| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Sun, 11 September 2005 06:28
 
|
 |
I used to work for shell and when we would get a delivery the price per litre I had to enter into the computer was sometimes more than what it was being sold for...
How can independent servos compete with that?
The independent Caltex near where I work was shut down monday and by thursday everything was gone. Pumps removed, price board gone and all signage was removed.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Sun, 11 September 2005 09:43
|
|
| 86tt wrote on Sun, 11 September 2005 03:05 |
With some search on the internet, there's even information of great inventors decades ago who have invented combustion engines which are way more efficient than today's design, but instead are threaten, humuliated, arrested, jailed, or just forced out of existence, not sure if it's true either...
|
With some search on the internet, it's possible to find a Nigerian billionaire oil tycoon who wants to send you lots of money. I can forward details if you'd like to know more.
| Quote: |
The topic about electrolysis is very much debated, but I've heard 2 rumours, #1, electrolysis can be archieved by a "catalyst", catalytic conversion without energy input? (high school chemistry, sounds possible),
|
Someone didn't pay attention in high school physics! A catalyst can speed up a reaction, but it has nothing to do with energy conversion. Creating energy out of thin air violates the laws of thermodynamics, and no-one has ever been able to do this.
| Quote: |
Many people take the "Conservation of Energy" for granted, what, just if I say, what if this is a big lie, or started off as a big mistake, but turned into a lie, or the Conservation of Energy is just not what we all know about, just a very daring suggestion...
|
Anyone anywhere can go to a library and read all about the Conservation of Energy, and the reasoning behind it. There is no room for lies or conspiracies, it's all there in black and white!
| Quote: |
Why does spliting the atom create so much energy? Where does the energy come from? Is this consistent with "Conservation of Energy"?
|
Yes. Einstein postulated that matter and energy are interchangeable, and that it is theoretically possible to convert from one to the other. If you were to take one atom and convert it into energy, the formula for the energy released would be:
E = MC^2
In other words, the Energy released (E) is equal to the mass which "disappeared" (M) multiplied by the square of the speed of light (C).
It turns out Einstein was right; when the atom was first split, it was discovered that there was a slight difference in the mass of the nuclear material after the reaction compared to the beginning of the reaction. Mass had "disappeared" and energy had "appeared".
| Quote: |
Why does your split system air-conditioning produce about 7.5kW of cooling/heating by consuming only 2.5kW of energy???
|
I've often wondered this myself, but I suspect those figures are using different scales. I seriously doubt airconditioners are perpetual motion machines. 
You know there's electrons that keeps revolving around atoms, can you stop these atoms spinning??[/quote]
If you can reduce the temperature of matter to absolute zero, its electrons will stop revolving. In theory this is impossible, ie you can never acheive absolute zero.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Sun, 11 September 2005 12:17
|
|
| Quote: |
mynameisrodney: i think anyone who tells you we are NOT running out of fossil fuels is the same type of conspiricy theorist that wraps their head in alfoil so the cia doesnt steal their thoughts.
|
I'm not quite sure too, but most of the time I try to keep my mind open and try not to dismiss anything too easily, but I understand a lot of people will go with the majority mainstream and dismiss anything else as conspiracy, these people are also those that are happy to be told what is the truth, and not question what is really the truth, those that are just happy to be slaves, even though they also dismiss the idea that they ARE actually slave, but they are actually a "free democratic slave", doubt you will understand...
Anybody else who's got time on their hands, with a bit of open mind, have a look and give some comments? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=38645
| Quote: |
RWDboy: And yeah it comes from nuclear force, which to be honest is a bit mysterious.
I guess this kind of theory is quite old, but there are three basic forces in the universe. Electrical, gravitational and nuclear. To be honest, how firing a neutron into a nuclear core causes it to split and release energy is a bit of a quandary to me as well.
|
I reckon there's probably many more ways to create/convert energy, and they also probably didn't want us to know about nuclear energy in the first place, until the secret was leaked out when the atomic bomb was set off...
| Quote: |
Norbie:With some search on the internet, it's possible to find a Nigerian billionaire oil tycoon who wants to send you lots of money. I can forward details if you'd like to know more.
|
I think there's a line when it crosses between possible, and impossible, and the saying that there's no such thing as a free lunch will explain it all, but constructing the world, so "Nobody will get a free lunch" is possible...
| Quote: |
Norbie: Someone didn't pay attention in high school physics! A catalyst can speed up a reaction
|
Did I not pay attention? Then can a catalyst start a reaction, where if without the catalyst, wouldn't start in the first place?
| Quote: |
Norbie: Anyone anywhere can go to a library and read all about the Conservation of Energy, and the reasoning behind it. There is no room for lies or conspiracies
|
maybe, but I'm just suggesting CoE doesn't cover all situations, it may be true for "certain" reactions, but NOT ALL reaction, so if Einstein had to create another theory to compliment the nuclear mass <-> energy reaction, is there many more theories that we aren't told about, that would also override the CoE theory in many other instances??
| Quote: |
I've often wondered this myself, but I suspect those figures are using different scales. I seriously doubt airconditioners are perpetual motion machines
|
every kW of energy is the same as any other kW of energy... so they must be getting more from doing less somehow...
| Quote: |
If you can reduce the temperature of matter to absolute zero, its electrons will stop revolving. In theory this is impossible, ie you can never acheive absolute zero.
|
I thought about it too, but just say if you worked the other way around and slow down the electrons, would that suck out a lot of heat around it and made everything around it cool? 
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Sun, 11 September 2005 13:24
|
|
slowing down the elctron would be taking energy out of it. this energy would have to go somewhere and so would cause a temp rise not a temp drop to the surroundings.
| Quote: |
I'm not quite sure too, but most of the time I try to keep my mind open and try not to dismiss anything too easily, but I understand a lot of people will go with the majority mainstream and dismiss anything else as conspiracy, these people are also those that are happy to be told what is the truth, and not question what is really the truth, those that are just happy to be slaves, even though they also dismiss the idea that they ARE actually slave, but they are actually a "free democratic slave", doubt you will understand...
|
you are very quick to dismis other people as stupid. why dont you step back and listen to what you are saying.
there is only a finite amount of fossil fuels on the planet. the rate at which they are formed is extremely slow, much slower than the rate at which we use them. so therefor, we are using it up, whether it takes 10 years or 10,000 it is still a non-renewable resource and will eventually run out.
also just because you dont understand or dont agree with a theory doesnt make me a 'slave'.
your views are very outdated. eg viewing petroleum as a blank cheque and not beleiving in CoE. calling me a slave for believing in the accepted truth is pretty much like saying "no, the world is flat. you're all a bunch of sheep".
with AC units, this is an idea i'm not stating it as fact.
producing heat is easy you convert electrical/chemical, or some other form of energy into heat energy and so the energy supplied is equal to the energy gained as heat (with small losses along the way). cooling is very different, you have to take energy away from something. usually this works by tranferring heat energy to something else (eg. the coils on the back of fridges which get hot). so using your example, your AC unit might take 2.5 kW to tranfer this energy away from what it was cooling, and the amount of energy transfered by the unit is 7.5kW.
chris
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Sun, 11 September 2005 13:56
|
|
| mynameisrodney wrote on Sun, 11 September 2005 23:24 |
slowing down the elctron would be taking energy out of it. this energy would have to go somewhere and so would cause a temp rise not a temp drop to the surroundings.
