Free Energy???

[Jay481985]

A Company claims it invented a machine to create more energy then put into.... Breaking all the laws of Physics.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060818/bs_afp/irelandscienceenergy

To be honest though, I am skeptical but excited on the proposition that energy can be free and clean!

[DrWho]

If what they have "discovered" does what they claim, then why haven't they put it to use? It most certainly does not take "global scientific acceptance" to put an idea into practice. That's what telemarketing is for []

[Jay481985]

Remember, quantum physics is by chance and has no real sets of rules. The laws of physics are made from human observations of what nature does. According to Quantum physics, if you run into a wall enough times, there is a chance that you might go through the wall unscathed. I like to be a bit more openminded and optimistic in finding energy that is capable of being "free" Maybe we made the law of energy based on a skewed picture of nature. Remember a nuclear reaction actually loses some energy in the process (it is believed that the energy actually changes in time) and that in particle accelerators like CERN and Fermilabs have producted electrons that spun around the 5+ miles of electromagnets nearing the speed of light have come back as neutrons or protons and is hypothesised that it went back in time and chose to be a different particle of matter.

And what they said "global scientific acceptance" look at it this way, before science people thought lightning was god's anger then we find it to be a different way, maybe there is more that humans yet understand? Its hard to take common status quos away. Today I remember seeing the FDA approved a form of viruses that kills bacteria in meats like chicken and beef that is designed to kill lysteria. But watching the news and getting the common people's opinion, people were appauled at the idea. They said they would get sick and die and how could the FDA approve something like that. That is because as little kids we are told viruses are bad for you..... Yet most people outside the biological world realize that of the billions of viruses out there, .0000001% affect humans and viruses are specific to animal/plant and will not affect other species even. Think of them as smart bombs of the sicknesses. Heck more viruses help you on daily life allowing you to turn food into vitamins in your intenstines. Hence it is advised to eat non pasturized yogurt after taking antibiotics that kill good bacteria and viruses in your body. Hopefully we have enough people thinking outside the box to make life more convienant.

[pauln]

"What we have developed is a way to construct magnetic fields so that when you travel round the magnetic fields, starting and stopping at the same position, you have gained energy," McCarthy said.

This has the sound of BS to me. To travel around starting and stopping takes energy to accellerate (including turns or curves) and decellerate. Therefore, energy is being transferred to the moving object (a varying balance of kinetic and potential depending at what point in the motion). If the moving thing is conductive it will create and hold an electronic potential (drawing the energy from the field). Funny the specific type of energy gained is not stated, nor the nature of the moving object. Was it charge (from the field), was it heat (from the soucre that moved it, friction, compression stress)...? Based on his 'explanation', I don't think he knows what he is talking about, nor what to look for as sources of energy transfer in the system. He also does not quantify the magnitude of the energy gain. The makers of chips and other electrostatic sensitive devices orient their assembly line to run north south rather than east west so as not to have the components cross the magnectic field lines of the Earth field. Any conductive object moving across magnectic lines of force will gain a little energy - enough to destroy some small components before the assembly is complete and thereby somewhat protected. Maybe he is measuring the created magnetic field and seeing no reduction, but the moving object is drawing energy from the Earth's magnetic field, and by doing so slowing down the Earth's rotation very very very slightly (not measurable, but calculable).

Thermodynamics is the oldest of the physical principles (dateing back 130 years) that has needed no updating or revision throughout its history of experimental analysis. Almost all ideas in physics have had to be refined and updated as time has shown their shortcomings - thermodynamics is still the original, which tends to make us beleive it is darn close to being theoretically correct.

[DrWho]

Thermodynamics is the oldest of the physical principles (dateing back 130 years) that has needed no updating or revision throughout its history of experimental analysis. Almost all ideas in physics have had to be refined and updated as time has shown their shortcomings - thermodynamics is still the original, which tends to make us beleive it is darn close to being theoretically correct.

Yet guys with PhD's in thermodynamics will claim they still don't understand entropy at all. It's just something that makes the math work out - they don't know what the physical correlation is. (though it seems to have something to do with "order").

But I'm with Paul on this one - if what these people claim is true, then pretty much all scientific theory will become invalid - everything assumes the conservation of mass and energy.

