Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,739
# 21
07-10-2012, 11:22 AM
Quote:
For one, the PDF you linked had barely any data.
The European Commission doesn't exactly do its own research. It takes reports from science and industry and publishes them, but really has been doing the due diligence on any of it. It's not what they do. They also have a pdf available explaining the use of self-contained fuel cell plants powered only by water that could power cities, which violates thermodynamics (it takes more electricity to separate the water than you can generate burning the hydrogen, even if both processes run at 100% efficiency).
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 98
# 22
07-10-2012, 11:23 AM
There will NEVER be a technology that does not require a massive jolt to START the process.

The target here is to find a way to produce more energy than is required to MAINTAIN the process.

Think of the simplest "perpetual energy" mechanism ... a light that shines on a grid of photovoltaic cells. If the cells can convert the light energy into electricity in excess of what is needed to maintain the light at a certain power level, then you have succeeded in producing "free energy".

The problem is that our technology is inefficient in this regard at this time. But, just as with all things, the more time and money invested in R&D on the topic will yield results.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,588
# 23
07-10-2012, 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevach View Post
The European Commission doesn't exactly do its own research. It takes reports from science and industry and publishes them, but really has been doing the due diligence on any of it. It's not what they do.
The authors of that document and their sources are given in the PDF, if I am not mistaken?

Quote:
They also have a pdf available explaining the use of self-contained fuel cell plants powered only by water that could power cities, which violates thermodynamics (it takes more electricity to separate the water than you can generate burning the hydrogen, even if both processes run at 100% efficiency).
Glck. They do? Where?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://youtu.be/VrJiU9BOEBI?t=53
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 996
# 24
07-10-2012, 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevach View Post
The European Commission doesn't exactly do its own research. It takes reports from science and industry and publishes them, but really has been doing the due diligence on any of it. It's not what they do. They also have a pdf available explaining the use of self-contained fuel cell plants powered only by water that could power cities, which violates thermodynamics (it takes more electricity to separate the water than you can generate burning the hydrogen, even if both processes run at 100% efficiency).
Thanks. Now I can ignore the European Commission's energy recommendations. They sound like the dozens of investors who've been duped by the various claims of perpetual energy.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,588
# 25
07-10-2012, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azerdraco View Post
There will NEVER be a technology that does not require a massive jolt to START the process.

The target here is to find a way to produce more energy than is required to MAINTAIN the process.
And in doing so, at least on the long run, it must produce more energy than was required to start the process, and making excess power cheap enough to rival at least nuclear fission. Otherwise, it is a worthless waste of resources.

Quote:
The problem is that our technology is inefficient in this regard at this time. But, just as with all things, the more time and money invested in R&D on the topic will yield results.
The "fusion constant": It constantly takes "another 20 years" to deliver hot fusion energy. Regardless of in what decade you ask.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://youtu.be/VrJiU9BOEBI?t=53
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 996
# 26
07-10-2012, 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
And in doing so, at least on the long run, it must produce more energy than was required to start the process, and making excess power cheap enough to rival at least nuclear fission. Otherwise, it is a worthless waste of resources.
I don't know that doing research into using the most abundant fuel in the universe is worthless.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,588
# 27
07-10-2012, 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
Thanks. Now I can ignore the European Commission's energy recommendations. They sound like the dozens of investors who've been duped by the various claims of perpetual energy.
You can do that when we have seen the source for that claim about the website. I cannot find such a document there.

I love the scientific method. One should apply it everywhere. Always.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://youtu.be/VrJiU9BOEBI?t=53
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,588
# 28
07-10-2012, 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
I don't know that doing research into using the most abundant fuel in the universe is worthless.
If it does not give any results, then it is worthless from an economic point of view. It may make sense for basic research, but that is a different matter entirely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://youtu.be/VrJiU9BOEBI?t=53
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 996
# 29
07-10-2012, 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
If it does not give any results, then it is worthless from an economic point of view. It may make sense for basic research, but that is a different matter entirely.
Wow. So we shouldn't do any Science at all? Science has to produce results that are immediately useful? If we seriously followed that line of reasoning, we wouldn't be able to converse with each other right now.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,588
# 30
07-10-2012, 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
Wow. So we shouldn't do any Science at all? Science has to produce results that are immediately useful? If we seriously followed that line of reasoning, we wouldn't be able to converse with each other right now.
Never claimed that. But saying that you do energy production research when you are actually doing stuff more in line with the CERN's work would be dishonorable, wouldn't it?

The fact remains that hot fusion research has, to this date, failed to produce any excess heat, despite of billions and billions of dollars pumped into that field and despite decades spent to invent the technology. That is sad for us a Star Trek fans, but it is the truth.

Of course, mankind has learned a lot during those decades of expensive research, which has its own value. But as an energy source, hot fusion is currently not really close to being a success story.


But that is actually not quite on topic here. There was a claim about the credibility of the European Commission's citation that the Cold Fusion or "LENR" phenomenon was reproducible without doubt, an that claim was some no-named document that,to me, sounded as if someone did not understand the proposal for a hydrogen economy very well (Which essentially goes: You produce hydrogen out of water with solar and wind power, transport the hydrogen to the power demand, and use fuel cells to turn the hydrogen into water and excess power again, when you need it).

So, where's that document?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://youtu.be/VrJiU9BOEBI?t=53
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:32 PM.