|
reeeeaallly???
| mynameisrodney wrote: |
you are very quick to dismis other people as stupid. why dont you step back and listen to what you are saying.
|
| mynameisrodney wrote: |
i think anyone who tells you we are NOT running out of fossil fuels is the same type of conspiricy theorist that wraps their head in alfoil so the cia doesnt steal their thoughts.
|
No, I never implied that, but you were the first to dismiss and imply that non-fossil-fuel theories as conspiracy theories, and people that believe in them are lunatics, so I think you are the one that should step back and listen to what you are saying urself!
| mynameisrodney wrote: |
there is only a finite amount of fossil fuels on the planet. the rate at which they are formed is extremely slow, much slower than the rate at which we use them. so therefor, we are using it up, whether it takes 10 years or 10,000 it is still a non-renewable resource and will eventually run out.
also just because you dont understand or dont agree with a theory doesnt make me a 'slave'.
your views are very outdated. eg viewing petroleum as a blank cheque and not beleiving in CoE. calling me a slave for believing in the accepted truth is pretty much like saying "no, the world is flat. you're all a bunch of sheep".
|
This is just a theory, and it has been proven that oil made of Hydrocarbons (HCOs) can be reproduced, HCO occurs in nature everywhere, it may cost a lot to produce by human, but near the middle of earth where there's abundance amount of heat and pressure... who knows? We could argue the time it takes to produce oil, but that doesn't really matter, there could in fact be huge reservoirs of oil beneath the earth, which no-one is letting us about, same as the diamond monopoly situation where the material is so abundance, but are controlled by rich bastards, fossil fuel may actually not be made by fossil at all, just a thought, and certainly nothing to be dismissed too easily!
| mynameisrodney wrote: |
with AC units, this is an idea i'm not stating it as fact.
producing heat is easy you convert electrical/chemical, or some other form of energy into heat energy and so the energy supplied is equal to the energy gained as heat (with small losses along the way). cooling is very different, you have to take energy away from something. usually this works by tranferring heat energy to something else (eg. the coils on the back of fridges which get hot). so using your example, your AC unit might take 2.5 kW to tranfer this energy away from what it was cooling, and the amount of energy transfered by the unit is 7.5kW.
|
I think you are fairly close, and this system is called a "heat-pump", but is set up in a very inefficient manner (taking heat from a not-so-hot room, and dumping it into a "hotter" room)
What if you do it the other way around? ie. Taking heat from a very hot place, and dumping it into a very cold place?
[Updated on: Sun, 11 September 2005 13:59]
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Sun, 11 September 2005 14:15
|
|
| 86tt wrote on Sun, 11 September 2005 23:56 |
| mynameisrodney wrote on Sun, 11 September 2005 23:24 |
slowing down the elctron would be taking energy out of it. this energy would have to go somewhere and so would cause a temp rise not a temp drop to the surroundings.
|
reeeeaallly???
|
yes really. if the electron cooled down, and its surroundings cooled down, and nothing heated up, this would contradict CoE as energy has apparently dissapeared.
| Quote: |
there could in fact be huge reservoirs of oil beneath the earth
|
that is very possible, and i never said otherwise, what i said was that it would still run out eventually.
| Quote: |
but near the middle of earth where there's abundance amount of heat and pressure
|
the deeper you go, the less hydrogen. mantle is mainly iron magnesium and silicon from memory.
| Quote: |
What if you do it the other way around? ie. Taking heat from a very hot place, and dumping it into a very cold place?
|
as the two rooms are far out of thermal equilibrium the transfer would happen a lot more quickly, and probably more efficiently, but i am unsure of your point.
chris
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Sun, 11 September 2005 14:38
|
|
| mynameisrodney wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 00:15 |
| 86tt wrote on Sun, 11 September 2005 23:56 |
| mynameisrodney wrote on Sun, 11 September 2005 23:24 |
slowing down the elctron would be taking energy out of it. this energy would have to go somewhere and so would cause a temp rise not a temp drop to the surroundings.
|
reeeeaallly???
|
yes really. if the electron cooled down, and its surroundings cooled down, and nothing heated up, this would contradict CoE as energy has apparently dissapeared.
|
Hi Chris, not having a good at ya, especially that you seems to be half interested, I think you misunderstand my suggestion, but when I suggest to slow down the electron, I mean slowing it down by magnetic or mechanical force, which will extract energy from the atom, but the electron can't just stop spinning, so this energy must be replenished, and will be taken from the surrounding, so would this cool the surrounding? Or heat the surrounding?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
there could in fact be huge reservoirs of oil beneath the earth
|
that is very possible, and i never said otherwise, what i said was that it would still run out eventually.
|
Yes, eventually, but I'm suggesting there's way way way more oil down there that will last us for centuries to come
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
but near the middle of earth where there's abundance amount of heat and pressure
|
the deeper you go, the less hydrogen. mantle is mainly iron magnesium and silicon from memory.
|
Actually I don't remember what's down there, but the pressure and heat down there is unimaginable, who knows what chemical, nuclear or other reaction can occur down there with the right pressure and heat? If uranium etc. can be mined, I assume anything else can be created down there, the only reason why so many things aren't available in nature is because it's unstable in the atmosphere.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
What if you do it the other way around? ie. Taking heat from a very hot place, and dumping it into a very cold place?
|
as the two rooms are far out of thermal equilibrium the transfer would happen a lot more quickly, and probably more efficiently, but i am unsure of your point.
|
So from a rough estimate, if a system is specially designed to pump heat from a very hot place to a very cold place, you would expect it will produce (EDIT: I should use the word "pump" for now instead of produce) WAY more than 7.5kW of heat from 2.5kW inputted right? Any rough estimate on the heat outputted? (EDIT: I should use the word "pump" here again instead of outputted)
[Updated on: Mon, 12 September 2005 06:34]
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 03:34
|
|
| 86tt wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 00:08 |
| mynameisrodney wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 00:15 |
| 86tt wrote on Sun, 11 September 2005 23:56 |
| mynameisrodney wrote on Sun, 11 September 2005 23:24 |
slowing down the elctron would be taking energy out of it. this energy would have to go somewhere and so would cause a temp rise not a temp drop to the surroundings.
|
reeeeaallly???
|
yes really. if the electron cooled down, and its surroundings cooled down, and nothing heated up, this would contradict CoE as energy has apparently dissapeared.
|
Hi Chris, not having a good at ya, especially that you seems to be half interested, I think you misunderstand my suggestion, but when I suggest to slow down the electron, I mean slowing it down by magnetic or mechanical force, which will extract energy from the atom, but the electron can't just stop spinning, so this energy must be replenished, and will be taken from the surrounding, so would this cool the surrounding? Or heat the surrounding?
|
Dude you are seriously suffering from not viewing the 'overall' system in place. Let's say you use some form of magnetic force to slow the electron down (not saying that this will actually work), the energy that transfers from the electron (by it slowing down) is then used to distort the magnetic field that you used to slow the electron down. You have to look at the overall picture.
| 86tt wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 00:08 |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
there could in fact be huge reservoirs of oil beneath the earth
|
that is very possible, and i never said otherwise, what i said was that it would still run out eventually.