[Jay481985]

Well when CERN opens up in the near future, we can rewrite a bit of pyshics if they capture a higs bosom. Also they might be able to catch a glimpse of a neutrino I believe the tau or meu version. Its not like we are going to one day stop and proclaim our laws are infinite and we're sticking with them, that's for religion to do []

[Guest " "]

looking forward to the details of the work.

I am reminded of the search for a super-conductor. A super-conductor conducts electricity with no loss, since it has no resistance. Once current is applied to the super conductor, it will run for ever since their is no power loss. Many super conductors have been reported as found. Most of which are normal conductors frozen to absolute zero. I don't think I want to carry an IPOD in my pocket that is at absolute zero.

[Jay481985]

the problem is the amount of energy you have to figure in when you cool the liquid nitrogen (helium rarely)

I remember there was a superconductor that needed only -150 c which is better than the current -300c of now.

Also absolute zero eludes us still as we were able to reach 1/one millionth of absolute zero but not absolute zero using the Bose - Einstein method! not that bose though.

[PhilMays]

I feel there have been many inventions that better socitety that "big corporations" buy the patent for in order not to screw up their business model and cash flow.

For instance I heard a tire could be made that will not wear out or a light bulb that will not burn out. Consider the implications for the related industries.

Consider the fossil energy companies...why look for alternate energy if your margins are where they are. They will just keep it in their back pocket until they need it.

I want to remain optimistic, however as I age, I feel certain inventions can be made only to be squashed by big corporations who cannot figure out how to capitalize on such new technology.

Does this sound out of bounds? I hated typing this as I am normally an extremely optimistic person.

[mas]

OK, I'll play the curmudgeon.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"What we have developed is a way to construct magnetic fields so that when you travel round the magnetic fields, starting and stopping at the same position, you have gained energy," McCarthy said.

"The energy isn't being converted from any other source such as the energy within the magnet. It's literally created. Once the technology operates it provides a constant stream of clean energy."

On the one hand, if I was to hazard a guess and extrapolate meaning from what was NOT said, this sounds amazingly like magnetic induction! But then, that is purely interpretation!

On the other hand, what is actually said is extremely vague and offers VERY little substance. They speak of 'construct(ing) magnetic fields' as if they spontaneously come into existence without the pre-requisite application of energy and 'travel(ing) round the magnetic fields' as if no energy is required. Materials simply appear and move. And 'new' energy is 'literally created'. What kind of energy? Should we assume electrical energy? I love it when they use the advanced techno-babble! I can imagine Maxwell rolling about in his grave LHAO!

"If there's no data involved it is either religious speculation or philosophy, but definitely not science." Richard Feynman

Where is Feynman when we NEED him!? (OK, OK, I guess we know, but you know what I mean![] )

Even such marvelous machines that approach an apparent perpetual engine such as hydraulic rams used for pumping water, while both very elegant and clever designs, cease to be magical when the entire system is considered in total.

Unfortunately, the magic bullets come and go. What seems like magic usually becomes slightly less so when the system is viewed in a total context as opposed to some artificially defined limited focus.

And they can not get anyone interested? If such an idea is indeed valid, they will be awarded the Nobel Prize! Do you not think that they could interest a graduate student in their sponsorship of a doctoral thesis? In other words, "slave labor" to replicate and verify their 'discovery'!? Something is fishy here!

This would surpass 'point source superconductivity'! Heck, they could enlist the folks on Stargate-Atlantis and SG1 to help in the researching and development of a ZPM!

And they have issued the challenge for "12 physicists" to examine the claims? Why not open it to the scientific community?

I hope they prove me wrong. But I have heard more substantial nonsensical claims before! In fact, one institution is so adept at them that they have the phenomena named after them! Its called the Utah Effect, after the illustrious <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />University of Utah. Heck, one wonders what it is like to have the nerve to walk out of that school with a degree in physics after others have so tainted the name.

And unfortunately, the statement by this firm represented here sounds like someone speaking that has never had a physics class. When they make a coherent statement that possesses intelligible substance, it will be interesting to look at it. But thus far, even the various claims for 'advanced' AC power interconnects - you know, the magical current sources devoid of noise - sound more plausible than this. And at least those folks have gone to the trouble to at least use some terms that have a meaningful use (somewhere else) in physics!

I love new ideas, but I sure wish this company would please provide some substance![]

OK, that's my 2 cents meant with a grin.

