The Hydrogen Economy

[bradybaker]

Nine myths and misconceptions about why hydrogen powered cars aren't just around the corner

1 - HYDROGEN IS AN ABUNDANT FUEL - while hydrogen is the most common element (the sun alone consumes 600 million tons of it each second), vast resevoirs of hydrogen do not exist on earth. Hydrogen atoms are bound up in other molecules and require the input of energy to get the atoms out. Basically, we'll never get more energy out of hydrogen than we put into it without huge technological advance.

"Hydrogen is a currency, not a primary energy source."
-Geoffrey Ballard (co-founder of Ballard Power Systems)

2 - HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS WILL END GLOBAL WARMING - Hydrogen fuel cells do not emit carbon dioxide, but the process of extracting hydrogen from natural gas (today's primary source) does. And getting the hydrogen out of water also requires tremendous amounts of energy, energy that comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Also, once the hydrogen is extracted, it must be compressed and transported, presumably by machinery and vehicles that still rely on fossil fuels (in the early stages of a hydrogen economy). The result? Even more carbon dioxide emissions than before.

"People say that hydrogen cars would be pollution-free, light bulbs are pollution-free, power-plants are not."
-David Keith (professor at University of Calgary)

3 - THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY CAN RUN ON RENEWABLE ENERGY - Renewable resources can provide only a small fraction of the energy that would be required for a full-fledged hydrogen economy. Converting every vehicle in the US to hydrogen power would require the electricity output of 1,000,000 wind turbines, enough to cover half of California. Solar panels would also require enormous swaths of land. Water is also a limiting factor, fuelling a hydrogen economy with electrolysis would require 4.2 trillion gallons of water annually (the amount that flows over Niagara Falls every 3 months.

4 - HYDROGEN GAS LEAKS ARE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT - Hydrogen gas is odourless and colorless and burns almost invisibly. A tiny fire at a leaky fuel pump could go undetected until your pants go up in flames. A cell phone or a thunderstorm could ignite hydrogen compressed hydrogen. The problem is that hydrogen is a gas, while existing fuels are mainly liquids. The infrastructure required to support such a product is very complicated. Based on modest estimates of possible leakages in a system where everything runs on hydrogen, the amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere would be 4 to 8 times as high as it is today, this could increase cloud cover and accelerate global warming.

5 - CARS ARE THE NATURAL FIRST APPLICATION FOR HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS - Fuel cells designed for vehicles must survive harsh conditions and are limited in size and weight. Also, cars and light trucks contribute only 20% of the carbon dioxide emissions while fossil fuel power plants account for more than 40%. A better solution to global warming would be to use hydrogen fuel cells to generate electricity for homes and businesses. The companies Plug Power, UTC, FuelCell Energy and Ballard Power Systems already have stationary units and Plug Power alone has 161 systems installed in the US (including the first fuel-cell-powered McDonald's). Unfortunately these four companies combined have a peak generating capacity of about 69 megawatts, less than 0.01% of the required.

"An economically sane, cost-effective attack on the climate problem wouldn't start with cars."
-David Keith

6 - THE US IS COMMITTED TO HYDROGEN, POURING BILLIONS INTO R&D - President Bush has promised to spend $1.2 billion on hydrogen research. He has also committed $1.5 billion to promote "healthy marriages" and the monthly tab for the war in Iraq is $3.9 billion. In 2004, the Department of Energy spent more on nuclear and fossil fuel research than hydrogen. In other political moves, the FreedomCAR program requires that the Big 3 car corporations demonstrate a hydrogen powered car by 2008---but not sell one. Experts estimate that to build a hydrogen economy would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 billion---and that's if 60% of American continue to drive internal combustion cars. Fuel companies such as Shell and Exxon Mobil are unwilling to invest in fuelling stations if there are only a few cars on the road to use them, and automakers are reluctant to invest in hydrogen cars unless there are places to fill them up. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has developed the "Hydrogen Highway Project", a plan to build 150-200 stations ($500,000 each) along the state's major highways by 2010. So that's one state, what about the rest of America's 100,775 stations? The cost of retro-fitting just 25% of them would be $13 billion.