|
Yes, eventually, but I'm suggesting there's way way way more oil down there that will last us for centuries to come
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
but near the middle of earth where there's abundance amount of heat and pressure
|
the deeper you go, the less hydrogen. mantle is mainly iron magnesium and silicon from memory.
|
Actually I don't remember what's down there, but the pressure and heat down there is unimaginable, who knows what chemical, nuclear or other reaction can occur down there with the right pressure and heat? If uranium etc. can be mined, I assume anything else can be created down there, the only reason why so many things aren't available in nature is because it's unstable in the atmosphere.
|
The earth is not a nuclear reactor, and as such, does not create uranium and other materials by nuclear fusion. The earth has a limited amount of materials that have gathered over time from explosions of other stars, asteroids, other planets etc that occured billions of years ago. Sorry to break it to you but the earth has limited amounts of material available to it.
| 86tt wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 00:08 |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
What if you do it the other way around? ie. Taking heat from a very hot place, and dumping it into a very cold place?
|
as the two rooms are far out of thermal equilibrium the transfer would happen a lot more quickly, and probably more efficiently, but i am unsure of your point.
|
So from a rough estimate, if a system is specially designed to pump heat from a very hot place to a very cold place, you would expect it will produce WAY more than 7.5kW of heat from 2.5kW inputted right? Any rough estimate on the heat outputted?
|
The fact is, the system is only 'pumping' heat, not generating heat energy, so your point as to how it could be dis-obeying conservation of energy laws is completely invalid.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 06:31
|
|
| RWDboy wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 13:34 |
blah blah blah
|
#1, I personally imagine the magnetic force of the atom to be so great that it will overcome the force slowing it down thus looking for other ways of absorbing energy by other means, I'm just trying to analysis this problem, because I want to know if an electron can be slowed down without removing the heat energy around it (ie. freezing it until absolute zero) and if yes, what will happen etc. (Because I was once asked if the electron around the atom can be stopped, because if the answer is no, that would mean there's infinite amount of energy in the atom, but now I think of it, if an atom is slowed, it must suck energy out from somewhere else, which I think heat energy is the first to suffer, but just say you have a place full of heat energy that never runs out? Or if an atom really do have infinite energy, that would mean the electron will not stop, nor slow down, nor will it suck energy from the surrounding etc.)
#2, When you say the world have limited amounts of material I would certainly disagree, because the amount of mass underneath the earth's crust is unimaginable, as the pressure of exerted onto it by itself is so huge, and the nearer to the centre, although the heat is so great, but are believed to be solid, so how much matter is squashed under the earth? And if that matter is released into normal atmosphere pressure via earthquake etc. how much volume will it take up? Limited amounts of material? I don't think so... (Also I wasn't suggesting the earth is a nuclear reactor, and I don't think we know enough about nuclear reaction, but I'm suggesting under the enormous pressure and heat inside the earth, who knows what chemical, nuclear or other unknown reaction can occur? Also have a look at my link...)
| "from the article" |
Another interesting fact is that every oil field throughout the world has outgassing helium. Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product.
|
So there's 2 different points
* Is there nuclear reaction beneath the earth?
* even if there's no nuclear reaction, is fossil fuel really fossil fuel??
#3, I think you didn't get it, the subject that you're refering to wasn't supposed to be a discussion about the conservation of energy, it was a whole different subject all together, read it again...
[Updated on: Mon, 12 September 2005 06:46]
|
|
|
Location:
sydney, nearest store nea...
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 07:14
|
|
what happened to the government saying they'd reduce petrol prices to under $1?
this is stupid
i paid $75 for hte full tank yest, i never felt so voilated in my life
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 07:39
|
|
| poh_86 wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 17:14 |
what happened to the government saying they'd reduce petrol prices to under $1?
this is stupid
i paid $75 for hte full tank yest, i never felt so voilated in my life
|
well, aren't you just naive to have believed what Johnny told you?  refer to http://forums.toymods.org.au/index.php?t=msg&t h=80346&rid=6689 ....
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 13:51
|
|
I thought the fuel excise was imposed by the government because we used to use bass strait oil, and they didn't want the australian people to have to endure such a massive petrol price shock when the oil ran out (which it did) at which time we would have to go back to importing oil...
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 16:14
|
|
| 86tt wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 16:31 |
| RWDboy wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 13:34 |
blah blah blah
|
#1, I personally imagine the magnetic force of the atom to be so great that it will overcome the force slowing it down thus looking for other ways of absorbing energy by other means, I'm just trying to analysis this problem, because I want to know if an electron can be slowed down without removing the heat energy around it (ie. freezing it until absolute zero) and if yes, what will happen etc. (Because I was once asked if the electron around the atom can be stopped, because if the answer is no, that would mean there's infinite amount of energy in the atom, but now I think of it, if an atom is slowed, it must suck energy out from somewhere else, which I think heat energy is the first to suffer, but just say you have a place full of heat energy that never runs out? Or if an atom really do have infinite energy, that would mean the electron will not stop, nor slow down, nor will it suck energy from the surrounding etc.)
#2, When you say the world have limited amounts of material I would certainly disagree, because the amount of mass underneath the earth's crust is unimaginable, as the pressure of exerted onto it by itself is so huge, and the nearer to the centre, although the heat is so great, but are believed to be solid, so how much matter is squashed under the earth? And if that matter is released into normal atmosphere pressure via earthquake etc. how much volume will it take up? Limited amounts of material? I don't think so... (Also I wasn't suggesting the earth is a nuclear reactor, and I don't think we know enough about nuclear reaction, but I'm suggesting under the enormous pressure and heat inside the earth, who knows what chemical, nuclear or other unknown reaction can occur? Also have a look at my link...)
So there's 2 different points
* Is there nuclear reaction beneath the earth?
* even if there's no nuclear reaction, is fossil fuel really fossil fuel??
#3, I think you didn't get it, the subject that you're refering to wasn't supposed to be a discussion about the conservation of energy, it was a whole different subject all together, read it again...
|
bubbles???
#1. dude you really misunderstand how atoms work. electrons are particle/waves of mass/energy.. the "electron" slows down and speeds up all the time, respctively giving off and absorbing energy from it's surroundings.
according to scientists that bubbles did not believe in, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe, etc etc....
you also need to think about enthalpy and entropy.. please search.
#2 the amount of material the earth is made of is unimaginable/infinite? well, it's been calculated. if you can't imagine it, you need a better imagination 
ffs, there are nuclear fission reactions on the surface of the earth.
and as for catalysts.. a catalyst is a material that lowers the activation energy of a reaction, and is not consumed by the process. the activation energy that allows a reaction to proceed is usually in the form of heat.
ie, if you heat up petrol and air enough, it will spontaneously ignite. if you use pure oxygen, the activation energy decreases. if you use a catalyst the activation energy/spontaneous ignition temperature is reduced further.
as for electrons stopping.. you can slow an electron by removing energy from the atom... near absolute zero they have been measured to slow down (but the mere act of observation introduces energy  )
the combination of strong and weak nuclear forces makes it very difficult for an atom to collapse.. i used to think that is how black holes formed... by electrons finally callapsing into the nucleus... but anyway..
what else...