Oh, and quantum physics deals in probability, not chance! And the rules are very precise and accurate. The limitation is in the frame of reference. Relativistic quantum electrodynamic is a spectacularly accurate theory. Richard Feynman once described how accurate it was by saying: "If you asked me how far it was to the moon and I said "do you mean from my head or from my feet?" That accurate."

[Jay481985]

I feel there have been many inventions that better socitety that "big corporations" buy the patent for in order not to screw up their business model and cash flow.

For instance I heard a tire could be made that will not wear out or a light bulb that will not burn out. Consider the implications for the related industries.

Consider the fossil energy companies...why look for alternate energy if your margins are where they are. They will just keep it in their back pocket until they need it.

I want to remain optimistic, however as I age, I feel certain inventions can be made only to be squashed by big corporations who cannot figure out how to capitalize on such new technology.

Does this sound out of bounds? I hated typing this as I am normally an extremely optimistic person.

No you are not out of bounds. Look at the electric car, look who killed it. The spoils to the winner I guess or the one in power.

[Daddy Dee]

Well, if it's true, it would be great, actually, better than great. I'm not a tech type, but the part that sounds odd to me is the scientific types who have seen the results and will admit to that "off the record".

A device that produces more energy than it consumes I suppose is what one could call a perpetual motion machine.

[Jay481985]

You know what intrigued me this past weekend when I went to the beach. The waves, I bet that if we made a device that harnessed the power of the waves (not the tidal waves or underwater currents that many dream) but just the waves, I bet that we could have reliable, cheap power. Hey there are waves 24/7 unlike solar or wind power, and if you ever went to the beach and were tossed around you would realize how powerful waves are.

[Seadog]

PWK had a favorite phrase that seems fitting for this kind of claim!

[mas]

Reliable cheap power...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

There is the rub, isn't it!?

We use petroleum for a very simple reason! It is still the cheapest fuel per unit energy to produce. Even with all of the associated problems!

Coal is an incredibly abundant resource!

Natural gas was for years burned as a waste product, and still is in many parts of the world, the flares being visible from space!

Wind, solar, hydro, bio-fuels...all present possibilities that may be regionally attractive, but their economies too are still more expensive then the other already available alternatives! And the losses in distribution, especially for electricity, negate the very presence of a generating plant if the plant is far from the load! Hence the REAL use for superconductivity!

Regarding the 'control' of alternative technologies...

Ah, all-electric carsSo we use gas and other fuels, not directly, but indirectly to generate electricity that with all of the generation and distribution inefficiencies, by the time it reaches the outlet to charge the more expensive vehicle, is twice the price of gasoline with an even greater environmental price all so in our small focused frame of reference we can think of the car as being cleaner and cheaper!{Edit :TheTotal cost per unit energy factoring in ALL of the associated collateral processing and systems and required infrastructure... Not to mention the number of additional plants required to be brought online to simply the supply the basic demand if all were to convert to electric vehicles. Energy does not become cheaper and more abundant the further down the processing chain you go. It is exactly the opposite. This is not 'breeder' technology!} It is akin to proposing eating beef as a solution to food shortages, when soybeans are cheaper, more abundant, more nutritionally dense and healthy as well as having a smaller negative impact on the planet. But instead of being used directly for human food (e.g. TVP), we opt instead for their inefficient use for animal feed so that we can conveniently buy beef for use in the kitchen. Unfortunately, all-electric cars are the energy equivalent of a hamburger!

Another example might be the building of elaborate municipal sewage treatment plants that have replaced the environmentlly sustainable septic systems. And this is ignoring the complimentary use of amazingly advanced dry 'composting/incineration' toilets that locally reduce the load even further. And all the sewage system is is a giant transport system whereby solid waste is mixed with water for transport 'out of sight out of mind', only to create a giant problem where the 'treatment process is all about separating the once separate solid waste from the water - not to mention all of the other wonderful toxins people now dump down the drain as they too are out of sight and out of mind! A solution? Wouldn't new more highly efficient septic systems and complimentary technology better effectively manage and address the need locally on site? They do. And they exist. And they are transparent to the user. And no, they are not like the outhouses of 'yor'!

Now I have no issue with eating meat, etc., the point is simply that we as people tend to use focused attention to look at only a small part of the total system - usually the user interface with technology - rather then to look at the overall picture. Nor do I mind if someone buys a feelgood all electric vehicle thinking they are making a real difference.

