Hoping for Good Gas News....

(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Zombywoof
> wrote:
>
>> While I am no chemist, the story said they convert H2O into HHO gas.
>
> HHO? WTF? That would be a stupid way of writing H2O, the gas is water
> vapor.
>
>> He originally created the process for use in welding. It produces a
>> super hot flame that will burn right through a rock, heat a brass
>> ball up to glowing, yet the flame is cool to the touch. As it is
>> being used on a sheet of metal you can wee the water droplets rolling
>> down it. He then converted the technology into a car fuel.
>
> It's MAGIC! What BS.

You dont need to be a Physicist or Rocket Scientist to smell the pile of
steaming....

BULL****-OMETER:

1. "FOLLOW THE MONEY"
- http://www.h2oconversion.com/index.html

2. A flame you can touch, but melts rock
- Gimme a break!

3. The method to crack the water molecule is long-known and often used,
but the direct application is WAY inefficient... it's called
'electrolysis'
- H and O have a strong affinity for each other. You have to use a LOT of
power to produce the cracked gasses in quantity, thus we have yet another
'perpetual motion' process.

4. If it were practical, the FIRST marketed application would be home
power generation. I'm saying, it someone could do it, you'd see them in
Home Depot and Tractor Supply REAL QUICK

I'm still plumping for 'Cold-Fusion'

Related subjects:

"Compressed Air' powered vehicle.
D-Cell powered shop impact wrench
Magic Propellor Beanie - get above the crowds!

--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

My Names Nobody wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:38:55 -0700, Spike > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on
>>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news....
>>> Well even better yet I just got done watching a Fox News report about
>>> a guy who has invented an engine that runs off of (hold onto your hats
>>> now) water. If anybody wants a copy give me a valid e-mail and I'll
>>> send it on.
>> The compressed air powered car is something that might have potential. It
>> costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill the
>> tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.
>
>
> Beyond the pollution that is created at the electric power plants you mean?
> One of my pet peeves is people touting the pollution free aspects of
> electricity!
>
> Fuel-fired electric power plants constitute the largest source of air
> pollution in the US Based on real data from DOE
>
> The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity. 51%
> is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is
> generated with petroleum.
>
> In 1999, electric power plants produced approximately 2.2 billion tons of
> carbon dioxide, 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 7 million tons of
> nitrogen oxides.
>
> The average coal-fired power plant is only 1/3 efficient, meaning 2/3 of the
> energy in the fuel is wasted.
>
> The average fossil fuel-fired power plant was built in 1964, long before the
> Clean Air Act began requiring pollution controls.
>
> Of the largest 1000 fossil fuel-fired power plants in the U.S., 77% are not
> subject to pollution controls under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review
> requirements.
>
> Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!

And you think the internal combustion engine in your car is clean AND
efficient? The engine in cars/trucks use approximately 25%-30% of the
heat in every gallon of gas to run the vehicle. Most of the rest is
lost as wasted heat. Power plants are much more efficient than car
engines. Also, electricity can be generated from multiple sources like
nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, tides, geothermal etc. People living in
the southwest USA could probably use their own person solar cells to run
compressors at their homes. Others might use wind in their areas. The
point I am making is that electricity is a versatile power source that
can be created in numerous ways and with little investment capital in
many circumstances. Having a central power generation facility allows
for everyone to simultaneously, and quickly, benefit from advances in
technology and improvements in plant efficiency.

BTW, electricity IS clean. The methods used to produce it can be clean
if we chose to make it so. Unless we figure out how to split water
molecules MUCH more efficiently the cars of the future will be electric
powered.