Hydrocarbons are HC's, not HCO's
oil made by humans requires heat/electricity that is typically produced by burning oil/gas/coal to make it.... duh...
diamonds are a cunt to mine, and good ones are nowhere near as common as shit ones... diamod is used for many many things.... cutting blades, knife sharpeners etc etc.. big problem is that certain countries with large diamod deposits just happen to have a fucked military situation.
| Quote: |
fossil fuel may actually not be made by fossil at all, just a thought, and certainly nothing to be dismissed too easily!
|
i'm smart....S M R T!!!
| Quote: |
What if you do it the other way around? ie. Taking heat from a very hot place, and dumping it into a very cold place?
|
yes, because that is what you do with air conditioners... 
did you read what you wrote??
why the fuck would you want to.. in summer.. take heat from outside and put it into a room.... you could just open a window
that article is a crock of shit... references? actual scientific data?
anyway... maybe you have been talking to bubbles too ften, but your comments smack too much of "they" and "them" as tho there is a world conspiracy.... get over it
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 06:03
|
|
oldcorollas: ur completely off-track, I don't know why you go on about the atoms and electrons, I'm already assuming the atom will have to absorb energy to continue spinning, so honestly I don't know what point ur trying to make..
yes the materials on the earth may be able to be estimated, but it's only a number, and I don't know what point ur trying to make again
and yeah, so you mentioned fuel and oxygen will make it ignite (I assume you know it's called a chemical reaction?) and with a catalyst, it will react at a lower temp., so? Turning water into H2 and O2 is a chemical reaction, and I said that I've heard a rumour that a catalyst can help this chemical reaction, is it quantum theory? No, is this too hard for you to understand? I hope not...
you explaination of diamond doesn't interest me either, because it shows you don't know enough about it...
did I mis-spelt smart? If I did, it's called a "typo", you can spell smart? Geez, a 5 lettered word, does it mean you're smart?
| oldcorollas wrote |
why the fuck would you want to.. in summer.. take heat from outside and put it into a room.... you could just open a window
|
Did I say I want to take the heat from outside and put it into a room in summer? You're imagining things...
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
September 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 08:02
|
|
| 86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 16:03 |
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 02:14 |
| 86tt wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 16:31 |
#2, When you say the world have limited amounts of material I would certainly disagree, because the amount of mass underneath the earth's crust is unimaginable, as the pressure of exerted onto it by itself is so huge, and the nearer to the centre, although the heat is so great, but are believed to be solid, so how much matter is squashed under the earth?
|
#2 the amount of material the earth is made of is unimaginable/infinite? well, it's been calculated. if you can't imagine it, you need a better imagination
|
yes the materials on the earth may be able to be estimated, but it's only a number, and I don't know what point ur trying to make again
|
Whilst the amount may unimaginable, it's still a finite number, and hence there is a limit to the amount of energy available for use.
| 86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 16:03 |
and yeah, so you mentioned fuel and oxygen will make it ignite (I assume you know it's called a chemical reaction?) and with a catalyst, it will react at a lower temp., so? Turning water into H2 and O2 is a chemical reaction, and I said that I've heard a rumour that a catalyst can help this chemical reaction, is it quantum theory? No, is this too hard for you to understand? I hope not...
|
Reducing water into it's constituent atoms may be a chemical reaction, but if a metal is consumed in the process then the metal isn't a catalyst - it's a reactant. I think you might be confused as to the definition of a catalyst.
Emphasis added. Not that Wikipedia is a definitive source, but I don't have better references with me.
For instance, if you were to use a battery to electrolise water, then the electrodes within the battery are consumed in the reaction. Unfortunately there is no free ride. I think this is missing the point of the thread though.
At some point it becomes cheaper to run your car on toluene or alcohol than petrol. Rock on the high octane fun!
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 08:22
|
|
| 86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 16:03 |
oldcorollas: ur completely off-track, I don't know why you go on about the atoms and electrons, I'm already assuming the atom will have to absorb energy to continue spinning, so honestly I don't know what point ur trying to make..
yes the materials on the earth may be able to be estimated, but it's only a number, and I don't know what point ur trying to make again
and yeah, so you mentioned fuel and oxygen will make it ignite (I assume you know it's called a chemical reaction?) and with a catalyst, it will react at a lower temp., so? Turning water into H2 and O2 is a chemical reaction, and I said that I've heard a rumour that a catalyst can help this chemical reaction, is it quantum theory? No, is this too hard for you to understand? I hope not...
you explaination of diamond doesn't interest me either, because it shows you don't know enough about it...
|
dude i think oldcorollas does materials engineering or something like that anyway.
do you know what quantum theory is? its actually quite an easy thing to understand, but i take it from your statement you have nfi.
and for the last time......
it doesnt matter how much matter/energy there is on earth, IT IS STILL FINITE!!! saying there may be more than we think is irrellevent, it will still run out at our current rate.
with the whole water thing. here is what you are saying
1.start with 2 water molecules 2(h20)
2.convert to 2(h2) and 02
3.burn 2(h2) with oxygen PRODUCING
4.2(h20)
if you start and finish at the same place how do you get energy?? even at 100% efficiency you get a big fat zero.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Toymods Club Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 08:26
|
|
Getting back to the topic of Petrol Prices... Does anyone else try to adjust their driving habits to be more economical (hence spend less on petrol?).
Have been changing gears at 3,500 - 4,000 for the last fortnight and just got 522km out of 37L (mixture of 1 long drive and just normal running around).
Anyway, sorry to interrupt.. continue the debate
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 08:27
|
|
86tt -> no one knows what the crap you are talking about anymore because your communication skills suck badly. Please return later
Regardless of how much pressure/temperature there is at the Earth's core the only nuclear 'reaction' occuring anywhere is decay. Which quite simply, is not all that special. The only planet in our solar system where some form of nuclear fusion occurs is Jupiter, and even that isn't certain. You need a mass the size of a star (for example, our sun) to produce any meaningful nuclear reactions, and even the sun probably couldn't produce enough pressure/temperature to form uranium as a result of nuclear fusion. Only extremely large stars will actually be able to create the heftier elements (such as Uranium) as when they start to approach the end of their life (and go nova) they have enough mass to produce the right conditions to fuse such elements.
The earth has a limited amount of mass, and hence a limited amount of materials to work with regardless of what gets generated by certain chemical reactions. You can't just keep sucking a planet dry of it's resources to create energy.
As for 'fossil fuels' forming by other means than fossil decay -> sure it's quite feasible that some other chemical reaction is occuring and it wouldn't surprise me, but at this stage note that the link only suggests it as a 'theory'. Other possiblities exist such as the continual development of oil-locating technology and oil deposit measuring technology/processes.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 08:35
|
|
|
Easiest way to reduce your fuel consumption -> be much lighter on the throttle (never floor it!), and also much lighter on the brakes, and use neutral lots Don't labour along in a too high gear when going up hills etc as thermal efficiency/fuel efficiency goes out the window
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 08:41
|
|
and heres my shitty diagram to explain catalysts
as you can see the amount of energy you need to put in is AT LEAST equal to the amount of energy you get out.
and yeah i try to keep below 2500 rpm when driving. the magna is actually geared fairly highly making this quite easy to do. still uses more fuel than the 162 did
chris
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 08:48
|
|
| 86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 16:03 |
oldcorollas: ur completely off-track,
|
no shit , i've known that for years
| 86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 16:03 |
yes the materials on the earth may be able to be estimated, but it's only a number, and I don't know what point ur trying to make again
|
| 86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 16:03 |
When you say the world have limited amounts of material I would certainly disagree, because the amount of mass underneath the earth's crust is unimaginable
|
you said you couldn't imagine it, i said it could be measured AND IS FINITE.. sheesh...