I do not believe that these alternative technologies are being artificially controlled. They are just not as economically competitive! And nothing is preventing an entrepreneur with initiative from implementing their own designs for the better mousetrap. And heaven knows that if <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Detroit could find a better design for a car that would sell, they would be using it rather than going down the toilet!

What can and does work...

What is feasible however, is for individuals to use complementary appropriate technologies that in total sum to provide local solutions to most of the energy demand. Thus reducing the total demand on centrally distributed often with no net negative residual impact.

Small scale passive solar, active solar, micro-hydro (my favorite!), wind, thermal mass, geo-thermal heat pumps, and perhaps most of all, INSULATION, as well as many more technologies that are not practical for large scale distributed systems are ideal for site specific applications. And with the implementation of such, have the potential to even remove the site from the grid as a load - with the potential to even offer co-generative contributions back to the grid (albeit inconsistently)!

My response to the cry for a "solution" is that we should stop expecting it to come in the form of some one-size fits all miracle technology that will save us from ourselves. The tools are for the most part already available. I wonder when the inconvenience of the 'perceived threat' of market prices will provide the tipping point for individuals to get off their posteriors and assume the control and responsibility for their own (and as an indirect result) others' welfare as well.

But I neither expect nor desire this to come in the form of an imposed mandate. And I have no interest in massive centrally managed bureaucratic nightmares where more money and energy is expended in meetings talking about what you would do if you weren't in meetings as some distant bureaucrat tells you what is optimal for your particular situation where you have a better and more intimate understanding than the guy who has never seen it! And unfortunately this is more representative of the norm then the exception!

We all have the means to make choices, however small. Heck, you might simply start by starting a garden! I am amazed at how few folks actually have a ready source* of organic foodstuffs that are of MUCH better quality than you will ever find in a store! And the small amount of exercise is even therapeutic! (*heck, oversupply if you have ever raised tomatoes! But then I am also one that does not believe you can ever have too many tomatoes! And that is even after supplying all of your friends!). So may I suggest that we stop waiting for the proverbial "they" to solve our problems?

Am I a radical? Crazy? (OK, I'll grant you crazy!) Misguided? A Loooooney? Or what? But to me this just seems like a bit of all-too-uncommon common sense. OK, no more soap box. Besides, in keeping with my own fantasy, what suits me may not suit you! And you of course have the right to disagree and to be wrong (at least relative to my 'enlightened' way of thinking!), as long as you respect my right to disagree and to be wrong relative to your enlightened manner of thinking! And its my fantasy, so the only legitimate manner of persuasion is debate and logic! Gee, what a dream...if only![][][][][]

See what happens when I take a 10 minute break and look for a diversion from the tasks at hand![6]

[DrWho]

But what if you don't like Tomatos? []

[Jay481985]

Reliable cheap power...

There is the rub, isn't it!?

We use petroleum for a very simple reason! It is still the cheapest fuel per unit energy to produce. Even with all of the associated problems!

Coal is an incredibly abundant resource!

Natural gas was for years burned as a waste product, and still is in many parts of the world, the flares being visible from space!

true but they have to vent the natural gas in order to get to the petroleum. Sort of like going for filet mignon, you have to pass through the other parts of meat to get to it.

Wind, solar, hydro, bio-fuels...all present possibilities that may be regionally attractive, but their economies too are still more expensive then the other already available alternatives! And the losses in distribution, especially for electricity, negate the very presence of a generating plant if the plant is far from the load! Hence the REAL use for superconductivity!

Hey little bits help here and there. If everyone switched from incandecent to flourecent lightbulbs America would use 30% less energy. Just the problem or tradeoffs are high bulb cost (though energy savings negate if the bulb is used as directed and lasts 7 years) and the problem with the toxic after disposal.

Regarding the 'control' of alternative technologies...

Ah, all-electric carsSo we use gas and other fuels, not directly, but indirectly to generate electricity that with all of the generation and distribution inefficiencies, by the time it reaches the outlet to charge the more expensive vehicle, is twice the price of gasoline with an even greater environmental price all so in our small focused frame of reference we can think of the car as being cleaner and cheaper! It is akin to justifying eating beef as a solution to shortages of balanced protein, when soybeans are cheaper, more abundant, more nutritionally dense and healthy as well as having a smaller negative impact on the planet. But instead of being used directly for human food (e.g. TVP), we opt instead for their inefficient use for animal feed so that we can conveniently buy beef for use in the kitchen. Unfortunately, all-electric cars are the energy equivalent of a hamburger!

