British scientists 'invent artificial petrol'...

[Tryst]

This has a slight relevance to this ongoing argument....

A friend has a business. One of the projects includes a new way to produce reflective road signs. It's cheaper & a lot more efficient. Can't tell you any more details than that.

Their first thought was to go for council contracts once they have it in production.
But the costs involved in production are huge, so they then looked into production outsourcing through licensing.
But in reality, once the tech is proven, they would wait for 3M to approach them & make an offer to buy the patent & full rights.

They are under no illusion that if/when 3M buy the rights... They will never put it into production. Big business would rather buy up the competition & scrap it rather than let them compete.

Sounds similar to the story of the guy who found a way to chemically melt plastic into paint to create an exterior paint that would last for many years.

Dulux bought him out and nobody has seen or heard of the plastic paint being marketed. The paint companies want a paint that will flake after a year or two so you buy more, they don't want to produce a long lasting paint.

[masur123]

To be honest, if this is as true as they say, no amount of money should be able to cover this up. If this can be marketed on a mass scale, then the company alone could make....imagine Dr Evil...... 10 trillion million pounds mwhahahahah

[racin-snake]

nice recovery with the edit mate still looks iffy

[masur123]

Is that better?

[chroma]

Placing myself purely into a power companies shoes i can clearly see that:
Renewable energy has some very serious drawbacks.

Take wind first of all. The KW per M? is absurdly low, I'd need to construct and maintain way more equipment to produce anything close to my current oil/coal and nuclear based outputs. Even at highly narrow and expensive tolerances for the equipment.
At present I already own a few stations, coal, oil, nuclear, gas and the like, these are fairly cheap, reliable and easily maintainable. They generate a steady income and although resource prices fluctuate im certain of producing my target wattage per day.

Wind works on wind, so if there's no wind im not producing any energy and all I've got is a maintenance bill for a few hundred thousand moving parts.
Same with Wave power and Solar, solar needs just the same maintenance as solutions with moving parts, they need to be cleaned regularly to ensure peak output.

So with renewable I'm faced with massive bills at a consistent rate after a massive initial development outlay and my output will be highly irregular meaning my income will be highly variable.

So you want to invest with me? I can guarantee you a bill each month but as for profit? its down to what seems entirely random, you might see a return, more than likely you wont. So yeah, you wanna throw money at me?
Didn't think so...

[masur123]

I think this is slightly different from renewable energy, and the demand for the product would far outweigh any set up costs.

[racin-snake]

again factual
but in another tense why then spend the money disposing and clearing pollutants when the alternatives prove less costly in this department due to production and maintenance costs not enviromental and toxic waste such as depleted uranium ?
are the maintenance and the upkeep of both of these not a huge financial burden too ?
i think one wind turbine would cost less than the clearing up of one fuel reactor rod ..but again i await correction

also wattage produced IE wind ..again correct if no wind no power
but in the sea the tide changes causing waves regardless ?

the word MONEY seems to be the predominant factor ?

not so easy to get funding if the best money makers already at work
the last point is
if it weren't about money then what option would you go for ?
a nuclear or coal type reactor ............or
a renewable cleaner source or the toxic and polluting alternatives
all to do with money guys (and you know it )
nowt more nowt less
realisation of the money culture is all it takes to leap the gap in what's right and what's in our best interests
the money answer is the one we have to conquer or submit to


like i said before
if your selling umbrellas ...you pray for rain ..


there will be no alternatives while the money lobby and conglomerates call the shots

governments float on these bankers money anything like interrupting the flow or upset it a change of regime or party follows

back to the real question though if a suitable alternative is gonna be found or even tested
it will be the money makers decision not governments or ours we have no say !

the oil and most other reserves are bought in dollars heavy pressure is maintained to keep this the status quo not to mention great influence politically
for example dick Cheney ...and other huge corporate front men who have the most powerful men in the worlds ears ....its time issues and not the costs took president

[thered]

[quote=racin-snake;1045876]

see with this i dont get what you are trying to say i said earlier in the thread i think hydrogen fuel is the only way forward due to its abundance and us being an island ECT ECT

where did i say this ?
can you please show me once where i mentioned island ?????