| 86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 16:03 |
and yeah, so you mentioned fuel and oxygen will make it ignite (I assume you know it's called a chemical reaction?) and with a catalyst, it will react at a lower temp., so? Turning water into H2 and O2 is a chemical reaction, and I said that I've heard a rumour that a catalyst can help this chemical reaction, is it quantum theory? No, is this too hard for you to understand? I hope not...
|
che.. chemi... whu???
dude... i have a PhD in Metallurgy, my thesis was based on thermodynamics, diffusion and chemical reactions
turning water into 2H2 and O2 is a chemical reaction... but it is not energetically favourable. this is because a) you are reducing entropy, and b) you are absorbing enthalpy (and turning it into chemical bonds).
ie it TAKES energy to split water.. it doesn't happen spontaneously, even in the presence of a catalyst..
in fact, this is not completely true.. at high enough temperatures, water will break down into it's components, but at more than 1000C, there is plenty of energy to convert it back into water (oh, i use water to control oxygen partial pressures in oxidation reactions too .. forgot to mention that before )
the problem here, is that you don't seem to understand basic thermodynamic fundamentals, and you continue to ignore them..
please go and do a quick calculation of the gibbs free energy of the reaction of water into it's constituents... i can tell you now that it will be positive 
| 86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 16:03 |
| oldcorollas wrote |
why the fuck would you want to.. in summer.. take heat from outside and put it into a room.... you could just open a window
|
Did I say I want to take the heat from outside and put it into a room in summer? You're imagining things...
|
you actually said....
| 86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 16:03 |
I think you are fairly close, and this system is called a "heat-pump", but is set up in a very inefficient manner (taking heat from a not-so-hot room, and dumping it into a "hotter" room)
What if you do it the other way around? ie. Taking heat from a very hot place, and dumping it into a very cold place?
|
taking heat from a very hot place and putting it in a very cold place is usualyl called either:
a) a radiator on a car
or b) opening a window.
neither of these situations has any relevance to AIR CONDITIONERS, to which you were alluding.
a little bit of knowledge is far more dangerous than a bucket load of ignorance...
unfortunately my friend, you have both.
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 08:56
|
|
oh, about diamonds...
we MAKE diamond and diamond-like material in the lab...
it is used as coatings on cutting surfaces and other very hard low-friction surfaces.
there is a company in the US that will turn your body (after you die ) into a diamond for your family to keep.
man made diamonds are BETTER QUALITY than natural diamonds, similar to how farmed pearls are actually better than natural pearls (hence the reason slightly flawed versions of both fetch higher prices)
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 09:12
|
|
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 18:56 |
oh, about diamonds...
we MAKE diamond and diamond-like material in the lab...
it is used as coatings on cutting surfaces and other very hard low-friction surfaces.
there is a company in the US that will turn your body (after you die ) into a diamond for your family to keep.
man made diamonds are BETTER QUALITY than natural diamonds, similar to how farmed pearls are actually better than natural pearls (hence the reason slightly flawed versions of both fetch higher prices)
|
the imperfections are what give a natural diamond its colour, right?
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 09:43
|
|
| mynameisrodney wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 19:12 |
the imperfections are what give a natural diamond its colour, right?
|
yup, natural diamonds have chemical impurities, whihc is one way their origin can be identified. i think mismatching in the crystal structure also adds to it's lustre and "sparkliness".
whilst it's nice and pretentious to have natural diamonds, synthetic diamonds are harder, clearer, cleaner, and just... better (but more expensive to produce)
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 15:35
|
|
| Quote: |
Whilst the amount may unimaginable, it's still a finite number, and hence there is a limit to the amount of energy available for use.
|
???? u're saying finite number of materials = limit amount of energy? What's that got to do with it, day after day you get never ending supply of light and heat energy from the sun, where do they end up at?
| Quote: |
Reducing water into it's constituent atoms may be a chemical reaction, but if a metal is consumed in the process then the metal isn't a catalyst - it's a reactant. I think you might be confused as to the definition of a catalyst.
|
who said a metal is consumed? I said I've heard 2 rumours, 1) a metal catalyst can help to break down H & O atoms of water and 2) a resonance frequency can break the bond of thined out water molecules, where did I mention about metal being consumed in the reaction??
| Quote: |
For instance, if you were to use a battery to electrolise water, then the electrodes within the battery are consumed in the reaction.
|
electrodes are consumed? I think u're losted, they're aren't consumed, they were removed but are re-deposited
mynameisrodney: I understand the graph that you've shown, but that only represent one certain method of breaking down the water molecule, what do you think about the resonance frequency method? Over the years, there's been many cases of "things breaking" at the right frequency using low amount of energy...
| Quote: |
you actually said....
86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 16:03
I think you are fairly close, and this system is called a "heat-pump", but is set up in a very inefficient manner (taking heat from a not-so-hot room, and dumping it into a "hotter" room)
What if you do it the other way around? ie. Taking heat from a very hot place, and dumping it into a very cold place?
taking heat from a very hot place and putting it in a very cold place is usualyl called either:
a) a radiator on a car
or b) opening a window.
|
This mynameisrodney had already replied, saying that the reaction will complete much easier and quicker, if a conventional air condition can produce 3x the heating/cooling, this will suggest doing it the other way will produce much more than 3x heating? And don't have ur mind stuck on "air-conditioning", it's got nothing to do with it, I'm just trying to discuss the "system"...
| Quote: |
AEC Hydrogen Technology
AEC owns a metallurgic formulation which separates hydrogen from water at low cost, requiring no electrical energy or external input, and without utilizing or producing any hazardous waste materials. AEC's process involves chemical reactions between a proprietary metal alloy mix and the liquid solution. These metals are plentiful, stable in cost and produce effective, highly purified hydrogen utilizing a catalytic process.
|
also stumbled across this website, believe it or not believe it, it's your choice, a claim from a commercial company, do they have any advantages for a false claim? I don't know...
(this supports the catalyst theory!)
http://www.cleanwatts.com/technology/default.asp
[Updated on: Wed, 14 September 2005 15:48]
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 15:41
|
|
ahh i love it... i hope the new forum has this option
| Quote: |
Post by 86tt is ignored
|
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 15:54
|
|
if only the forum has this option ...
| Quote: |
Post by oldcorollas are automatically deleted
|
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 16:08
|
|
86tt -> You'll notice that nowhere on that website do AEC claim that their system consumes no materials at all. In fact I'd say that whatever proprietary metal mix they use is somehow oxidised in the process and hence - consumed.
Furthermore - I reckon they are also partially full of shit
| Quote: |
Though details of hydrogen production process cannot be fully disclosed at the present time, as patents are pending, the following can be answered: AEC's hydrogen production technology:
Is not Electrolysis
" Does not require external energy input of any type during the primary hydrogen production process
Uses only bio-compatible elements (not harmful to the environment/humans)
Functions at any temperature above the freezing point of the electrolyte.
|
I have highlighted two sections there - if the process is not electrolysis - why does it stipulate the requirement of the temperature being above the electrolyte?!!
