend to follow their own, very limited, self-interest, rather > > than look for ways to benefit themselves while providing for the > > common good. > > All right, I confess. *I*'m the guy who bought up all of the liquid > hydrogen producing wells, and I don't plan to sell until energy prices > rise by a factor of 10 or so. I'm currently storing about 20,000 gallons > of it in my basement, which certainly helps my air conditioning bill in > the summer. > <sarcasm ends> > Just in case some of you out there haven't figured this out yet, it > takes a lot of liquid hydrogen to run a lot of liquid hydrogen burning > cars. Since there aren't any liquid hydrogen wells, it takes a lot of > electricity to tear water molecules open to get the hydrogen from them. > In order to get all of that electricity, you usually create pollution in > one way or another. Since the cycle from fossil fuels => electricity => > liquid hydrogen => go-power for your car, is not particularly efficient, > you have to burn much more fossil fuels to make liquid hydrogen for your > cars than it would take to just make your car run off fossil fuels in the > first place. > Too bad. It's nice to think that all of your problems are caused by > some conspiracy among humans. Just as often, however, the laws of physics > make life tough, without any help from villains. > But liquid hydrogen burning cars will be great once electricity can be > produced more cheaply and without causing pollution. > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "War is peace."-the ministry of truth *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (03/28/85)
In article <455@cepu.UUCP> scw@cepu.UUCP (Stephen C. Woods) writes: >>While I tend to agree with Lauren that there is a lot of garbage being >>passed around as truth, I have to wonder why our cars aren't powered >>by liquid hydrogen (a non-polluting fuel) rather than gasoline. > >Well there's a whole bunch of reasons: >(1) It's MUCH MUCH MUCH (is that enough MUCHes?) more hazardious than Gasoline. > Remember that you're going to have grade school dropouts pumping this > stuff into your car. >(2) It's about 4 times as bulky as the energy equivalent ammount of gasoline. > Most people would not appreciate having to fill their tank with $10/Gal > LH2 every 50-100 miles. Not to mention the insulation on your tank to > keep it from evaporating. >(3) It's much more expensive to make. > (a)extraction from H2O (about 50% efficency?) > (b)Cooling it to (whatever degrees K 10? 20?). > Totally lost energy here (it's not useable to make your car go). > (c)Keeping it COLD. > >-- >Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) well, i have a friend who is converting his van to hydrogen power this summer. he thinks that there will be little problems with it. so, i will attempt to reply to the above based upon what he has told me: 1) it is more explosive than gasoline in the sense that it doesn't need to evaporate first before mixing with air (see point 3). however, since it is less dense than air, it will rise, and any flames and stuff will rise also. because it is a gas to begin with there will be a flash explosion and nothing else except possibly nearby debris that ignites. natural gas and gasoline are denser than air and will pool, forming flames that will be underneath any vehicle and burning anything above. since they also burn less rapidly than hydrogen, there is a higher likelyhood of igniting nearbly inflammable material. propane and natural gas powered cars pull up at the nearest source of supply (some gas stations sell propane for these cars) and fill up. there's a station about 1 km from where i write this. you also buy leaded and unleaded gas from the same person. 2) propane and natural gas powered cars suffer from this same problem but no-one around here notices it much. most of these cars that i know of have cruising ranges of about 300 km before requiring refilling. remember that these engines are more efficient than gas engines and don't need as much total energy input to get the same amount out. mind you, the old gas tank is just removed and the trunk essentially becomes useless for putting all but the smallest things into. 3) it is not sold as liquid hydrogen, but as compressed gas. it is mostly extracted from byproducts of natural gas wells, though electrolysis is another way of getting it. since it's a gas, no problem with refrigeration. it's cleaner burning than gasoline though it still produces oxides of nitrogen. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
wall@fortune.UUCP (Jim Wall) (03/28/85)
