We cannot drill our way out of this oil crisis. Since 2000, oil companies working in the U.S. have doubled the number of wells drilled per year.
Although increased drilling has added new oil to the nation's supply, it has not done so fast enough to offset the terminal decline of existing fields.
We are going to have to import more of our oil. Period.
Joined: Sep 30, 2004 Posts: 976 Location: On one of the blades of the fan
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: Can we have a "house rule" on Energy For Nothing s
I find it wearily tedius to wade through yet another "New Energy Source - as seen on a TV Show" postings here. The latest is a kook scheme by someone called John Kanzius who claims to get energy from burning water, yada yada.
Scarcely has it been posted than a douche of er...cold water was thrown over it by some of our more scientifically inclined posters.
Can I suggest a "house rule" that no-one posts or discusses any "New Energy Source" material unless it has a minimum of ONE - JUST ONE - peer-reviewed scientific paper from a regular scientific journal supporting the idea?
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:12 am Post subject: Re: Can we have a "house rule" on Energy For Nothi
julianj wrote:
I find it wearily tedius to wade through yet another "New Energy Source - as seen on a TV Show" postings here. The latest is a kook scheme by someone called John Kanzius who claims to get energy from burning water, yada yada.
Scarcely has it been posted than a douche of er...cold water was thrown over it by some of our more scientifically inclined posters.
Can I suggest a "house rule" that no-one posts or discusses any "New Energy Source" material unless it has a minimum of ONE - JUST ONE - peer-reviewed scientific paper from a regular scientific journal supporting the idea?
The news sources are the culprits out there that proclaim "new energy source".
As for Kanzius', he seems to have hit on some entirely new phenomenon (that is not electrolysis) that separates hydrogen and oxygen. It looks like it's a whole lot more efficient that electrolysis but that can't be known be mere viewers of a video. Kanzius has admitted that his invention returns less energy than is input.
In my thread on Kanzius, I have posted over and over and over and over again for morons like you, that Kanzius's invention cannot possibly be an energy source. Yet the thread is continually attacked for being a claim that it IS an energy source.
Wouldn't you like it if it were a claim to be an energy source! Then you would be able show everyone how smart and energy literate you are! But sorry! Kanzius invention can't possibly be an energy source. It IS, however, an interesting phenomenon that no one seems to have hit on before. It's been vetted by the founder of the Materials Sciences Lab at Penn State University (see link).
So, now, according to the historical dialogue on my thread, you're supposed say, "But it can't possibly be an energy source fool!"
And then, I come back and say, "Kanzius invention cannot possibly be an energy source but it is interesting because it apparently is an entirely new phenomenon...".
And then you come back and say, "Get this trash off of PO.com! I'm fed up with these energy hoaxes!".
And then I come back and say, "I'm not saying it's an energy source. I'm saying it's quite curious..."
And then you come and say, "Godammit. It's not an energy source".
Ok, ready to play? I'll go first: "John Kanzius seems to have stumbled on an entirely new phenomenon. The news organization are calling it an energy source and a potential cure for cancer to boot".
Now it's your turn.
...
However, I'm not going to change the title of my thread from "John Kanzius Saltwater-Radio Wave Energy Source?" because that is usually the way print and TV news have characterized it.
So, tell me, why shouldn't an apparently new phenomenon in physics be interesting? _________________ May you live in interesting times
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3429 Location: California, USA
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: Re: Can we have a "house rule" on Energy For Nothi
How'bout first, Carlhole, there's no need for comments such as "morons like you..."
Ad-hominems won't get the results you're looking for.
And don't forget, the more people who come to this site, the more people we get who don't have decent science education, mostly thanks to the rise of religious extremism in the US over the last 25 years or so and its influence on public education.
Remember the Republican debate where the moderator asked how many of the candidates didn't believe in evolution, and three of them proudly raised their hands? Case closed.
The way to handle the proliferation of nonsense here is to simply consolidate all the "anomalous energy claims" items into their own category, until they can be reviewed by someone who has decent reputation around here for scientific training. By which I don't mean a PhD in the relevant field, but a sound grasp of scientific principles and the ability to do online research where needed to evaluate a claim. If a claim gets a positive review, then that topic gets moved to the energy category.
As for the guy with the water, as far as I know he isn't claiming an energy source, just a method for hydrolysis. He didn't know what he'd run into at first. Serendipitous discoveries are commonplace, and take time to sort out.
Personally I'm skeptical of hydrogen as a fuel due to the difficulty of containing it. OTOH that and other issues may end up being addressed in one way or another. For example nuclear fission -> electrolysis -> storage in some kind of fuel cell -> portable fuel for vehicles: not necessarily as efficient as direct electric power for vehicles, but at least it's climate-clean, and that's important.
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: Re: Can we have a "house rule" on Energy For Nothi
There is practically no prospect of success to change minds of those who are trying to refute 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics in existing Universe.
These laws may be violated when universe is coming into existence or ceasing to exist, but not meantime.
So it is better to leave those peoples alone and let laws of thermodynamics to refute their claims.
Let them build those wonder machines if they wish so and leave issues related to funding for prospective investors (as long as those are not funded by taxes).
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject: Re: Can we have a "house rule" on Energy For Nothi
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
...Let them build those wonder machines if they wish so and leave issues related to funding for prospective investors (as long as those are not funded by taxes).
See? Here we go again! HA!
Kanzius was/is NOT trying to build an energy wonder machine, fool.
His idea was to introduce metal nano particles into cancer cells and then use radio waves to heat the metal nano particles to destroy the cancer cells. The idea is to somehow get the nano particles to "find" their way selectively into the cancer cells first- that's the tricky part. The heating and destroying - that's the easy part.
However, one day, on a friend's suggestion that he see if his radio wave machine could separate salt from seawater, Kanzius was surprised to discover the apparent new effect where saltwater is split into gaseous elements, igniting producing a sustained flame.
All of this information is readily available on the Kanzius thread to any nincompoop who is able to read. There is even a video of it and everything for those who can't.
I had never ever heard of saltwater being split into hydrogen and oxygen through radio waves (apparently, much more efficiently than electrolysis, a comletely different process). So that's what the Kanzius thread is about.
However, ever since I posted it, it has come under withering attack as a hoax for not being an energy source! Because people don't bother to read it - or they are just farking idiots - before pronouncing judgement.
I doesn't matter how often I post a clarification; the next post down will be, "Godammit, this is just another fat energy hoax!" _________________ May you live in interesting times
Last edited by Carlhole on Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:17 am Post subject: Re: Can we have a "house rule" on Energy For Nothi
HydroLuver wrote:
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
There is practically no prospect of success to change minds of those who are trying to refute 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics in existing Universe.
These laws may be violated when universe is coming into existence or ceasing to exist, but not meantime.
So it is better to leave those peoples alone and let laws of thermodynamics to refute their claims.
You folks here are so obsessed with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That might be relevant except for one thing. The planet Earth is not a closed system. It is an open system with a constant flow of new energy inputs.
Irrelevant to my argument.
Widely understood perpetual motion machines are discussed here.
You don't understand a concept of open/closed/isolated systems either.
Open system allows exchange with surroundings of mass and energy.
Closed system allows exchange with surroundings of energy only.
Isolated system don't exchange either with it's surroundings. The only truly isolated system is Universe.
Earth is formally considered close (albeit purists will argue that meteorites, space probe launches and gradual loss of the Moon are making it open).
You are an open system.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
