Bedini motor and other joe cell playing with energy conservation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_21KafrwRc&feature=related
This is nice...but not revolutionary, just a replacement of fuel by metals


But here starts much stranger effects...
Among pioneers Yull Brown with a gas production that seems to be based on an energy not controlled by actual law of conservation of energy ...Each word is important !
In other words, actual laws of thermodynamics could be imperfect

Bedini motor uses back EMF in a simple way

An imperfect formula or principle...Not new in science, just new for our actual knowledge


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZh7TiQ1eEE&feature=fvsr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zihvon92knE&feature=related

http://pesn.com/2006/04/13/9600257_Bill_Williams_threatened/
http://www.energenx.com/john34/foreward.html
http://www.moe-joe-working.com/

Shall we burn these devils or study more about it ?

 

Waste of time.... Area 51 also has Alien perpetual galactic powered outboard 2000hp -run for ever, and are the size of watermelon. They also clean the air, produce clean water and even manatee safe...

 

Allumer le feu

Oh ! You have matches !

I"m a good believer, pay my taxes
i trust diesel and unleaded only
Cubic inches, save my lost soul.

You may be right, but i'm afraid that, to answer the questions these experiment show, this won't be sufficient

 

How many idiotic and crappy posts will you start here with your nonsense? And you trust Diesel? Why did you remove em from your boat?

 

All new revolutionary inventions have been virulently criticised.
The fact that it is virulently criticised doesn't mean these are great inventions

idiotic, crappy, nonsense...

Do you think that writing these kind of statements, you will bring anything constructive to the question and to this forum ?

 

I like new and innovative ideas and so Im all for people experimenting with new things
but in that first video some red flags came up that I feel kinda brought into question the credibility of the demonstration

1) what is the secret electrolyte and why not just clue us in as to what it is
2) what is the secret metal compound and again why not just clue us in
3) why are we not allowed the information needed to test the system for ourselves, those bubbles could be anything

if we knew what the chemical process was then we could run a few simple calculations and if things all work out
then all the criticism would be nipped in the but

anytime some one comes in and says that our present level of science fails to explain a certain event
I get suspicious

our present level of science is got a long way to go
but it is dam good at explaining commonly observed phenomena

chemistry is easily understood and if a researcher cops out on an explanation without even trying to bring us up to the point were science fails
then why are we to believe science failed and not the researcher
which is far more likely

that is why these type of new ideas get criticized and not because they have or have not merit
when what they need is better presentation

if you have an idea
wright a paper and submit it to a peer review panel
if they ask for a defense
give it to em
get published or not and go from there
the basic garage inventor fails miserably in this area and so
finds himself subject to criticism that could have been avoided

my two cents
B

 

Inventor fail often because of the imperfect invention, i share your opinion, but not always and many inventors, at the origin of things we use now died poor

For the water car it is this principle i guess
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

About joe cell this is water and the slow convection movement going across 316 SS is not explained to me and anyone else i guess

Bedini uses back EMF.
Many new patent use back EMF for propulsion, this is clearly an interesting direction to go to get very high efficencies

Now we must never forget that the existing business of energy could loose billions the day a replacement energy will be available, do you think they will wait for this moment arm crossed ?
We run ICE engine the same way than 100 years ago...My 1956 TR3 does only 20% less mpg than a recent car, my 1960 MKI mini does same mpg . I can't technically understand why it didn't changed more...

Look at radio, tv, space, chemistry of 1950 and compare with now.

There is a kind of ICE/energy exception to progress...very strange ;-)
In philosophy this is called the power of the existing thing that tend to kill all new ideas to protect itself
And transport is power, huge power.
When Henry Ford supported Hitler for years , it was not for progress of mankind and to free the minds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/fordnazis.html


In fact it seems that rejection is a common position for transport inventions
Think of Guy Mochet in 1933 that saw his recumbent bike forbidden (and always now) for competitor after he won world record of 1 hour distance race...
http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/2005/03/fastest_bike_in.html

Recumbent bike is 1907 ...
http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/2005/03/fastest_bike_in.html

 

Tesla died broke

 

about aluminum

aluminum has nothing to do with joe cell.