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 16:31
|
|
maybe the electrolyte acts as some form of conductor for the reaction, and/or catalyst, you can email the company to ask them, full of shit or not I have no comments, but if they're selling hydrogen, and/or hydrogen solutions, the best way to find out is purchase from them?  But I honestly believe there's an easy way to separate the water molecules, but I'll be interested about the http://www.genesis-scientific.org self contained power generators...
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 23:41
|
|
quotes from first site, first paragraph.
| Quote: |
These metals are plentiful
|
it would apear that somebody is pulling somebody elses leg. if this really is a catalytic process, then why are they worried how much metal there is? in a catalytic process NONE of the catalyst is used so all they would need is enough to seup their devices.
| Quote: |
electrodes are consumed? I think u're losted, they're aren't consumed, they were removed but are re-deposited
|
One electode gets smaller, one gets bigger, but the new arrangement of electrodes will have less chemical potential energy than before you began so energy is still used. That energy comes from the electrode which got smaller.
| Quote: |
???? u're saying finite number of materials = limit amount of energy? What's that got to do with it, day after day you get never ending supply of light and heat energy from the sun, where do they end up at?
|
umm, no you dont. . the amount of energy from the sun while being incomprehensibly large, is still finite. Go look something up on the lifecycle of stars.
| Quote: |
mynameisrodney: I understand the graph that you've shown, but that only represent one certain method of breaking down the water molecule, what do you think about the resonance frequency method? Over the years, there's been many cases of "things breaking" at the right frequency using low amount of energy...
|
resonant frequency stuff is interesting, i agree. However the electrons spin around the nucleus of the atom so fast that an extremely high frequency would need to be used, thus using high amounts of energy (which you would find is more than that gained from burning the hydrogen).
to get hydrogen from water we will always need to supply AT LEAST the amount of energy we get from burning it. but this does not mean it is unfeasable. to make it worthwhile we would need to use energy from a sourcee that we did not create and would not use (otherwise we are just using energy to make less energy ). An example of such a source is radioactive waste. it contains large amounts of energy but we just bury it because we cant do anything with it. if we could use that to produce hydrogen from water, we would not only be gaining hydrogen, but making nuclear power cleaner.
chris
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 00:06
|
|
| mynameisrodney wrote on Thu, 15 September 2005 09:41 |
quotes from first site, first paragraph.
| Quote: |
???? u're saying finite number of materials = limit amount of energy? What's that got to do with it, day after day you get never ending supply of light and heat energy from the sun, where do they end up at?
|
umm, no you dont. . the amount of energy from the sun while being incomprehensibly large, is still finite. Go look something up on the lifecycle of stars.
|
don't be silly, what's the human's life cycle compared to the star's lifecycle? The humans on earth will probably be long gone before the star's energy ever gets close to being used up, not in the next 1000 generations will we witness the death of our sun... and your claim that there's limited amount of material on earth isn't true either as there's new energy from the sun and other galaxies bombarding the earth everyday...
| Quote: |
resonant frequency stuff is interesting, i agree. However the electrons spin around the nucleus of the atom so fast that an extremely high frequency would need to be used, thus using high amounts of energy (which you would find is more than that gained from burning the hydrogen).
|
high frequency <> high energy, your mobile phone emits 900/1800/1900MHz and it's powered by milli-watts, from different sources, some claim 30-40kV @ around 15kHz will separate the molecules...
| Quote: |
to get hydrogen from water we will always need to supply AT LEAST the amount of energy we get from burning it. but this does not mean it is unfeasable. to make it worthwhile we would need to use energy from a sourcee that we did not create and would not use (otherwise we are just using energy to make less energy ). An example of such a source is radioactive waste. it contains large amounts of energy but we just bury it because we cant do anything with it. if we could use that to produce hydrogen from water, we would not only be gaining hydrogen, but making nuclear power cleaner.
|
many commercial sites are now claiming some form of method of separating H20 or H2 molecules into H & O and single H molecules, and recombining them and finding extra energy, so this claim may not be true...
here's another interesting site
http://befreetech.com/techpage.htm
here it mentions a car that uses 28 Gallon of water to travel from California to NY...
http://befreetech.com/fe_program.htm
has many references to the dark world, but sceptical people wouldn't believe them, so don't over-react...
[Updated on: Thu, 15 September 2005 00:13]
|
|
|
Location:
Kellyville, Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 01:08
|
|
| 86tt wrote on Thu, 15 September 2005 10:06 |
don't be silly, what's the human's life cycle compared to the star's lifecycle? The humans on earth will probably be long gone before the star's energy ever gets close to being used up, not in the next 1000 generations will we witness the death of our sun... and your claim that there's limited amount of material on earth isn't true either as there's new energy from the sun and other galaxies bombarding the earth everyday...
|
i'm sorry but this is getting stupid. if you want to have an inteligent discusion, then come back when you understand the difference between an incredibly large amount, and an infinite amount. we have explained it to you many times over and it is getting tiring.
chris
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 06:41
|
|
I think you're missing the point, you want to argue there's finite amount of energy, and we're talking about if the energy is enough for human survival, yeah maybe on the mathematical formula or current known science findings that there are finite amount of energy, but practically, it's as good as infinite for any of us.
You want to argue the sun have a finite lifespan, ok, but I can argue when our sun runs out, there's still a huge number of other stars/sun out there which is providing cosmic, light and heat energy out there, and by the time some of them runs out, other stars could be formed, so if you want to argue about a pointless subject, I can argue the energy from the galaxy will never run out, and by that time in 1,000,000 years or 100,000,000 years later maybe human will find a way to harness the energy from other stars and have already built a barrier around the earth to keep the heat and water and atmosphere insulated inside the earth, and maybe we won't need our current sun to provide the energy, so who cares? You and I will be long dead! And even maybe the sun would have expanded and became bigger and gulp the earth its flame, we may be all dead or moved to another planet!
But something currently obviously is the human addiction to fossil fuel, and something more obviously is the perfect timing of the petrol fuel surge just when the government needs the money most, and something even more unbelievable is the number of commercial companies out there, number of claims out there to provide clean and near free energy, that you and I have never heard about and the media continues to go on about the petrol problem that we've got? How it's going to skyrocket to unacceptable price?
[Updated on: Thu, 15 September 2005 06:44]
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
September 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 09:17
|
|
| 86tt wrote on Thu, 15 September 2005 10:06 |
high frequency <> high energy, your mobile phone emits 900/1800/1900MHz and it's powered by milli-watts, from different sources, some claim 30-40kV @ around 15kHz will separate the molecules...
|
Actually, high frequency is correlated with high energy. High school physics gives us the correlation:
E = hf
Where E is energy in Joules, h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency in Hertz. Whilst it's possible to have a low amplitude wave (low power), the case you're talking about is ionization of an atom. To remove an electron you need to put in energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. To ionize more stable atoms you need more energy per atom - this requires higher frequency electromagnetic radiation. To ionize more atoms you need greater amplitude of signal (and hence more power).
Whilst it may be possible for your stated figures to separate some molecules, you haven't stated the current required per molecule, which is the important figure. ("Free" energy is a pet interest, but unfortunately very few theories show merit.)
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 13:11
|
|
|
different source claims it needs about 40W @ 40kV, so it's around 1mA...