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
...
> My Names Nobody wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:38:55 -0700, Spike > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on
>>>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news....
>>>> Well even better yet I just got done watching a Fox News report about
>>>> a guy who has invented an engine that runs off of (hold onto your hats
>>>> now) water. If anybody wants a copy give me a valid e-mail and I'll
>>>> send it on.
>>> The compressed air powered car is something that might have potential.
>>> It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill
>>> the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.
>>
>>
>> Beyond the pollution that is created at the electric power plants you
>> mean?
>> One of my pet peeves is people touting the pollution free aspects of
>> electricity!
>>
>> Fuel-fired electric power plants constitute the largest source of air
>> pollution in the US Based on real data from DOE
>>
>> The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity.
>> 51% is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is
>> generated with petroleum.
>>
>> In 1999, electric power plants produced approximately 2.2 billion tons of
>> carbon dioxide, 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 7 million tons of
>> nitrogen oxides.
>>
>> The average coal-fired power plant is only 1/3 efficient, meaning 2/3 of
>> the energy in the fuel is wasted.
>>
>> The average fossil fuel-fired power plant was built in 1964, long before
>> the Clean Air Act began requiring pollution controls.
>>
>> Of the largest 1000 fossil fuel-fired power plants in the U.S., 77% are
>> not subject to pollution controls under the Clean Air Act's New Source
>> Review requirements.
>>
>> Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!
>
> And you think the internal combustion engine in your car is clean AND
> efficient? The engine in cars/trucks use approximately 25%-30% of the
> heat in every gallon of gas to run the vehicle. Most of the rest is lost
> as wasted heat. Power plants are much more efficient than car engines.
> Also, electricity can be generated from multiple sources like nuclear,
> hydro, wind, solar, tides, geothermal etc. People living in the southwest
> USA could probably use their own person solar cells to run compressors at
> their homes. Others might use wind in their areas. The point I am making
> is that electricity is a versatile power source that can be created in
> numerous ways and with little investment capital in many circumstances.
> Having a central power generation facility allows for everyone to
> simultaneously, and quickly, benefit from advances in technology and
> improvements in plant efficiency.
>
> BTW, electricity IS clean. The methods used to produce it can be clean if
> we chose to make it so. Unless we figure out how to split water molecules
> MUCH more efficiently the cars of the future will be electric powered.


First off, I never stated I "think the internal combustion engine in your
car is clean AND efficient".

My reply was to correct your erroneous statement:
~It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill the
tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.~

Specifically the "does not pollute" part, that is an absolute distortion of
the facts.



Besides it appears you did not read what I posted before you replied,
anyway.
I stated:
~Electricity IS NOT CLEAN~
Your witty retort was to infer that I inferred something about internal
combustion car engines cleanliness or efficiency...

I posted:
~ The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity.
51% is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is
generated with petroleum. The average coal-fired power plant is only 1/3
efficient, meaning 2/3 of the energy in the fuel is wasted.~
Your retort was:
~The engine in cars/trucks use approximately 25%-30% of the heat in every
gallon of gas to run the vehicle.~

They both look pretty damn inefficient and dirty to me...

On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:39:22 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:

<snip>
>
>BTW, electricity IS clean. The methods used to produce it can be clean
>if we chose to make it so. Unless we figure out how to split water
>molecules MUCH more efficiently the cars of the future will be electric
>powered.
>
Well without getting all uppity about it I work for an organization
that uses garbage (Refuse Derived Fuel) to generate electricity
thereby saving landfill space and taking the chance at polluting the
water table.

The process is called WTE, Waste-to-Energy. We sure as hell are
subject to the Clean Air Act and have emissions from our stacks
cleaner the surrounding air.

We also pump the methane gas from the materials that are landfilled
(not everything can be burnt) and use that to produce electricity as
well. We also have one customer who uses it as a substitute for LP.
--
For choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly
death.

For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and
possibly death.

Choose your fights carefully.

On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:29:09 GMT, "My Names Nobody" >
wrote:
<snip>
>
>I posted:
>~ The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity.
>51% is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is
>generated with petroleum.
>
Well you forgot about WTE.
>
Waste-to-energy facilities produce clean, renewable energy through the
combustion of municipal solid waste in specially designed power plants
equipped with the most modern pollution control equipment to clean
emissions.

Trash volume is reduced by 90% and the remaining residue is regularly
tested and consistently meets strict EPA standards allowing reuse or
disposal in landfills. There are 89 waste-to-energy plants operating
in 27 states managing about 13 percent of America’s trash, or about
95,000 tons each day. Waste-to-energy generates about 2,500 megawatts
of electricity to meet the power needs of nearly 2 million homes, and
the facilities serve the trash disposal needs of more than 36 million
people. The $10 billion waste-to-energy industry employs more than
6,000 American workers with annual wages in excess of $400 million.