"If you are serious about [hydrogen], you have to commit a whole lot more money."
-Guenter Conzelmann (deputy director of the Center for Energy, Environmental and Economic Systems Analysis)

7 - IF ICELAND CAN DO IT, SO CAN WE - Iceland's first hydrogen fuelling station is already operating, powering a small fleet of fuel buses. The hydrogen is produced on-site from tap water. Plans are already underway to convert the rest of the island to a hydrogen system. Impressive, but 72% of Iceland's electricity comes from geothermal and hydroelectric power. They can simply electrolyze the water straight from the national power-grid with that much clean energy on hand, but this type of setup is impossible in the US where only 15% of the grid is powered by such clean sources. 71% is generated by burning fossil fuels. Size is also an issue, it would take only 16 stations to allow Icelanders to drive anywhere in the country, while the US would require a minimum of 1,440 (assuming that they would be strategically placed with no overlap).

8 - MASS PRODUCTION WILL MAKE HYDROGEN CARS AFFORDABLE - Simply mass-producing hydrogen cars won't necessarily cut costs. Ballard says that before fuel cells can become affordable, there needs to be a "fundamental engineering rethink" of the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell (the one being designed for automobiles). Today's PEM cells typically fail during the first 2000 hours of operation, compared with an average of 15 years for the internal combustion counterpart. In the short term, conventional vehicles will be replaced with gas-electric hybrids or vehicles that burn clean diesel, natural gas, methanol or ethanol.

""Ten years ago I said that it was the height of engineering arrogance to think that the architecture and geometry we chose to demonstrate the fuel cell in automobiles would be the best architecture and geometry for a commercial automobile, very few people paid attention to that statement."
-Geoffrey Ballard

"If you project today's fuel cell technologies into high-volume production---about 500,000 vehicles a year---the cost is still up to six times too high."
-Patrick Davis (former leader of the Department of Energy's fuel cell research team)

9 - FUEL CELL CARS CAN DRIVE HUNDREDS OF MILES ON A SINGLE TANK OF HYDROGEN - A gallon of gasoline contains about 2,600 times the energy of a gallon of hydrogen. If engineers want cars to travel 300 miles between fill-ups---the industry benchmark---the hydrogen would have to be compressed to extremely high pressures, up to 10,000 pounds per square inch. Even at that pressure, cars would still need massive fuel tanks, the hydrogen would take up to 4 times as much space as gasoline. Liquid hydrogen works slightly better, but the car must be driven everyday to keep the hydrogen chilled to -253 degree Celsius (20 degrees about absolute zero).

"If your car is at the airport for a week, you'll have an empty tank when you get back."
-JoAnn Milliken (chief engineer of the Department of Energy's Office of Hydrogen)

The End....damn that took a long time to type.

Adapted from: Popular Science " Warning: The Hydrogen Economy May Be More Distant Than It Appears". January 2005

[Damascus]

impressive, this is the first news ive heard of a hydrogen economy. That gives me something to chew on.

But surely extraction of hydrogen through electrolysis wouldnt be that hard if we built enough stations right?

well, it was an interesting read.

[dream-scape]

I think, as mentioned, powering office buildings will be one of the first places to take off... Just off the top of my head, I know GM (I think) has 2 R&D office buildings being powered by a hydrogen fuel cell about the size of a normal filing cabinet that came as a result of their research into hydrogen power.

Cars might not be "just around the corner" -- major car companies right now are building and working on prototypes that are expected to reach production by 10 years -- GM with a prototype that was shown at a recent show that had no engine or axles at all but small motors inside of the wheels -- but as oil prices rise, it will eventually get to the point that people will begin to look for alternative energy sources, and it won't be so unreasonable to go out an pay for hydrogen fuel and buy a hydrogen powered car, and that is the point people will begin to move away from oil in larger and larger numbers (and the current prediction is, to hydrogen).

Come to think of it, GM will probably be one of the driving forces to make hydrogen power commonplace. They're putting a ton of money into R&D to solve some of these problems mentioned. They already have a patent on one method of extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels. They also have a goal of getting a hydrogen powered car available to consumers by 2010. That may sound kinda soon, but considering what they demonstrated at the 2003 auto show, all the advancements they have making, and all the people & resources they have in hydrogen power development, it really isn't that unbelievable.

[bradybaker]

Did you read anything from that article? You just stated about 4 or 5 of the myths as support.