also it is in fact on track as its related in all ways to finding a new form of fuel and including the facts which you failed to mention i did say the benefits of fuel produced might be detrimental ..
please dont try to put words in my mouth please
also you did say that tesla generators are a fantasy ?
they are real whether or not the can be honed to work are a probability
another thing you are quite prepared to mention is maybe in the future ?
totally contradicting your statement ?
please try to keep up
as your really not good at this

riddles and more riddles no sense at all again and no questions answered your right i am not very good at answering gobbledy gook

tesla genrator is a fantasy in terms of producing energy requirements have you come accross

you just admitted it yourself in this sentence

they are real whether or not the can be honed to work are a probability

i dont need to win arguements you do it for me

where did i say this ?
can you please show me once where i mentioned island ?????

you didnt i did learn to read as follows

i said earlier in the thread i think hydrogen fuel is the only way forward due to its abundance and us being an island ECT ECT

then we have the usual from you

but as also said in previous threads the government makes far too much MONEY from the fossil fuels to be arsed looking for alternatives seriously

yes they would gain nothing by looking for new power sources i am interested in how you know this

research has been hampered due to large conglomerates and global corporations either shutting the research either down
or shutting them up

equally so

but in all this the money and power brokers cant have you having something for nothing as then where's their cut ?
but if you Google Tesla generators and Bedini motors you might be surprised as to what is actually out there being ignored for reasons of profit elsewhere
worth a look if your interested ?

all info that they do not want us to see or obtain even to the point of actually buying the company's then shutting them down
sounds like conspiracy but in actual fact its truth

also just a thought as other posters have brought up the subject
have a look at the fortune 500 company's
and then look at their tax return might be a shock folks

what will shock us the fact that companies that produce the worlds fuel make a lot of money? no 5hit
there is basically nothing we have in our possession or eaten that hasnt used fuel somewhere

if oil companies could produce fuel from cuckoo 5hit they would do it if it was easier and more plentiful than oil

so burning hydrogen is so clean too and then ...ask why then aint it produced and used instead of taxing carbon emissions ?
ask your MP and ask your government
THEY KNOW WHY .....BELIEVE ME ! as FREE is hard to tax imagine opec getting real upset with us if we filled the car up from your tap

tap water cars can that be done you are talking like it is? i never heard of the internal combustion engine working with water

As with every post i have ever read from your unblinkered wide open world it is based on nothing your posts avoid answers yet are long winded and make no sense

if hydrogen becomes a manageable sustainable fuel source in the next few years Can you tell me one reason why BP or Shell would not want to sell it

or can they only make billions from oil ?

if they made hydrogen fuel instead they wouldnt make any money would they ?

i think it is very naive of you to think that both fuel companies and government would make any less money if they used an alternate source

the government will raise taxes in anyway it pleases if it loses in one hand it will gain another the oil companies already have the infrastructure to control whatever fuel is made from and will always be at the forefront of anything to do with energy

tap water tanks in cars may be one for the future somehow i doubt it though as im still waiting for the hoverboards from back to the future to take off

[thered]

If you had paid so much for the initial work to be done plus all the survey work for new sites, would you risk it all in the hope that the world won't take preference to greener and more efficient fuel methods?

The drilling isn't the beginning, huge investments have been made in surveys and examining geological data for sites that have not even been drilled yet. Not to mention billions worth of equipment sitting in yards waiting to be deployed.

Would you buy a car to allow you to go to work and then get the bus to work every day while the car rots on the drive?

I said they bin the ideas but they probably sit on them as a future investment. Many of the ideas may not be cheaper methods of making alternative fuels but any method not taxed like oil is will be cheaper to buy, even after manufacturing costs. For example, petrol and diesel prices in the UK is more than 70% tax. Therefore, make an alternative that costs twice as much as petrol to manufacture, add 20% purchase tax (VAT over here) and it's still half the price of the stuff that comes from the garage.

Meanwhile, we get ripped off because the oil companies want their extortionate profits and the taxman wants his extortionate cut too. Governments are so eager to tax us to death that they'll even start illegal wars in countries like Iraq and Libya to maintain profits from oil.

yes because oil is the only fuel that works if you control fuel you control the world

i agree that tax is a massive part of fuel especially in UK not sure if its 70% but i imagine its not too far awy

i said earlier in the thread that the amount the oil companies actually make per liter to the actual cost of fuel on the forecourt is not very much

i also said earlier in the thread that oil companies spend billions and billions drilling and sourcing oil same as you just said

which brings me back to my point and why the thread was started why would they not want a cheaper renewable source if possible ?

why would they want to hide it as its themselves who would be selling it ?

saving themselves billions in future expolorations and ensuring their futures as oil becomes more and more scarce

Sounds similar to the story of the guy who found a way to chemically melt plastic into paint to create an exterior paint that would last for many years.