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 13:18
|
|
|
86tt, you are ridiculous, seriously dude unless you actually *understand* the basic mechanics/thermodynamics/physics of what you are talking about and can argue your point then stop posting crud like "this website supports my theory because of this vague quote here and there that could easily be picked apart by someone with half a clue, in fact even a quarter of a clue would be enough"
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 13:29
|
|
|
LOL is this clown still at it?
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 13:32
|
|
but I'm not here to change your point of view, and there's no reason to, if you wouldn't pull ur head out of ur ass, obviously there's companies out there claiming to produce hydrogen, hydrogen cell and hydrogen system, if they are not providing the hydrogen technology in low cost and good profits, they will not be in business for long, only time will tell..
People that keep their minds closed and take for granted what they think they knew was all that was true, there will be no more new discoveries and there will be no more new inventions.
The figures I posted was quoted from other sources, which may be relevant if someone decides to have a go at the idea, and I'm in the planning stage of building one myself and are drafting the plans, if you don't try it yourself, you'll never know, and I'm not the type of person to be told what's true and what's not! I see a lot of people here with degrees and PhDs which are buried in their books and works, university is supposed to be teaching your the learning cycle and how to think and analyse a problem, but you guys are dead lost thinking university told you all there is in this world.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 14:06
|
|
Oh so now you are a better person than us too?
It takes a very articulate and insightful individual to go and make a judgement about people, their beliefs and their process based on the fact that they have qualifications and don't agree with your argument (which is not really *your* argument, but some other 'websites' claim that you are pimping).
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 14:27
|
|
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 14:31
|
|
Im getting that ignore user too, what is it???? 
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 14:45
|
|
anyway, back on topic...
i paid 5000 yen for 36 litres today..... thats about $63... and it didn't even reach the 3/4 mark 
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 14:48
|
|
| RWDboy wrote on Fri, 16 September 2005 00:06 |
Oh so now you are a better person than us too?
It takes a very articulate and insightful individual to go and make a judgement about people, their beliefs and their process based on the fact that they have qualifications and don't agree with your argument (which is not really *your* argument, but some other 'websites' claim that you are pimping).
|
there's no point debating any further, you have existing companies who are currently providing the technology & products and you have information about inventions that tracks back to more than 100 years ago, you have newspaper articles of great inventions and even a video of a news item on a water powered vehicle dating back 20 years ago, you have horror stories of people that are threatened and killed by the authorities, and all these information are right in your face, but ignorance overcomes your intellegence, just because you thought you have a PhD or a degree, it makes you think everyone else out there is insane, what weren't told to you at your university isn't true.
Or think about this, you have an internal combustion engine in your car, which is shit all inefficient, say 30%? The rest gets turned into sound and heat, so much heat that you need another system to consistently remove the heat so your engine doesn't overheat, you pump the heat out with coolant, and a couple of 10, 12" electric fans, huge radiators that cracks and needs to be replaced every few years, why? Why doesn't all these wasted heat gets harnessed and recycled and turned back into energy? Because no oil companies nor car manufacturer give a f..k about the wasted fuel and energy!
Have a look at such innovation: http://www.whispergen.com/main/acwhispergen/ a company that builds a boiler with a sterling engine to recover lost energy, these household boiler most likely boil the water up to around 60 degrees, but while providing 8kW of heating they can recover an extra 1.2kW of electricity, that's about 15% of the original intended power!
If car manufacturers were any keen, wouldn't it be great to have such device to recover the extra heat wasted from inefficient combustion engine and use it to charge the battery, run the air conditioning etc.? No more huge radiators and thermo fans! Combine this with a system to run a generator when the brake pedal is on (already being done with hybrid cars) How much more will that would improve the overall system efficiency of the car? The media keeps going on about how they're building more fuel efficient cars, that's all B.S.! Look at the efficiency of today's corollas (1L/10km premium unleaded) and the corollas 10 years ago (1L/10km unleaded), where's the improvement? It's just a big lie that everybody's is believing!
EDIT: Just found some info to say 70% of an engine is lost through heat, so some energy are lost through sound and the rest out the flywheel, so I can safely assume IC engine have peak efficiency at 30%.... so if it produces 100kw, then it'll be safe to say that if we reserve 10% of this heat so the engine stays at the correct operating temp., so the other 60% of heat which is worth 200kw! If the sterling system can recover 15% of 200kW, that's an extra 30kw, and the air conditioning probably only drains 0.5-1kw? How'd you like an extra 30kw to play with?
[Updated on: Thu, 15 September 2005 15:07]
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Fri, 16 September 2005 02:50
|
|
| 86tt wrote on Fri, 16 September 2005 00:18 |
| RWDboy wrote on Fri, 16 September 2005 00:06 |
Oh so now you are a better person than us too?
It takes a very articulate and insightful individual to go and make a judgement about people, their beliefs and their process based on the fact that they have qualifications and don't agree with your argument (which is not really *your* argument, but some other 'websites' claim that you are pimping).
|
there's no point debating any further, you have existing companies who are currently providing the technology & products and you have information about inventions that tracks back to more than 100 years ago, you have newspaper articles of great inventions and even a video of a news item on a water powered vehicle dating back 20 years ago, you have horror stories of people that are threatened and killed by the authorities, and all these information are right in your face, but ignorance overcomes your intellegence, just because you thought you have a PhD or a degree, it makes you think everyone else out there is insane, what weren't told to you at your university isn't true.
|
I am sick to death of writing massive posts to clarify a viewpoint that is so flipping obvious in the first place. This is why I've resisted jumping into this argument, but once again I have encountered another special type of ignoramus that I feel is worthy of being blasted into oblivion via the use of a massive post.
Okay, for starters, you reckon that University is perpetuating one big fat lie. I'm not sure whether you have or haven't, but it sounds to me like you should perhaps *go* to University before passing judgement on it. You are suffering from what you presume to be the same problem that we are suffering - i.e. selective beliefs. Firstly, alot of these companies are very very young, and alot of them aren't producing the massive energy saving benefits that they claim. Secondly, alot of these 'claims' by certain people that they are going to be killed are just that, 'claims'. Threatening to kill people is against the law in most countries (in Australia for example it falls under the category of 'assault') - chances are the reason that no charges have ever been laid is because most of the people making these claims have nothing to back it up and are probably suffering some kind of psychological condition whereby they have a massive need for attention. You reckon that 'authorities' don't want particular energy saving schemes to work - well I say that's utter bullstick. It is in EVERY country's interest to become energy efficient. It would give a MASSIVE advantage over other countries when it comes to trade etc if the amount of energy we used to create our products was *less* than that of those countries around us. To be honest, it sounds to me like you have started to block out simple logic so that you can believe some more easily perpetuated falsity (such as the conspiracy that all governments resist change).
Furthermore, you claim that 'ignorance' has overcome my 'intelligence'. Well once again you are so far off the mark it is ridiculous. I am not 'ignorant' of the claims of some companies, newspapers, individuals etc. I think University is quite poor, to be honest. I totally agree that in some degrees the way they teach and what they teach is utterly ridiculous, plus I also know that alot of people who exit their degrees and jump in to the workplace do *not* get what they were expecting, and there is a massive learning curve immediately in place for them. Whilst I may know this from experience - you have yet to make it clear why *you* think University's suck ass.