[dream-scape]

must you always talk so condescendingly to other people? Does it make you feel better or something?

I was stating advances that GM has already made and is working on making to break through some of those barriers stated in that article. The amount of resources they are pouring into hydrogen power research is quite astronomical, and I was stating that I'd put my money on them to be one of the leading companies to make the advanced needed for hydrogen power to become commonplace.

you can stop being an asshole any day now too.

[bradybaker]

Whoa, whoa. Calm down. Simmer. Relax.

It wasn't my intention to be condescending.

Originally posted by dream-scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream-scape)</div>major car companies right now are building and working on prototypes that are expected to reach production by 10 years[/b]
Why would they produce cars if there is nowhere for consumers to fill them up?

Originally posted by dream-scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream-scape)</div>but as oil prices rise, it will eventually get to the point that people will begin to look for alternative energy sources, and it won't be so unreasonable to go out an pay for hydrogen fuel and buy a hydrogen powered car[/b]
You're forgetting where the hydrogen comes from. Either fossil fules, or the electrolysis of water (that electricity would have to come from fossil fuels).

Originally posted by dream-scape
people will begin to move away from oil in larger and larger numbers (and the current prediction is, to hydrogen).
The current prediction is to:
Originally posted by the article
gas-electric hybrids or vehicles that burn clean diesel, natural gas, methanol or ethanol.

<!--QuoteBegin-dream-scape@
Come to think of it, GM will probably be one of the driving forces to make hydrogen power commonplace.
I wouldn't disagree with that.

<!--QuoteBegin-dream-scape
They also have a goal of getting a hydrogen powered car available to consumers by 2010. That may sound kinda soon, but considering what they demonstrated at the 2003 auto show, all the advancements they have making, and all the people & resources they have in hydrogen power development, it really isn't that unbelievable.
It's not producing the car that's the problem. They could start pumping them out next week if they really wanted to. The problem is that we are many years, if not decades away from developing the necessary infrastructure to support such a car. I would rather see GM put money into research for stationary fuel cell systems.

The cold, hard truth is that fuel cell technology requires a complete overhaul before we can come anywhere close to relying on it as a primary source of energy. Hydrogen has been only 10 or 20 years away for a long time.

[dream-scape]

major car companies right now are building and working on prototypes that are expected to reach production by 10 years
Why would they produce cars if there is nowhere for consumers to fill them up?
There are already a couple of hydrogen filling stations in the U.S. I'm not sure of any vehicles, but I know there are at least a few stations offering hydrogen. And when I say reach production, I do not mean mass production, I just mean available for a consumer to buy if they wanted to (at a pretty penny I would guess too). A person that is going to be able to afford a hydrogen car isn't going to have to be worrying about where to fill up at.

gas-electric hybrids or vehicles that burn clean diesel, natural gas, methanol or ethanol.[/quote]
That is your prediction or whoever said that, their prediction. I was speaking of GM, and their prediction is hydrogen as the next big energy source. And even so, gas-electric hybrid isn't really a major alternative energy source... it is more like a stepping stone.

I would rather see GM put money into research for stationary fuel cell systems.
How do you think the fuel cells that power their research buildings came about?

You're forgetting where the hydrogen comes from. Either fossil fules, or the electrolysis of water (that electricity would have to come from fossil fuels).
And you underestimate energy sources besides fossil fuel. Several methods are being developed to extract hydrogen from water, using solar power and other renewable energies - not fossil fuels - for the electricity; and another method that uses a Molybdenum based compound as a catalyst - and no electricity - to decompose water into its hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Back around 2000, two Spanish scientists invented the latter method, and I think even made a working "catalytic convertor," but that is the last I heard of it and dunno what happened to them or their invention.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by dream-scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream-scape)</div>There are already a couple of hydrogen filling stations in the U.S. I'm not sure of any vehicles, but I know there are at least a few stations offering hydrogen.[/b]
Couple-shmouple. It would take well over 1000 filling stations to make any sense at all. That means the support of companies like Shell and ExxonMobil is needed, support that they aren't willing to give unless there are cars that will be coming to these stations. And since car companies aren't committed to producing hydrogen cars until oil companies are committed, we're in a bit of a tricky situation.