Why is waste-to-energy clean?

America’s waste-to-energy facilities meet some of the most stringent
environmental standards in the world and employ the most advanced
emissions control equipment available. The EPA announced that
America’s waste-to-energy plants produce “dramatic decreases” in air
emissions, and produce electricity “with less environmental impact
than almost any other source of electricity.” The “outstanding
performance” of pollution control equipment used by the
waste-to-energy industry has produced “dramatic decreases” in
emissions. EPA data demonstrate that dioxin emissions have decreased
by more than 99% in the past ten years, and represent less than
one-half of one percent of the national dioxin inventory. Mercury
emissions have declined by more than 95% and now represent two percent
of the national inventory of man-made mercury emissions. Additionally,
EPA estimates that waste-to-energy technology annually avoids 33
million metric tons of carbondioxide, a greenhouse gas, that would
otherwise be released into the atmosphere.

Communities served by these facilities recycle an average of 35% of
their trash as compared with the national recycling rate of 30%.
Waste-to-energy annually removes for recycling more than 700,000 tons
of ferrous metals and more than 3 million tons of glass, metal,
plastics, batteries, ash and yard waste at recycling centers located
on site.

Why is waste-to-energy renewable?

For more than twenty years, waste-to-energy has been recognized as a
source of renewable energy under existing law. Waste-to-energy is a
“clean, reliable, renewable source of energy,” according to the U.S.
EPA. The Federal Power Act, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s regulations, and the
Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 all recognize
waste-to-energy power as renewable biomass, as do fifteen states that
have enacted electric restructuring laws. EPA estimates 75% of trash
contains biomass on a Btu-output basis. Turning garbage into energy
makes “important contributions to the overall effort to achieve
increased renewable energy use and the many associated positive
environmental benefits,” wrote Department of Energy Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, David Garman.

What makes waste-to-energy reliable?

Waste-to-energy plants supply power 365-days-a-year, 24-hours a day.
Facilities average greater than 90% availability of installed
capacity. Waste-to-energy plants generally operate in or near an urban
area, easing transmission to the customer. Waste-to-energy power is
sold as “base load” electricity. There is a constant need for trash
disposal, and an equally constant, steady, and reliable energy
generation. Waste-to-energy promotes energy diversity while helping
cities meet the challenge of trash disposal.



--
For choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly
death.

For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and
possibly death.

Choose your fights carefully.

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:39:22 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>>BTW, electricity IS clean. The methods used to produce it can be clean
>>if we chose to make it so. Unless we figure out how to split water
>>molecules MUCH more efficiently the cars of the future will be electric
>>powered.
>>
> Well without getting all uppity about it I work for an organization
> that uses garbage (Refuse Derived Fuel) to generate electricity
> thereby saving landfill space and taking the chance at polluting the
> water table.
>
> The process is called WTE, Waste-to-Energy. We sure as hell are
> subject to the Clean Air Act and have emissions from our stacks
> cleaner the surrounding air.
>
> We also pump the methane gas from the materials that are landfilled
> (not everything can be burnt) and use that to produce electricity as
> well. We also have one customer who uses it as a substitute for LP.
> --
> For choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly
> death.
>
> For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and
> possibly death.
>
> Choose your fights carefully.

That is nice, but as I have already stated, more than 2/3 of the electricity
generated in the U.S. is generated by burning DIRTY fossil fuels.