Not true, the relation that you say that we still burn something to produce the energy is true but government and epa regulations mandate the powerplant to be alot less emitter of emission than said cars. Also most people never maintain a properly maintained car. Heck I still see cars with black smoke being present which if the powerplant did that would get a hefty fine. The emissions made from a powerplant versus a car to give equivalent power, the powerplant omits less emissions hands down. They have better filters, better generators that are much more efficent, and they sell in bulk thus reducing energy costs. Try to run your house on gas generators and see the price difference. Also per joule, watt, whatever you want and convert it to newton or whatever the price per electricity from local powerplants are cheaper per joule than gasoline at 3 dollars a gallon (superficial)

Another example might be the building of elaborate municipal sewage treatment plants that have replaced the environmentlly sustainable septic systems. And this is ignoring the complimentary use of amazingly advanced dry 'composting/incineration' toilets that locally reduce the load even further. And all the sewage system is is a giant transport system whereby solid waste is mixed with water for transport 'out of sight out of mind', only to create a giant problem where the 'treatment process is all about separating the once separate solid waste from the water - not to mention all of the other wonderful toxins people now dump down the drain as they too are out of sight and out of mind! A solution? Wouldn't new more highly efficient septic systems and complimentary technology better effectively manage and address the need locally on site? They do. And they exist. And they are transparent to the user. And no, they are not like the outhouses of 'yor'!

Cities like New York and most major cities cannot support septic systems as many people live in apartments and highrises. You need physical land to have a septic system and the amount of people per square mile makes it almost impossible to have septic systems in cities. Think smell violations, possible contaimination, disease, etc. Maybe in suburbs yes but not in urban cities.

Now I have no issue with eating meat, etc., the point is simply that we as people tend to use focused attention to look at only a small part of the total system - usually the user interface with technology - rather then to look at the overall picture. Nor do I mind if someone buys a feelgood all electric vehicle thinking they are making a real difference.

I do not believe that these alternative technologies are being artificially controlled. They are just not as economically competitive! With gas around 3 dollars a gallon and such it is now profitable again to look at these resources. I remember the Texas oildrillers are loving the high cost as it is cost inhibited now to drill in Texas as it was cheaper to import oil before. And nothing is preventing an entrepreneur with initiative from implementing their own designs for the better mousetrap. Tell that to the oil companies that make record profits every year to share their wealth! They will murder you and have your family dissappear if you made an energy source cheaper than oil. And heaven knows that if Detroit could find a better design for a car that would sell, they would be using it rather than going down the toilet! Have you ever thought that the oil companies and car companies shake hands and build less efficent engines? Hey less cost to car companies as less r/d is needed and the oil companies provide the less efficent oil.

What can and does work...

What is feasible however, is for individuals to use complementary appropriate technologies that in total sum to provide local solutions to most of the energy demand. Thus reducing the total demand on centrally distributed often with no net negative residual impact.

Small scale passive solar, active solar, micro-hydro (my favorite!), wind, thermal mass, geo-thermal heat pumps, and perhaps most of all, INSULATION, as well as many more technologies that are not practical for large scale distributed systems are ideal for site specific applications. And with the implementation of such, have the potential to even remove the site from the grid as a load - with the potential to even offer co-generative contributions back to the grid (albeit inconsistently)!

My response to the cry for a "solution" is that we should stop expecting it to come in the form of some one-size fits all miracle technology that will save us from ourselves. The tools are for the most part already available. I wonder when the inconvenience of the 'perceived threat' of market prices will provide the tipping point for individuals to get off their posteriors and assume the control and responsibility for their own (and as an indirect result) others' welfare as well.

But I neither expect nor desire this to come in the form of an imposed mandate. And I have no interest in massive centrally managed bureaucratic nightmares where more money and energy is expended in meetings talking about what you would do if you weren't in meetings as some distant bureaucrat tells you what is optimal for your particular situation where you have a better and more intimate understanding than the guy who has never seen it! And unfortunately this is more representative of the norm then the exception!

We all have the means to make choices, however small. Heck, you might simply start by starting a garden! I am amazed at how few folks actually have a ready source* of organic foodstuffs that are of MUCH better quality than you will ever find in a store! And the small amount of exercise is even therapeutic! (*heck, oversupply if you have ever raised tomatoes! But then I am also one that does not believe you can ever have too many tomatoes! And that is even after supplying all of your friends!). So may I suggest that we stop waiting for the proverbial "they" to solve our problems?