Originally posted by dream-scape@
And when I say reach production, I do not mean mass production, I just mean available for a consumer to buy if they wanted to (at a pretty penny I would guess too).
That makes no economic sense.

<!--QuoteBegin-dream-scape
That is your prediction or whoever said that, their prediction.
A collective of experts in the field. This article wasn't put together by some shmuck in his basement.

And you underestimate energy sources besides fossil fuel. Several methods are being developed to extract hydrogen from water, using solar power and other renewable energies - not fossil fuels - for the electricity[/b]
Such renewable resources are not even close to realistic in the near future, unless of course you are willing to cover Texas in solar panels and hope for sunny days. You underestimate the amount of energy that the US needs annually.

another method that uses a Molybdenum based compound as a catalyst - and no electricity - to decompose water into its hydrogen and oxygen molecules.[/b]
Hopefully that works out.

[Universal Mind]

Hopefully that works out.

Yeah.

[jahnauasca]

Hi all, this is a subject near and dear to my heart.

I am currently in the planning stages of producing hydrogen based on Stan Meyer's work in this area.

If you pulse a DC current through a tunable resonance circuit with the capacitor having water as the dielectric it is possible to tune into the resonant frequency of said water and break its covalent bond thus producing hydrogen. This may sound heavy and somewhat techie to some but it explains how it is possible to use a high voltage, low current to produce hydrogen i.e., over-unity energy. For some this sounds hokey, but I've been studying this for over a year now and work with RF, I think its real.

[pj]

13.56 MHZ.

You don't even need a capacitor - just a resonant coil.

[Xei]

The amount of energy you lose breaking the bonds will always be equal to the amount of energy you get making them. Sorry but otherwise you've got yourself a perpeptual motion device...

Just bring on fusion is all I can say.

[pj]

That's the standard answer, but there are several patented and functional methods that are indeed over unity.

Using the laws of physics to preclude or rule out avenues of research is counter-productive. If researchers of prior generations had accepted the then-current laws of physics to be absolute, we wouldn't even have computers today because we wouldn't have Quantum Mechanics. The laws of physics and thermodynamics are, in reality, a set of theories that have served us well so far and nothing more.

[Xaqaria]

a lot of those points can be altered slightly to apply to ethanol as well. Ethanol actually puts a greater strain on the environment than fossil fuels do, and uses almost as much fossil fuel energy as simply using gasoline in the first place. The main problem with both hydrogen and ethanol is that the entire infrastructure that their production is based off of runs on fossil fuels.

[Xei]

That's the standard answer, but there are several patented and functional methods that are indeed over unity.

Using the laws of physics to preclude or rule out avenues of research is counter-productive. If researchers of prior generations had accepted the then-current laws of physics to be absolute, we wouldn't even have computers today because we wouldn't have Quantum Mechanics. The laws of physics and thermodynamics are, in reality, a set of theories that have served us well so far and nothing more.
This is ridiculous, sorry. You cannot seriously believe that people have patented perpetual motion machines. The whole of the scientific community'd be having a field day.

They're just hoaxes and it's been happening frequently since centuries ago. I mean, just last year there was that whole Steorn thing. Where did those guys go? Back into obscurity like all the others, but probably after taking some hefty investments from some gullible people.

[pj]

Oh - ok. You're right. I was just saying that to get a rise out of you. There's no such thing as a Griggs generator, for example, no patent that I have downloaded all the drawings for, no schools or other buildings using it for heat... nope.

Sorry I interfered with your reality.

[Xei]

...no, there isn't such thing as a 'Griggs generator'. :|

At least nothing I could find on Google. If you're going to shatter my reality then I'm afraid you're going to need to chuck something solid at it.

Edit: On further searching I've found some obscure mentions of a highly efficient water heating device made by a Mr Griggs, but no evidence that it's over unity at all. Which is sort of important. I'm not going to use up any more of my time looking for any though, considering how ridiculously unlikely the idea is.

[pj]

Funny - I get 32,500 hits on Google for it. You might try doing a free patent search on it too.

My apology was and is for saying something that doesn't fit with your expectations. I won't do it again.

[Xei]

Yeah I just edited my post to adress that. I'm still waiting for evidence that it's over unity though? And I should point out that the vast majority of those hits simply have the words 'Griggs' and 'generator' on the same page. Google seemed to think I'd get more hits looking for 'Briggs generator', actually.