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
...
> Spike wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:32:56 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Zombywoof wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:38:55 -0700, Spike > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on
> >>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news....
> >>>>
> >>> Well even better yet I just got done watching a Fox News report about
> >>> a guy who has invented an engine that runs off of (hold onto your hats
> >>> now) water. If anybody wants a copy give me a valid e-mail and I'll
> >>> send it on.
> >> The compressed air powered car is something that might have potential.
> >> It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill
> >> the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute. Here are
a
> >> few links:
> >>
> >> http://www.theaircar.com/
> >> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-car.htm
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2281011.stm
> >>
> >
> > How much energy does it take to produce the electricity to power the
> > pump to fill the tank. My father, who is one of those
> > electronic/electrical gurus who taught college courses in those areas,
> > has some mathematically equation which indicated the rate of return
> > for producing electricity to power motors is a negative number/or so
> > close to it that it might as well be. He tried to explain it to me in
> > simple terms but i guess i am more simple than that even....
>
> I read somewhere that it costs less than a dollar for the electricity to
> run the compressor to fill the tank. One of the articles I linked
> referenced $1.5 euros to fill a tank. Definitely more economical than
> gasoline. One of the things I find interesting about the air powered
> engines is they don't waste huge amounts of thermal energy like internal
> combustion engines. Most of the energy from burning gas in a car engine
> flies out the tail pipe as wasted heat. My guess is this is why they
> (air engines) are much more cost effective. Plus wind or solar power
> could run pumps at each users house to fill tanks up for use by
> individuals. I could get used to filling up my car at home.
>

What would you do in the winter time? Fill it with hot air? ;-)

Dave

My Names Nobody wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My Names Nobody wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:38:55 -0700, Spike > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on
>>>>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news....
>>>>> Well even better yet I just got done watching a Fox News report about
>>>>> a guy who has invented an engine that runs off of (hold onto your hats
>>>>> now) water. If anybody wants a copy give me a valid e-mail and I'll
>>>>> send it on.
>>>> The compressed air powered car is something that might have potential.
>>>> It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill
>>>> the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.
>>>
>>> Beyond the pollution that is created at the electric power plants you
>>> mean?
>>> One of my pet peeves is people touting the pollution free aspects of
>>> electricity!
>>>
>>> Fuel-fired electric power plants constitute the largest source of air
>>> pollution in the US Based on real data from DOE
>>>
>>> The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity.
>>> 51% is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is
>>> generated with petroleum.
>>>
>>> In 1999, electric power plants produced approximately 2.2 billion tons of
>>> carbon dioxide, 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 7 million tons of
>>> nitrogen oxides.
>>>
>>> The average coal-fired power plant is only 1/3 efficient, meaning 2/3 of
>>> the energy in the fuel is wasted.
>>>
>>> The average fossil fuel-fired power plant was built in 1964, long before
>>> the Clean Air Act began requiring pollution controls.
>>>
>>> Of the largest 1000 fossil fuel-fired power plants in the U.S., 77% are
>>> not subject to pollution controls under the Clean Air Act's New Source
>>> Review requirements.
>>>
>>> Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!
>> And you think the internal combustion engine in your car is clean AND
>> efficient? The engine in cars/trucks use approximately 25%-30% of the
>> heat in every gallon of gas to run the vehicle. Most of the rest is lost
>> as wasted heat. Power plants are much more efficient than car engines.
>> Also, electricity can be generated from multiple sources like nuclear,
>> hydro, wind, solar, tides, geothermal etc. People living in the southwest
>> USA could probably use their own person solar cells to run compressors at
>> their homes. Others might use wind in their areas. The point I am making
>> is that electricity is a versatile power source that can be created in
>> numerous ways and with little investment capital in many circumstances.
>> Having a central power generation facility allows for everyone to
>> simultaneously, and quickly, benefit from advances in technology and
>> improvements in plant efficiency.
>>
>> BTW, electricity IS clean. The methods used to produce it can be clean if
>> we chose to make it so. Unless we figure out how to split water molecules
>> MUCH more efficiently the cars of the future will be electric powered.
>
>
> First off, I never stated I "think the internal combustion engine in your
> car is clean AND efficient".
>
> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement:

Speaking of erroneous, your statement of "Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!"
needs corrected. Actually electricity is clean and when generated using
solar, tides, hydro, wind etc. it is extremely environmentally friendly.

> ~It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill the
> tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.~

Well it does cost a fraction of the cost. I just paid $52 this
afternoon to fill up my SUV. How long do you think $52 worth of
electricity will run an air compressor?

> Specifically the "does not pollute" part, that is an absolute distortion of
> the facts.

I don't have a monopoly on distorting the facts. You did a fine job of
it yourself.