In article <2085@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) writes: >There is only ONE renewable energy resource on this planet: Solar Energy. >If you take a large solar collector array, and plug the electrodes into the >ocean, you get hydrogen and oxymorons. Bottle the hydrogen, put it into >the tanks of the hydrogen burning cars (which burn it catalytically in >a fuel cell) and you get electricity to run your electric motor). There, >wasn't that easier than mounting a collector array on your car or running >at the end of a long extension cord? No pollution! (As long as we make >solar collectors cleanly). Now, what was the problem? This all brings back the old national forensics league debating that was I got trapped in so long ago. Solar is wonderful, solar is fabulous, solar is also so terribly inefficient that it is worthless as a *major* energy producer. Allow me to clearify... For small usages such as house heating, and minor electricity production solar is only expensive. Works pretty good unless the energy has to be stored for use at night and cloudy days, then you have major losses associated with the transfer of th energy. However, any time a large amount of energy needs to be produced, such as lighting Las Vegas, firing up NASA's wind tunnel, or producing usable amounts of hydrogen it just doesn't make it. You need so much area covered by solar arrays that it is impractical. It can be calculated how much, I don't have my debate cards anymore, but I'm sure the net has people just dying to look things up. I won't even get into the environmental porblems and atmospheric problems of establishing large solar arrays. Don't take my word though, nor the words of all the scientists who have done the calculations, check it out for yourself. -Jim
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (03/28/85)
> Rather than me posting a more detailed explanation, try reading > the first chapter or two of a freshman physics book. > > The other possibility is that you've done a terrible job of saying what > you were trying to say, in which case make that a freshman > English comp. book. I thought that most Freshman curricula were taken up with remedial education to make up for the damage done by public schools?
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (03/29/85)
> There is only ONE renewable energy resource on this planet: > Solar Energy. Actually, solar energy is not a renewable resource. It's just that when we run out, we probably won't be worried about other fuels. . . . > If you take a large solar collector array, and plug the electrodes > into the ocean, you get hydrogen and oxymorons. Uh, I think you mean oxygen. The efficiency rate of electrolysis is rather low (try it some time). Someone was doing some research on alternative methods for breaking water molecules (oddly enough, my memory says it had something to do with chlorophyll). I don't know if anything ever came of it. There are plenty of ways to transfer energy from one point to another; it's just that gasoline is still one of the most cost-effective (short term anyway). -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@maryland
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/29/85)
> I saw a film somewhere (whose name I forget) about using hydrogen as > a fuel. It seems that John Q. Public isn't ready for it -- street > interviews showed that everybody thought of the Hindenburg. > > They had a nice set of scenes where somone shot tanks of propane, > something else, something else again, and hydrogen with a bullet from > a rifle. The hydrogen was the only one that didn't go *BOOM*. Carefully controlled demonstrations are not very persuasive. The thing that makes hydrogen extremely dangerous is the huge range of concentrations of mixtures with oxygen at which it is explosive. (I hope that makes sense) Then, too can you imagine the effect if thousands of cars were pouring water vapor out their tailpipes on a hot, humid day? -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
jr@bbnccv.UUCP (John Robinson) (03/29/85)
In article <5336@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >I saw a film somewhere (whose name I forget) about using hydrogen as >a fuel. It seems that John Q. Public isn't ready for it -- street >interviews showed that everybody thought of the Hindenburg. ... >Laura Creighton >utzoo!laura All we need is to dig out that patent on a helium-burning engine. /jr
hennessy@nmtvax.UUCP (03/29/85)
Greg Kuperberg object to a statement attributed to Einstein about "if you can create matter, then you can create momentum." I for one don't see anything wrong with the statement. As of now we can't create EITHER but rewriting ONE law of physics is worse than eating one peanut, to quote Larry Niven. Einstein was a great theorist, while I am not, but creating BOTH or NEITHER is believable. Sincerely; Greg Hennessy ..ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!hennessy ..ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!student
rob@osiris.UUCP (Robert St. Aardvarks) (03/29/85)