Am I a radical? Crazy? (OK, I'll grant you crazy!) Misguided? A Loooooney? Or what? But to me this just seems like a bit of all-too-uncommon common sense. OK, no more soap box. Besides, in keeping with my own fantasy, what suits me may not suit you! And you of course have the right to disagree and to be wrong (at least relative to my 'enlightened' way of thinking!), as long as you respect my right to disagree and to be wrong relative to your enlightened manner of thinking! And its my fantasy, so the only legitimate manner of persuasion is debate and logic! Gee, what a dream...if only![][][][][]

See what happens when I take a 10 minute break and look for a diversion from the tasks at hand![6]

GET BACK TO WORK []

[sputnik]

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

.........Am I a radical? Crazy? (OK, I'll grant you crazy!) Misguided? A Loooooney? Or what? ...........

Hmmm........ [^o)]

Not sure about the answers to those questions yet........

............but you do seem oddly familiar...

[mas]

Viable options to many issues exist today. And hopefully more will continue to be developed. But I do not expect a cheaper 'one size fits all' option.

An example. Cities do not need septic systems. However, they are viable and appropriate where there is available land! Thus the country and most of the suburbs can easily eliminate the need for sewers. Further, with modern dry toilets (Incinolet, Clivus Multrum, etc.) you eliminate the solid waste. Thus in any scenario, and especially in cities, the need is reduced to dealing with a grey water waste system that can easily be dealt with on a building by building level, negating the need for off site transport and separation. Many of these issues have already been effectively addressed and solved going back to the 70's by systems designed by folks such as Sim Van der Ryn. What is lacking is an awareness of the alternative systems and the desire or impetus to overcome the inertia of 'that's how we have always done it'.

One example of an additional issue similar to what I was refering was expressed last month by Dr. Ulf Bossel, organizer of the very recent Lucerne Fuel Cell Forum, about their announcement that hydrogen will no longer be a topic of conversation at the conference. And I am sure that there will be those who will claim that (fill in the blank) supressed this valuable technology as well.

http://www.thewatt.com/article-1238-nested-1-0.html

"Ulf Bossel: Hydrogen and fuel cell, hydrogen is an artificial fuel, synthetic fuel. It has to be made from other energy. If you look at the energy, the renewable energy, most of it is harvested as electricity, the chips of biomass and so on of course, some heat for water heat, but basically all the renewable energy is harvested as electricity. Hydrogen has to be made artificially by splitting water by electrolysis and that requires more energy than you will ever find in the hydrogen, but the hydrogen then has to be compressed or liquefied in order to be transported, to be distributed, and then it is reconverted back to, guess what, electricity. That means electricity derived from hydrogen has to compete with its original energy source, electricity, and if you go through a chain, you find that only 25% of the original electricity can be used by people after the fuel cell. The efficiency criteria are not satisfied in hydrogen economy. Hydrogen economy is a gigantic energy waste and we cannot afford this in the future; therefore, there has been [05:22 unintelligible] and energy derived from hydrogen and fuel cells is four times more expensive because of the 75% loss. Because of the losses, electricity derived from fuel cells and hydrogen must be four times more expensive than power from the grid.

Ben Kenney: So, why did you make this announcement now? I mean we have known about this problem for a while now.

Ulf Bossel: There is no future to hydrogen economy because of this. These are all by laws of physics. If you go through the hydrogen chain electrolysis, compression, or liquefaction, transportation, storage, and reconvert the electricity by fuel cells and then we have DC and you have to convert it to AC, there are additional losses. These are all physical, this is physics and because of the laws of physics there is no past, there was no past, there is no present, and there will be no future for hydrogen economy. Hydrogen economy is a structure of mind, which has no backing by physics. "

But there is no need to conduct this debate on site. If you want to debate individual technologies or ideas, (but please spare me the conspiracy theories which are a waste of time to debate as they can neither be proven nor disproven), please PM me or we can chat online or via voice. There are viable responses to each of your objections. And often a combination of 2 or 3 appropriate technologies can do what the imagined magic bullet technology could. But this is not the forum to take each very generalized example and try to mix 100,000 foot views with 5 foot specifics. With that, I fear that any hope of a worthwhile meaningful discussion is lost. And that is a shame, as there are real opportunites that exist.

[IndyKlipschFan]

Tesla always believed energy should be free too..