To be honest I'm quite dissapointed that you could have fallen for one of the oldest scams in the history of mankind, and then tried to ridicule my 'delusion' in a pretentious tone without giving any evidence to back yourself up. It's not even funny. :|

You can't make energy. There is probably more evidence for that fact than any of the other facts in science. It would obviously be wonderful for humanity if it were not true and as a result there are always going to be a large number of scammers out there making false claims about it, but it quite simply isn't so.

I think I'll go and get Gnome...

[pj]

Seriously - I DO apologize for the "pretentious tone" at responding to your assertion that it is "ridiculous." I also regret responding at all, as getting into these sorts of conversations is something I generally choose not to do. It was a mistake.

Having said that, however, you JUST MIGHT find a bit of serious research into Griggs and others - going to granted and published patents as well as documented results from real-world applications, interesting.

NOW I withdraw and concede. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[R.D.735]

Going back to the original post, there are a couple of things I'd mention, namely that gas stations would not necessarily have to be retrofitted for hydrogen fuel if electrolysis technology could be distributed to homes, hydrogen leaks may be remedied by using solid-state hydrogen storage technology (if that ever becomes feasible), and even if renewable energy seems like a costly way to supply power to a hydrogen economy, what are the alternatives?

I've read that fusion may be on the horizon, but at any rate the cost of converting to fusion would likely be high as well.

[Xei]

As I said, I wouldn't have any spare time if I had to thouroughly investigate every single extraordinary claim that people make, and this is completely extraordinary. I did a quick look at Griggs generators but the only piece of information I could find about them was that they were an efficient way of heating water; but not actually the most efficient. There was a claim or two apparently from the inventor that they had been shown to be more than 100% efficient, but that was backed up by no evidence. And that's all there is to it, really.

RD: Mmm, our school had a talk from a man who was an expert in world issues, he seemed to think fusion was the one last chance we have of avoiding civilisational collapse.

[R.D.735]

Personally, I think solar power and, to an even greater extent, better energy efficiency will probably fill that role if fossil fuels become impractical. Fusion power, in my opinion, would provide a way for civilization to grow far beyond its current boundaries, but would be too late to mitigate the short-term possibility of a widespread energy shortage.

[Xei]

I'm hoping Britain'll be able to live out the cold period using it's currently economically unviable coal reserves. No idea about the rest of the world... although Iceland will be pretty much 100% renewable by then, at least there's one sensible government on this planet.

[Taosaur]

I'm hoping Britain'll be able to live out the cold period using it's currently economically unviable coal reserves. No idea about the rest of the world... although Iceland will be pretty much 100% renewable by then, at least there's one sensible government on this planet.

Well, Iceland has some unique geothermal resources, but of course there are a lot of areas where local sun, wind, earth, hydro or other untapped resources could provide relief. Germany's steadily marching toward 20-30% solar. Solar makes particular sense in hot summers, when energy demand and intense sunlight come in sync. Also, there have to be better ways to harvest sunlight, if we only concentrate on finding them.

[Xei]

About 1% of the US's defence budget would sort that out nicely, methinks.

[jahnauasca]

About 1% of the US's defence budget would sort that out nicely, methinks.

amen:bowdown:

[Xaqaria]

Yeah I just edited my post to adress that. I'm still waiting for evidence that it's over unity though? And I should point out that the vast majority of those hits simply have the words 'Griggs' and 'generator' on the same page. Google seemed to think I'd get more hits looking for 'Briggs generator', actually.

To be honest I'm quite dissapointed that you could have fallen for one of the oldest scams in the history of mankind, and then tried to ridicule my 'delusion' in a pretentious tone without giving any evidence to back yourself up. It's not even funny. :|

You can't make energy. There is probably more evidence for that fact than any of the other facts in science. It would obviously be wonderful for humanity if it were not true and as a result there are always going to be a large number of scammers out there making false claims about it, but it quite simply isn't so.

I think I'll go and get Gnome...