. . . > A few years ago I read a very interesting article in Scientific American > about the technology of hydrogen-burning cars. The hydrogen was not to > be stored in liquid form in pressurized and cooled tanks (too dangerous > and too impractical) but rather as a hydride in a low-pressure room-temperature > tank. The technical problem to be overcome was finding a suitable material > for the hydrogen to form a hydride with; i.e., a material that would be > sufficiently inexpensive to produce, effective and environmentally safe. > > Of course, this research for a *practical* hydrogen-powered car was being > supported entirely by those "ogre" companies that are so often blamed for > suppressing innovations, etc. etc. etc. . . . A few years ago I read an article in OMNI magazine about someone who had a practical hydrogen powered car. It was an informal, interview-styled piece--there was a photograph of the inventor drinking a glass of "exhaust." Apparently he has had some success in promoting the idea; the Midwest town he lives in has a postal fleet--some 100 vehicles--powered by these engines. The article said that soon a $1500 kit would be released to convert gasoline powered engines to hydrogen. The hydrogen was stored in some metallic hydride, which needed to be charged every night, and was worth perhaps 100 miles range. Sorry about the lack of details, but what do you expect from OMNI? Rob St. Amant
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/30/85)
> If you take a large solar collector array, and plug the electrodes into the > ocean, you get hydrogen and oxymorons. Bottle the hydrogen, put it into > the tanks of the hydrogen burning cars (which burn it catalytically in > a fuel cell) and you get electricity to run your electric motor). There, > wasn't that easier than mounting a collector array on your car or running > at the end of a long extension cord? Why not bottle the oxygen, too. Then, if you put your solar collectors on the roof of the car and ran the exhaust back into the electrowhatsis, you'd have the perfect, closed system. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
jlg@lanl.ARPA (03/30/85)
> I saw a film somewhere (whose name I forget) about using hydrogen as > a fuel. It seems that John Q. Public isn't ready for it -- street > interviews showed that everybody thought of the Hindenburg. > > They had a nice set of scenes where somone shot tanks of propane, > something else, something else again, and hydrogen with a bullet from > a rifle. The hydrogen was the only one that didn't go *BOOM*. I saw that film too. It was on PBS (I think it was the Canadian program "the Nature of Things"). The shots were at propane cylinders, gasoline tanks, hydrogen cylinders (both pressurized and liquid hydrogen were used), and finally at a hydrogen storage tank in which the hydrogen was stored in a loose chemical bond with something else (I forget what). All but the gasoline and the chemically stored hydrogen exploded. The gasoline caught fire and burned (and finally exploded) after a subsequent shot. The chemically stored hydrogen never even burned. I thought it was an impressive test. By the way, I've seen several experimental programs which use hydrogen as an automotive fuel. Most use safe storage methods like the one described above. The problem is that hydrogen is still not cost competitive with gasoline. J. Giles
harmon_c@h-sc1.UUCP (david harmon) (03/31/85)
> Although it's fairly obvious that the machine under discussion is a hoax, as > evidenced by the conflicting stories the inventor gives about its mode of > operation if nothing else, there isn't anything inherently ludicrous about > extracting energy from the Earth's magnetic field, is there? After all, it > does have the ability to do work -- just look at what happens with a compass > needle. However, I have no idea what the theoretical maximum of extractable > energy is. Can one of you physics types tell me, or correct my speculation? > -=- > Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking > ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim > CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" There is one problem with machines drawing energy form the earths magnetic field. The energy yaken from the field must be taken from somewhere. For example, if you use a dynamo effect (you can keep a space platform in orbit with a few solar panels this way) the energy is taken from the Earth's energy of rotation. Naturally, this will cause problems only for the NBS in the near future, though I have not worked out the effects of a widespread industry based on something like it. By the way, NBS is the National Bureau of Standards, who among other things are responsible for setting the time by dawn and sunset. Dave Harmon harmon@h-sc1.arpa
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (03/31/85)
> The thing that makes hydrogen extremely dangerous is the huge > range of concentrations of mixtures with oxygen at which it is > explosive. (I hope that makes sense) It might help make cents, if you start out with bronze ingots. (Sorry I couldn't resist, and it's not quite up to the standards of net.jokes.) -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
lindley@ut-ngp.UUCP (John L. Templer) (04/01/85)