> Besides it appears you did not read what I posted before you replied,
> anyway.
> I stated:
> ~Electricity IS NOT CLEAN~
> Your witty retort was to infer that I inferred something about internal
> combustion car engines cleanliness or efficiency...

Well, isn't cost of operation (specifically, the price of gas) for a
vehicle the root subject of this thread? It looks to me like you went
off on a tangent and started a discussion on dirty electricity. I was
discussing the cost of filling a tank with compressed air verses gasoline.

> I posted:
> ~ The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity.
> 51% is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is
> generated with petroleum. The average coal-fired power plant is only 1/3
> efficient, meaning 2/3 of the energy in the fuel is wasted.~
> Your retort was:
> ~The engine in cars/trucks use approximately 25%-30% of the heat in every
> gallon of gas to run the vehicle.~
>
> They both look pretty damn inefficient and dirty to me...

Well if you can't see the obvious cost and environmental benefit of
compressed air powered vehicles over petroleum powered ones then I can't
help you. Do the computations to determine the amount of electrical
power needed to compress air into a 100-200 gallon tank to 3k-4k psi and
I'm sure the bulb over your head will light up. I am willing to bet it
would cost a great deal less than $52.

BTW, what do YOU think the best alternative is to burning fossil fuels?

Zombywoof wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:39:22 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> BTW, electricity IS clean. The methods used to produce it can be clean
>> if we chose to make it so. Unless we figure out how to split water
>> molecules MUCH more efficiently the cars of the future will be electric
>> powered.
>>
> Well without getting all uppity about it I work for an organization
> that uses garbage (Refuse Derived Fuel) to generate electricity
> thereby saving landfill space and taking the chance at polluting the
> water table.
>
> The process is called WTE, Waste-to-Energy. We sure as hell are
> subject to the Clean Air Act and have emissions from our stacks
> cleaner the surrounding air.

There are multitudes of ways to produce electricity with little to no
pollution. Even the power plants that burn coal and petroleum have
scrubbers that leave the discharge air very clean.

> We also pump the methane gas from the materials that are landfilled
> (not everything can be burnt) and use that to produce electricity as
> well. We also have one customer who uses it as a substitute for LP.

I remember walking around a construction debris landfill for concrete,
tree stumps and other organic material and hearing the methane exit from
the vent pipes. The methane was exiting so fast it sounded like a jet
engine and there were dozens of these pipes throughout the site. I
remember thinking that it was a huge waste of energy.

Hairy wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Spike wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:32:56 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:38:55 -0700, Spike > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on
>>>>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news....
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well even better yet I just got done watching a Fox News report about
>>>>> a guy who has invented an engine that runs off of (hold onto your hats
>>>>> now) water. If anybody wants a copy give me a valid e-mail and I'll
>>>>> send it on.
>>>> The compressed air powered car is something that might have potential.
>>>> It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill
>>>> the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute. Here are
> a
>>>> few links:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theaircar.com/
>>>> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-car.htm
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2281011.stm
>>>>
>>> How much energy does it take to produce the electricity to power the
>>> pump to fill the tank. My father, who is one of those
>>> electronic/electrical gurus who taught college courses in those areas,
>>> has some mathematically equation which indicated the rate of return
>>> for producing electricity to power motors is a negative number/or so
>>> close to it that it might as well be. He tried to explain it to me in
>>> simple terms but i guess i am more simple than that even....
>> I read somewhere that it costs less than a dollar for the electricity to
>> run the compressor to fill the tank. One of the articles I linked
>> referenced $1.5 euros to fill a tank. Definitely more economical than
>> gasoline. One of the things I find interesting about the air powered
>> engines is they don't waste huge amounts of thermal energy like internal
>> combustion engines. Most of the energy from burning gas in a car engine
>> flies out the tail pipe as wasted heat. My guess is this is why they
>> (air engines) are much more cost effective. Plus wind or solar power
>> could run pumps at each users house to fill tanks up for use by
>> individuals. I could get used to filling up my car at home.
>>
>
> What would you do in the winter time? Fill it with hot air? ;-)

Well that is where my wife steps in.

Kate, I was just kidding!!!