Dulux bought him out and nobody has seen or heard of the plastic paint being marketed. The paint companies want a paint that will flake after a year or two so you buy more, they don't want to produce a long lasting paint.

just to pick up on this not sure if its true or urban myth but i have hear the story or similar that is slightly different if true the
paint would cost dulux money as people would be painting less

whereas the arguements on here are not really based the same

for one if say BP bought out a fuel patent to rival themselves they wouldnt use the method if it was not beneficial. If it was a beneficial science ie it made fuel cheaper to make and source they would use it wouldnt they because they would make more money and implement it as a new dawn

much like the diesel train and the end of steam

[racin-snake]

your reply .[quote].tap water cars can that be done you are talking like it is? i never heard of the internal combustion engine working with water[quote]

.once again you have excelled at being silly and even to the point of really stupid ile refrain from answering your silly excuses for questions and admit arguing with you is futile and wont be drawn into your daft notion that somewhere you are right
your obviously so stupid you cant comprehend mate
ile leave YOU there with one word .....nieve
thanks for all of the other answers and debate it was a nice debate but spoiled by blinkered stupidity

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7_QYTAi1-E&feature=related"]YouTube - How hydrogen engines work[/ame] for your perusal

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1scZ9rMyJek&feature=related"]YouTube - Hydrogen Cars[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBm8ogwnpG0&feature=related"]YouTube - Japanese Company Invents Water Fueled Car[/ame] wonder where the hydrogen came from ?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kmnjz2WyKQ&feature=related"]YouTube - On-Demand Hydrogen Generator[/ame]

[chroma]

That's not hydrogen generation its HHO
You cant store HHO in a tank safely, HHO is exactly what caused the Hindenburg, and that wasnt under any kind of pressure, with pressure it goes BANG and you get an arse full of tank shrapnel. Its suicidal to store this in a car fuel tank, especialy with the added risks of the chassis electrical system, a single arc to earth and your not walking away.

Then there's the high risk of chlorine gas getting released as previously discussed.

In real terms your still burning 30Amps to convert to hydrogen and still using fossil fuels to do so... to get roughly 5 to 15miles to the gallon of hydrogen (dependant on purity, altitude, temperature, pressure and the like)

2.5 hrs to make a gallon at an average of 2litres of HHO per hour = 16,800 watts (?2.52 on average if running from household electricity) to get 8 miles on that set-up.
Works out to around ?0.32 a mile...

I get 50mpg on average with my car running on petrol, it costs me ?6 a gallon on average, works out at ?0.12 a mile.
Which makes more sense to me at this point?

I can see the point if its a heavily optimised set-up like a Honda where your getting roughly 70mpg, but you need a source of PURE high density Hydrogen to even get near that.
To get that at home you'd need to desalinate your water first to distil it to high purity thereby eliminating any other gasses bar hydrogen and oxygen from your output, then set up a refrigeration and pressurisation system to syphon off the liquid Oxygen.
This would up the wattage per litre by an order of magnitude making it even less realistic.
All this wattage also comes from fossil fuels so its essentially cutting off your nose to spite your face in terms of environmental friendliness.

