Re: [Amc-list] My Two Cents on Hydrogen etc

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

stover@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>    I'll need to research cracking hydrogen from oil, yet that looks to put us
> right back to deriving energy, albeit a "second party"- result, from a source
> that depletes. Once you derive the hydrogen from the oil- I suppose the oil
> still can be used for some purpose- but I can't see how you'd re-derive the
> hydrogen from the oil. Also, what form ( state- gas/fluid/solid ) is hydrogen
> found other than "cracking" molecules?

Yeah, I don't know what the H cracking process does, and what remains 
after it's done. THere's a bunch of "H"s in the assortment of molecules 
that comes out of the ground. Though I know zero about it, the chemistry 
and processing of petroleum is pretty interesting, and I don't think a 
lot of what comes out of the ground goes to waste.


>    One other item: a pet peeve, characterizing seekers of knowledge and of
> regenerable or non- depleting energy as "crackpots" is exactly why it seems
> only charlatans promote water derived hydrogen or hydrogen based molecules
> from water. To continue to belittle the efforts of those truly trying to find
> an efficient and non- polluting means of getting and burning hydrogen, either
> wholly by itself, or as a "co-burn" along with gasoline- is a disservice to
> legitimate scientists, or even "tinkerers"furthering efforts in this area.
> And THAT needs to stop.

You are right, I apologize for my loose use of the word. It applies to 
no one here certainly, and I apologize to everyone here. When I wrote 
that word, I was thinking of those who cynically, or otherwise, try to 
profit from people seeking ideas and solutions, using things that are 
known to be false or to not work as claimed.

There certainly are crackpots out there -- free power using magnets and 
all that rot. (Umm, niobium magnets don't fall out of trees!)



The energy equations regarding H, O, and electrolysis, for one example, 
is well known, anyone claiming to sell you a device, or plans thereof, 
and makes any claims about energy conversions that aren't backed up by 
physics, is a charalatan (thief) or crackpot (flat-earther). That I'll 
stand by.

Not everyone is in a position to evaluate these things -- that's not a 
criticism. We all know something, and no one knows everything.

The thing about the unknown is, we don't know what it is -- so there is 
always room for new applications, and though large breakthroughs are 
unlikely, they're not impossible, but more likely, lots and lots of 
incremental changes will add up.

Usable solar cells have been around for what, 60 years? And just 
recently power densities are such that we can argue about their 
large-scale usefulness. Sometimes you just gotta pick away at things 
with hard work.
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list