The actual name of the device is a hydrosonic pump. It is an over unity device in that it creates more heat energy than the electrical energy required to run it, but it is not a perpetual motion machine because in order for it to run itself, that energy would have to be converted back in to electricity and the extra energy would be lost. You can read the patent for it here (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6164274-claims.html) which was awarded to its inventor, James L. Griggs. The company that is working on it is called HydroDynamics (http://www.hydrodynamics.com/technology_review.htm)

[Universal Mind]

I'm glad you all are enjoying this discussion. I had a late night whim to revive a thread that died three years ago. I'm glad you're into it. :lol:

[Taosaur]

The funny thing is, I remember this thread :shock:

[Xei]

It is an over unity device in that it creates more heat energy than the electrical energy required to run it, but it is not a perpetual motion machine because in order for it to run itself, that energy would have to be converted back in to electricity and the extra energy would be lost.
Haha. Where were you during... well, pretty much every physics class ever?

Just... step out. Perhaps read the energy article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy). The introduction alone will suffice, actually.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) is also quite relevant.

[Xaqaria]

Hmm, well at my desk. I've done very well in all of the physics classes I've taken, both in high school and college. If you would like for me to lay down the mathematical verification for this invention, I will; as long as you can assure me you would actually benefit from it.

[Xei]

Sure, give me the maths if you will. Unfortunately it will probably go right over my head, but the fact that you are trying to disprove the foundation of physics won't. You can't get more energy out than you put in, full stop. It doesn't matter what form it's in.

[jahnauasca]

Sure, give me the maths if you will. Unfortunately it will probably go right over my head, but the fact that you are trying to disprove the foundation of physics won't. You can't get more energy out than you put in, full stop. It doesn't matter what form it's in.

Check this video out from Tom Valone.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6286598798176714592&q=tom+valone&total=36&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Xei]

It's just another video about another crackpot who thinks he's found another source of free energy. It's not as if any of us understands what he's saying particularly, so why are you so compelled by his speech? I watched about a minute of him talking and all that came across was that he was an egotistical asshole, personally.

Zero point energy is basically the lowest possible energy that a system can have, and loads of goons who don't properly understand what they're talking about think that it can somehow be extracted. They're wrong, by definition.

[skysaw]

Zero point energy is basically the lowest possible energy that a system can have, and loads of goons who don't properly understand what they're talking about think that it can somehow be extracted. They're wrong, by definition.
I agree with this belief.

However, I do think there could be a lot of unnoticed and untapped sources of energy all around that are for all intents and purposes "free." Obviously wind is more or less free for us in that it's there whether we use it or not. Same for solar and hydro. There could be more sources we simply haven't considered.

Along other lines, garbage is a very renewable resource, as is human and animal waste. Figure out how to use that for energy, and we're set!

[Xei]

Mhm, most governments are being ridiculously irresponsible about this. It'll all change soon, when oil prices become unbearable. But with the way things are going, most countries are going to have a dark age for a few years, until the government finally implements renewable sources.

It was only recently that our government approved of the severn dam, which'll produce 15% of the entire country's energy. 15%, and only now are they building the thing, and that's only because they've been forced to. It's ridiculous...

[Xaqaria]

Sure, give me the maths if you will. Unfortunately it will probably go right over my head, but the fact that you are trying to disprove the foundation of physics won't. You can't get more energy out than you put in, full stop. It doesn't matter what form it's in.

Xei, you are dismissing it without even understanding it. Electrical energy is put in to the pump; heat energy is produced in part from the kinetic energy from the pump and partly from energy released in the water. It isn't 'creating energy,' it is getting more energy out than is required to run the pump. Essentially, it is a new way to get energy from water, something that has never been done before because no one had found a way to get energy from water without having to put more energy into it first.

[Xei]

That's not maths. :|

What is this 'energy in the water', though? What form is it in? And how is it released?

[jahnauasca]

It's just another video about another crackpot who thinks he's found another source of free energy. It's not as if any of us understands what he's saying particularly, so why are you so compelled by his speech? I watched about a minute of him talking and all that came across was that he was an egotistical asshole, personally.

Zero point energy is basically the lowest possible energy that a system can have, and loads of goons who don't properly understand what they're talking about think that it can somehow be extracted. They're wrong, by definition.

Egotistical? You didn't watch the whole thing, so you really have no room to make an argument against what he presents. I am done with this thread. You are rude and your arguments are ignorant.

[Xei]

No, his are. Are you an expert in quantum physics?

[Xaqaria]

That's not maths. :|

What is this 'energy in the water', though? What form is it in? And how is it released?