[gmb45]

~~~~ me chroma have you been eating encyclopedias today ?

chroma---->

[smirnoff_rules]

we are moving from the op , its the fact the fuel there making can be used in the cars were running now , thats a good thing ie we use more co2 making a car than it uses

[racin-snake]

ok then is it possible to produce the electricity to charge these with sustainable renewable methods ?
and or use a method of say an alternator to produce the current needed ?
also is it possible that the gas produced unlike in the first video not compressed like the second video can in fact run an internal combustion engine ?
and then if so is it as you consider unsafe to use these methods
due to explosive nature of the gas
isnt it also a fact cars using lpg are as dangerous ?
as some manufacturers disagree with your thoughts http://www.automotivehho.com/what_is_hho.html
all these parts of the puzzle if thought out correctly do you recon it would or could be a viable usage for fuel
as no mention of the above is mentioned on any of the literature i have seen or aware off
but yet people use these devices in more frequency by the day
also can sodium thiosulphate and hydrogen peroxide not neutralise the exhaust gasses produced to treat the emisions ?

also this fuel is sustainable fuel unlike petrol another feature not to be overlooked

one other thing
do you think its worth looking into and a maybe viable source considering using hybrid or other methods in conjunction
above all would using this be less pollution prone than any of the fuels we now use ?

any info in the above questions would be helpful
updated .. i think even NASA took this seriously http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1977016170.pdf

[chroma]

ok then is it possible to produce the electricity to charge these with sustainable renewable methods ?

Not really, like i said it costs MORE to manufacture hydrogen than you receive from it, its like burning money.

and or use a method of say an alternator to produce the current needed ?

Again this is highly inefficient, you'd waste sizeable drive power turning a second alternator and produce only 0.25 of the hydrogen you use to turn the alternator.

also is it possible that the gas produced unlike in the first video not compressed like the second video can in fact run an internal combustion engine ?
and then if so is it as you consider unsafe to use these methods
due to explosive nature of the gas
isnt it also a fact cars using lpg are as dangerous ?

The gas in the last video is simple HHO, its very volatile and explosive, it will run a car without problems albeit greatly reduced mileage that's not the issue. its the STORAGE that's the issue LPG is a far less volatile liquid, it wont detonate on contact from a simple static spark, HHO will.
Fire requires 3 things, Fuel, Oxygen and an ignition source.
Explosions require 4 things, Fuel, Oxygen, an ignition source and Pressure.
Hydrogen is an ideal combustible fuel it has an absurdly low flashpoint, oxygen is already present as a catalyst and its all pressurised in storage. All thats needed is the tiniest of sparks for a very big bang.

As a test, get some condoms, fill one with LPG and the other with HHO. stick a lit cigarette into either one and only the HHO will cause you to lose your eyebrows. Hydrogen doesn't need a naked flame, LPG does.

as some manufacturers disagree with your thoughts What is Automotive HHO, Power, Fuel, Cars, Trucks, Hybrid, electrolysis, oxy-hydrogen gas, Wilmington NC 28412

"Stored oxyhydrogen gas will result in a hydrogen bomb if not carefully protected and cared for. Not like what the US Military used on Japan. Is a clear illustration that this guy has no idea what he's talking about.
A H-Bomb isnt made from hydrogen, its just a hydrogen nucleus fired at some weapons grade radioisotope like Pu or U to start a fission reaction.
If there's ever been a prime example of why you should rely on lab results and actual testing over someone on the internet this would be it.

Using the gas as its created is also a non starter, you cant produce enough quantity of gas in a short enough time with conventional methods to allow this to take place, using an alternator and an efficient dry cell you'll be producing on average of a litre an hour being generous, whilst burning way more per hour.

also can sodium thiosulphate and hydrogen peroxide not neutralise the exhaust gasses produced to treat the emisions ?

Then your back to some very nasty waste to dispose of, sodium laced with nerve toxins doesn't seem realistic, especially considering the efforts and precautions needed to change your filters without killing yourself.

one other thing
do you think its worth looking into and a maybe viable source considering using hybrid or other methods in conjunction
above all would using this be less pollution prone than any of the fuels we now use ?

any info in the above questions would be helpful
updated .. i think even NASA took this seriously http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1977016170.pdf

Thats a good link, but it displays too many drawbacks, adding bottled hydrogen caused a lot of pinking it didnt describe whether this occured in the valves, as pre ignition or due to increased compression, regardless none of them are good. The only workarounds I could think of (their than their addition of methanol as a lubricant and lowering the flashpoint slightly which is absurd for a number of reasons, especially on a modern engine) is redesigning the combustion chamber geometry, but the drawback is running out of hydrogen and going back to raw petrol and losing a lot of compression causing stalling at idle speeds and a large loss in power, among other assorted nasties.
Methanol has already been tossed to the curb as a renewable energy source, its just too intensive to farm in any quantity.
Methanol also produces some serious emissions that didn't get "Tested" for, neurotoxins and toxins that cause birth defects and the like, Acetaldehyde from oxidisation might have been one that was bandied about a few years back, I cant honestly remember off the top of my head, I cant seem to find any reliable spectral analysis charts either and the basic chemistry doesn't work as new compounds are formed/destroyed during detonation at different compressions...
Then there's the drawback of Methanol rotting engine components. Methanol has some very serious drawbacks.

Variable pistons linked to a mixture sensor might work, but the engineering on something like that would be seriously complicated due to the forces involved, getting a piston to grow and shrink under detonation sounds like a fun project though.