From: hennessy@nmtvax.UUCP (Greg Hennessy) > Greg Kuperberg object to a statement attributed to Einstein about "if > you can create matter, then you can create momentum." > I for one don't see anything wrong with the statement. As of now we > can't create EITHER but rewriting ONE law of physics is worse than > eating one peanut, to quote Larry Niven. There's a small problem of terminology here; depending on what you define as matter and momentum, we both can and can't make them. To explain, in special releativity, momentum is a four-vector. The firt three components are just the three components of what we normaly think of as momentum, and the fourth component is proportional to the total energy. Now, changing refference frames is equivalent to transforming the four-vector according to the Lorentz transformations. So the energy and momentum can change, but the momentum vector's magnitude doesn't. As far as "making" momentum or energy, all you can do is trade one off against the other by using this process. Looking back at what I just wrote, I see I wasn't too clear. I can only say it's been a while since I took phy 353. -- John L. Templer University of Texas at Austin {allegra,gatech,seismo!ut-sally,vortex}!ut-ngp!lindley "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose."
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (04/01/85)
[ Time-invariant bug poison ] In article <262@rtech.ARPA> jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> >> Could someone kindly translate the above into English >> for those of us who don't often see phrases like >> "time translation invariance" >> and >> "vanishing divergence of stress-energy-momentum tensor"? >> >> Thanks. > >"Time translation invariance" means that the laws of physics don't change with >time. The results of an experiment are the same, regardless of when you do it. >This law and the law of conservation of energy are equivalent. I don't know how >to prove this, but I read it in a book on the fundamentals of physics. > >I don't know what "vanishing divergence of stress-energy-momentum tensor" >means. >-- >Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) >aka Swazoo Koolak UUUUuuuuummmm.... I have a question, please pardon my ignorance, but about three years ago I read a short article in "Science News" which claimed that they had found evidence that the weak and strong nuclear forces were actually a unified force which split when the universe "cooled" (expanded?) to its present "temperature" of about 4 degrees Kelvin. Would it not be true that before this time, that some experiments would show different results? Or was this simply a poor translation of what the original math showed? Hutch
jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (04/02/85)
In article <1426@hao.UUCP> ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) writes: >> If you take a large solar collector array, and plug the electrodes into the >> ocean, you get hydrogen and oxymorons. Bottle the hydrogen, put it into >> the tanks of the hydrogen burning cars (which burn it catalytically in >> a fuel cell) and you get electricity to run your electric motor). There, >> wasn't that easier than mounting a collector array on your car or running >> at the end of a long extension cord? > >Why not bottle the oxygen, too. Then, if you put your solar >collectors on the roof of the car and ran the exhaust back into >the electrowhatsis, you'd have the perfect, closed system. >-- > >Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD This is precisely the kind of thinking all too few of us are willing to do (It was the lack of this kind of thinking that my original article, where hydrogen fueled cars were mentioned, was deploring). I am sure there are plenty of people out there who will say, "But that won't work because..." To them, I say, please tell us how we can make it work (& why it needs to be changed). I would imagine the system proposed above would not be a closed system because the solar collectors that will fit on a car will not generate enough power to be the car's sole power source. But they can reduce the amount of externally provided power needed & the difference can be made up by plugging into electrical outlets when the car is parked. Refills will probably be needed due to minor leaks & possibly less than perfect reclamation of used fuel. Come on, all you creative people out in netland. Let's refine this to the level someone can build a working model! -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} 13817 Yukon Ave. trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull Hawthorne, CA 90250
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/03/85)