You said math would go over you head. The machine uses changes in pressure in the fluid to make bubbles in the water that collapse in a mini shockwave. These small shockwaves convert the fluid to steam and heat is released.

At this point, I'm just paraphrasing what other people have written about it, so you might as well do your own reading if you want to know anything else about it. http://www.rexresearch.com/griggs/griggs.htm

If you still deny it as a fraud claiming to break the laws of physics then I don't know what else to say.

[Xaqaria]

Are you an expert in quantum physics?

Completely unrelated, but I can't wait till I finish my degree so I can finally answer yes to that question.

[adam has a dream]

You said math would go over you head.
Obviously this was directed at someone else, but I highly doubt the maths will go over my head. Please reveal everything :)

[RedfishBluefish]

The actual name of the device is a hydrosonic pump. It is an over unity device in that it creates more heat energy than the electrical energy required to run it, but it is not a perpetual motion machine because in order for it to run itself, that energy would have to be converted back in to electricity and the extra energy would be lost. You can read the patent for it here (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6164274-claims.html) which was awarded to its inventor, James L. Griggs. The company that is working on it is called HydroDynamics (http://www.hydrodynamics.com/technology_review.htm)
This is odd. Where would the extra energy go?
The site says you can't connect the output to the input because the conversion of heat to electricity is inefficient, which I can't see. No matter how inefficient it is, if you have enough stages of conversion of waste you should be able to get up to 99% efficiency.

I can buy the idea that you're actually taking energy out of water though. Intramolecular vibrational or rotational energy and all that.

[Xei]

You said math would go over you head. The machine uses changes in pressure in the fluid to make bubbles in the water that collapse in a mini shockwave. These small shockwaves convert the fluid to steam and heat is released.
Sounds pretty impossibe to me. I heard about this before actually, the whole bubble collapse thing. I heard they measured temperatures of thousands of degrees in a very small volume of the water, I think there was a horizon documentary about it. Turns out the guy who claimed to have achieved over 100% efficiency was a total fraud and he was never able to repeat his results to anybody. And still most sources of information, and there are not many, seem to think that Griggs generators are simply efficient pumps. Have you personally gathered any data?

I'm surprised you're taking a degree, having not yet accepted that a process can't be more than 100% efficient. That is pretty much the foundation of physics.

[adam has a dream]

Sounds pretty impossibe to me. I heard about this before actually, the whole bubble collapse thing. I heard they measured temperatures of thousands of degrees in a very small volume of the water, I think there was a horizon documentary about it. Turns out the guy who claimed to have achieved over 100% efficiency was a total fraud and he was never able to repeat his results to anybody. And still most sources of information, and there are not many, seem to think that Griggs generators are simply efficient pumps. Have you personally gathered any data?

Yeah it brought that to mind for me as well. There is only one way to get more energy out of a process than you put into it: a reaction. No mechanical process will give an output over unity.
So now we have two possibilities: A nuclear reaction or a chemical reaction. We can rule out the nuclear reaction through testing the composition of the water after the machine has been run - no fission or fusion products are present (hence why cold fusion is not a valid theory). The same could be done with a chemical reaction, but after some point, the reaction would reach completion, and the machine would fail to work.

Now I can go on speculating whether or not the machine actually does work; until some solid operational data is provided, we can safely assume that the machine does not work. This is because we have scientific laws that you have not yet proved incorrect. That is the beauty of the scientific method...

[RedfishBluefish]

@Xei

Eh? Didn't he say
It isn't 'creating energy,' it is getting more energy out than is required to run the pump. Essentially, it is a new way to get energy from water
?

That doesn't sound like it breaks the law of conservation of energy - it's just another form of potential energy being harvested, right? Just like a coal generator produces more energy than it takes to run it. (Of course, this means the water generator's efficiency would fall to <100% after a while, when all the water's potential energy was released)

Now the actual form that potential energy is in - that's a good question.

[Xei]

Yeah, that was my point. From what I can tell the only form of energy that's there for harvesting is the kinetic energy of the water molecules, which is of course produced by the heat put in to the system anyway. Apart from that, what is there..? Chemical bonds, which of course take in energy when they are destroyed, not release it... and matter energy equivalence, but of course that is impossible too in this situation.