Aluminum hasn't been mentioned in HHO business until recently. I do believe that using aluminum actually works and is being studied seriously. It is worth noting however that aluminum is used as a fuel in a sense - it wears down. And if you know how much energy you need to mine fresh aluminum (not recycled) it comes as no surprise that a lot of energy can be recovered by ruining it.

Point is its is not energy appearing from nowhere (like joe cell) but a known reaction where aluminum oxidizes.

In my other posts in other threads when I used "free" I didn't mean it in money sense. But in the sense of physics - anodizing aluminum to create hydrogen is not hydrogen for free. Joe cell creating hydrogen with minimal dc currents is "free" energy.

H

from the aluminum link you provided:

"Woodall said that because the technology makes it possible to use hydrogen instead of gasoline to run internal combustion engines it could be used for cars and trucks. In order for the technology to be economically competitive with gasoline, however, the cost of recycling aluminum oxide must be reduced, he said.

"Right now it costs more than $1 a pound to buy aluminum, and, at that price, you can't deliver a product at the equivalent of $3 per gallon of gasoline," Woodall said.

However, the cost of aluminum could be reduced by recycling it from the alumina using a process called fused salt electrolysis. The aluminum could be produced at competitive prices if the recycling process were carried out with electricity generated by a nuclear power plant or windmills."

 

But in this context it is a surprise that you claim to be a mature person.

 

Apex - I didn't get it. Was that aimed at me? if so please elaborate.

 

Sorry Kerosene, how is it related, the energy to produce aluminium and the energy one may get out of it (which way so ever)?

 

Aluminum is found in nature in the form of aluminum oxide - or alumina. It takes huge amounts of energy to create aluminum from this oxide - and it is done by electrolysis.

It seems to me that the process where they use aluminum to create hydrogen sacrifices the aluminum back to alumina (or aluminum oxide).

Ie. in creation of aluminum you input energy to get into higher energy state material - and in taking energy from aluminum you return it to the lower energy state.

Think of it as burning and un-burning. When aluminum is mined it is "un-burned" and burned again to create hydrogen. Same way I believe that you can use energy and split carbon dioxide to carbon and oxygen. Then you could burn it again. Obviously it would be terribly inefficient.

I will try to find a good link to aluminum processing.


by the way - never claimed to be a mature person.

 

Aluminium looks like a smart way to get H2 , 'on demand', cutting the cost of compression, stock and transport.

But this is rather conventional physics behind

Joe cell effects, specially the convection going across steel is a real mystery as i do not know what kind of physics effect could create such slow moving field.
A field of something is turning, doing like vortex, at slow speed ?
Really strange.
Any lights about this ?

This video speaks more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caLgtl2p5KM&feature=related

 

It takes massive powerplants to produce Aluminum from Bauxite. Bauxites are heated in pressure vessels with sodium hydroxide solution at 150–200 °C through which aluminium is dissolved as aluminate (Bayer process). After separation of ferruginous residue (red mud) by filtering, pure gibbsite is precipitated when the liquor is cooled and seeded with fine grained aluminium hydroxide. Gibbsite is converted into aluminium oxide by heating. This is molten at approx. 1000 °C by addition of cryolite as a flux and reduced to metallic aluminium by a highly energy-consumptive electrolytic process (the Hall-Héroult process).

When Aluminum corrodes, become Aluminum oxide and it produces enough electricity to power a light bulb, like a battery. Not very efficient conversion. I know this personally my wife work for ACR electronics that made aluminum batteries that used sea water as electrolyte for emergency lighting on boats and rafts.

Also US does not have any AL. Mainly Australia and area around tropics.

Aluminum is good for building boats, planes and soda cans. Not a good source for fuel.... No in this universe... How about the blackholes in center of galaxy...