> In article <1426@hao.UUCP> ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) writes: > >> If you take a large solar collector array, and plug the electrodes into the > >> ocean, you get hydrogen and oxymorons. Bottle the hydrogen, put it into > >> the tanks of the hydrogen burning cars (which burn it catalytically in > >> a fuel cell) and you get electricity to run your electric motor). There, > >> wasn't that easier than mounting a collector array on your car or running > >> at the end of a long extension cord? > > > >Why not bottle the oxygen, too. Then, if you put your solar > >collectors on the roof of the car and ran the exhaust back into > >the electrowhatsis, you'd have the perfect, closed system. > >Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD > > This is precisely the kind of thinking all too few of us are willing > to do (It was the lack of this kind of thinking that my original > article, where hydrogen fueled cars were mentioned, was deploring). > > I am sure there are plenty of people out there who will say, "But that > won't work because..." To them, I say, please tell us how we can make > it work (& why it needs to be changed). But that won't work because there's absolutely no point in bottling the oxygen when 20% of the atmosphere is made of O2 anyhow. Also, a solar collector small enough to fit on the roof of your car could, with a day of nice sunshine, probably generate enough hydrogen to allow you to drive 400 yards or so. > > I would imagine the system proposed above would not be a closed system > because the solar collectors that will fit on a car will not generate > enough power to be the car's sole power source. But they can reduce > the amount of externally provided power needed & the difference can be > made up by plugging into electrical outlets when the car is parked. > Refills will probably be needed due to minor leaks & possibly less > than perfect reclamation of used fuel. > > Come on, all you creative people out in netland. Let's refine this to > the level someone can build a working model! > > -- > Blessed Be, > > Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} > 13817 Yukon Ave. trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull > Hawthorne, CA 90250 *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "No, not bird, nor plane, nor even frog. Just little old me, UNDERDOG! <crash!>"- not Idi Ahmin
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (04/03/85)
> > The thing that makes hydrogen extremely dangerous is the huge > range of concentrations of mixtures with oxygen at which it is > explosive. (I hope that makes sense) It does, but gasoline has a nice range too (and tends to stay in that range, since it is a liquid slowly evaporating to a heavy vapor). > > Then, too can you imagine the effect if thousands of cars were > pouring water vapor out their tailpipes on a hot, humid day? CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O + heat (scale it up for bigger hydrocarbons) Hint: they do already. Can you imagine the effect if thousands of cars were NOT pouring carbon monoxide and lead out their tailpipes on that same hot, humid (and thermal- inverted) day? -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Think of it as "evolution inaction". There are no unintentional spelling errors in this article.
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (04/04/85)
> [ Time-invariant bug poison ] > they had found evidence that the weak and strong nuclear forces were actually > a unified force which split when the universe "cooled" (expanded?) to its > present "temperature" of about 4 degrees Kelvin. Would it not be true that > before this time, that some experiments would show different results? > Or was this simply a poor translation of what the original math showed? > > Hutch Picky little point: The present temperature of the universe is about 2.7 degrees Kelvin. (To within about 0.1 or 0.2 degrees) Major point: "Time translation invariance" means changing the time and nothing else. As the nature of the vacuum of the universe changes the results of experiments within it change. However, you could imagine constructing a box which was kept at a constant temperature. Then (if the box were big enough to avoid boundary problems) the time of the experiment would be irrelevant. Picky little point: There is a successful unified theory of *electromagnetism* and the weak nuclear force. There are various (as yet unsuccessful) attempts to unify this theory with quantum chromodynamics (the fundamental theory of the strong nuclear force). "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
swift@reed.UUCP (Theodore Swift) (04/06/85)
Earth's energy >of rotation. Naturally, this will cause problems only for the NBS in the near >future, though I have not worked out the effects of a widespread industry based >on something like it. By the way, NBS is the National Bureau of Standards, who >among other things are responsible for setting the time by dawn and sunset. > Dave Harmon > harmon@h-sc1.arpa Wouldn't the above suggested method of generating power also tend to take energy from the orbit?, i.e., unless you fire a rocket to replace lost momentum, your orbit decays. As for the earth slowing, there is much more drag from tidal effects than would be noticable from a space station. If I'm wrong on this, as I was wrong about the lifting power of hydrogen, lemme know.