Which brings me to another point - your communication skills suck ass. I mean, if you were to explain your background and position more clearly then I would *know* that you haven't done any University study (or have only done limited amounts), but because you don't actually say much in your massive spiels about conspiracy garbage, all I can do is make an 'assumption' that you haven't done any University because your argument is full of holes and you aren't able to rebut anything slightly theory related that is thrown your way.
| 86tt wrote on Fri, 16 September 2005 00:18 |
Or think about this, you have an internal combustion engine in your car, which is shit all inefficient, say 30%? The rest gets turned into sound and heat, so much heat that you need another system to consistently remove the heat so your engine doesn't overheat, you pump the heat out with coolant, and a couple of 10, 12" electric fans, huge radiators that cracks and needs to be replaced every few years, why? Why doesn't all these wasted heat gets harnessed and recycled and turned back into energy? Because no oil companies nor car manufacturer give a f..k about the wasted fuel and energy!
|
Car manufacturers don't give a crap about wasted fuel and energy ey? Okay - instead of me having to explain to you WHY they actually give a crap, how about you tell me *WHY* they don't give a crap. How about trying to add some logic and reasoning in.
| 86tt wrote on Fri, 16 September 2005 00:18 |
Have a look at such innovation: http://www.whispergen.com/main/acwhispergen/ a company that builds a boiler with a sterling engine to recover lost energy, these household boiler most likely boil the water up to around 60 degrees, but while providing 8kW of heating they can recover an extra 1.2kW of electricity, that's about 15% of the original intended power!
If car manufacturers were any keen, wouldn't it be great to have such device to recover the extra heat wasted from inefficient combustion engine and use it to charge the battery, run the air conditioning etc.? No more huge radiators and thermo fans! Combine this with a system to run a generator when the brake pedal is on (already being done with hybrid cars) How much more will that would improve the overall system efficiency of the car? The media keeps going on about how they're building more fuel efficient cars, that's all B.S.! Look at the efficiency of today's corollas (1L/10km premium unleaded) and the corollas 10 years ago (1L/10km unleaded), where's the improvement? It's just a big lie that everybody's is believing!
|
Well just so you know, the improvement has come in emissions, safety (notice that the corolla now weighs between 1100kg and 1200kg as opposed to 900kg?), and to correct your figures (which were pulled from your ass) the Corolla (1.6litre VVTi 5-speed manual, petrol engine) uses 7.0litres per 100km (according to the vehicle certification authority - this test is a metropolitan type of fuel consumption figure). Unfortunately the exact same tests have not been tried on older model Corolla's, but a brief look at my stack of wheels magazines and I can give you a rough figure for a Corolla of both ten and twenty years ago - ten years ago the Seca RV (1.8litre, similar level of performance) used 7.3litres per 100km (however this included a highway driving figure) and the Corolla Twin Cam (venerable AE82) of 20 years ago used 9.2litres per 100km.
How about - you go to http://www.greencarcongress.com and look at what those conspiratorial maniacal car companies and those dreaded evil narcissistic 'authorities' are doing to promote and develop greener cars by the use of thermo electrics (ie - exactly what you were referring to above).
| 86tt wrote on Fri, 16 September 2005 00:18 |
EDIT: Just found some info to say 70% of an engine is lost through heat, so some energy are lost through sound and the rest out the flywheel, so I can safely assume IC engine have peak efficiency at 30%.... so if it produces 100kw, then it'll be safe to say that if we reserve 10% of this heat so the engine stays at the correct operating temp., so the other 60% of heat which is worth 200kw! If the sterling system can recover 15% of 200kW, that's an extra 30kw, and the air conditioning probably only drains 0.5-1kw? How'd you like an extra 30kw to play with?
|
I think the reason that this doesn't occur in cars is because of the weight of the system - please go and look at how the system operates and you should be able to figure out why it won't work so well!!!
So while you may be quite right in bringing to our attention some various sources which purport to be able to create energy out of nothing, please don't go boonta when we shoot you down with a decent argument.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Fri, 16 September 2005 05:07
|
|
| Quote: |
It is in EVERY country's interest to become energy efficient. It would give a MASSIVE advantage over other countries when it comes to trade etc if the amount of energy we used to create our products was *less* than that of those countries around us
|
Not if the country can continue to get hold of cheap oil themselves, normal consumers are the one to struggle with oil prices!
| Quote: |
your communication skills suck ass.
|
That is a very objective comment, I seem to get the message across clear enough even for you to understand!
| Quote: |
Well just so you know, the improvement has come in emissions, safety (notice that the corolla now weighs between 1100kg and 1200kg as opposed to 900kg?), and to correct your figures (which were pulled from your ass) the Corolla (1.6litre VVTi 5-speed manual, petrol engine) uses 7.0litres per 100km (according to the vehicle certification authority - this test is a metropolitan type of fuel consumption figure).
|
We had last had a discussion and it appears the figures of the fuel consumption are B.S. and people are much closer to getting 10L/100km on their Corollas which is the same as Corollas that are 10 years ago!
Yes, today's corolla is 200-300kg heavier than the Corollas 10 years ago, I wonder why the cars keeps getting heavier and heavier? being 10-20% heavier with a < 30% combustion engine, aren't there much more worthy things worth experimenting? ie. the materials and shape and strength of the cars, the design of the powerplant etc.?
Within our last couple of decades, we had new technologies like silicon wafer/integrated circuit/CPUs, laser technology, CD/DVDs, inkjet printers, LCD monitors, all these technology, the manufacturers have noted that the material weren't expensive, it's the technology to make it that is expensive, and within couple years of consumer exposure, the price of these technology dropped right down, as cheap as chips!
Now think about this, fibreglass and carbon fibre, is silicon expensive? Are we short on carbon? Why doesn't it gets more attention? At a mass produced level, these can be easily made affordable to every car on the planet, combined with metal, these can be used to strength the chassis, side intrusion bars, suspension components, the seats etc.etc. and will easier shred all the un-necessary weights of the car, but do they really give a shit? Don't think so!
| Quote: |
I think the reason that this doesn't occur in cars is because of the weight of the system - please go and look at how the system operates and you should be able to figure out why it won't work so well!!!
|
An engine of < 30% peak efficiently, with > 70% loss on heat, if the engine is rated 100kW (at point of max power = point of minimum efficiency) then you would have at least 233kW lost through heat, doesn't this deserve a lot of experiments on how to retrieve the waste heat? Maybe sterling system can add to the weight, but #1, these system never received extensive testing, and are probably only in the 4-5th generations, and #2, even if it was heavy, wouldn't still be worth it, consider the car weights 1000kg with the 30% power, if you can retrieve moreout of the overall system (say if you made the powerplant 40% efficient?), even if you added 333kg (33% of 1000kg) it will still break even! And if the sterling system aren't efficient enough, devise other methods, work on thermocouples, or have a steam engine coupled with an internal combustion engine? 70% lost through heat!! Had anyone ever give a f..k about this lost energy?? If I told you the $50 worth of petrol you put in, $35 was actually used to burn in a furnace, and you're fine with that?
[Updated on: Fri, 16 September 2005 05:09]
|
|
|
On Probation
Location:
Hobart
Registered:
December 2004
|
|
Re: Petrol Prices
|
Fri, 16 September 2005 09:30
|
|
|
after reading 1 SUPER long post, it gets too hard to keep upw with the rest... if u keep them short they get read!
|
|
|
| Current Time:
Wed Apr 24 02:40:17 UTC 2024 |
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.0084860324859619 seconds |
