Hydrogen systems- has anyone had success? - Page 8 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

ConnClark · #**106** 05-13-2008, 04:05 PM

Okay,

Its time to play heretic here.

There must be an exception to the first law of Thermodynamics otherwise the big bang couldn't happen.

#**107** 05-13-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark

Okay,

Its time to play heretic here.

There must be an exception to the first law of Thermodynamics otherwise the big bang couldn't happen.

LOL, depends how you define a closed system.

#**108** 05-13-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark

There must be an exception to the first law of Thermodynamics otherwise the big bang couldn't happen.

Gravity and the same way an engine works. Suck-squeeze-bang-blow.

ConnClark · #**109** 05-13-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

LOL, depends how you define a closed system.

I have just had a wonderful idea for a new scam... er I mean zero point energy device. Its called the Diesel Dark Matter Injection System (TM)

All that is needed is to disable a few emissions control devices like particulate filters and SCR catalyst and diesel engines will make more power with the same amount of fuel. You might even be able to see some of the dark matter come out of the tail pipe.

Now to just write up some bunk theory to back it all up and get the PESN.com to write a report about it and I'll be rich off the people that want things to be true.

here is what I have so far.

Many systems are out there that improve fuel economy of the internal combustion engine by treating the fuel with catalysts, acetone, and magnets. However none of these systems work on treating the air. By manipulating the M theory equations it becomes obvious that you can transform some of the excess air used by a diesel engine into dark matter.....

dkveuro · #**110** 05-13-2008, 08:51 PM

I have an electric vehicle..trouble is, 60 feet from the house, it dies.

.

rcounts · #**111** 05-14-2008, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

...I think there would be a lot more open-mindedness if existing engines were required to meet increasingly stringent emissions requirements versus only those that existed at the time of their manufacture.

That's the Japanese model for emmissions testing. It is also why there are no old cars on the road in Japan and why you can buy low-mileage imported Japanese engines engines and transmissions "in the crate" for dirt cheap.

If the USA followed that model every one of our MBZs would have been recycled a decade or more ago, and this forum wouldn't even exist for us to debate/discuss new technology...

RichC · #**112** 05-14-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

I'd say from your experiences that the estimates of $1000 added to the cost of an engine from an oem for a developed plasmatron device are a pretty good guess. That device also deals with a number of the PITA issues you mention.

I offered you a way to get more energy out of a regular internal
combustion engine that works that no one has produced yet.

The seperate products are off the shelf items.

Trust me, I have watched my ideas be developed by others before.
With huge successes.

This idea is yours if you want it.
I just want a percentage of the profits.
So I can pay my bills.

I am not joking !

If you dont do it, someone else will very soon.
Probably one year from now, topps.

Have Fun !
RichC
.

Hatterasguy · #**113** 05-14-2008, 12:49 PM

No they just don't drive them. Thats why you can get a really, really mint W126 out of Japan for a pretty fair price.

Most havn't been driven in the last decade, make an old gas MB meet todays emissions standards? NFW So when they cannot pass anymore they just let them sit in there garages.

No thanks I like to hold onto every last shred of freedom that we can.

rcounts · #**114** 05-14-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

The quote below is an approximate response -- it agrees with discussions with a few people in Japan that I have sold parts to. I don't think emissions control ratchets up but it is very clear that they want you to get rid of old cars.

Actually, as I understand it, they don't put stricter standards on a car just because it is older, but as new emmissions standards are released they apply to ALL cars - regardless of age - and not just new cars. As the standards get tougher over time, the older cars that were never built to meet those tougher standards in the first place can't pass and get eliminated. That is what I have read, and been told. It would be interesting if you could ask some of your contacts and see if that part of it is true. If so, then combining that with $4,000 a year in safety inspection fees would certainly minimize the number of cars more than 3 years old (which is a new car in my book) on the road.

BTW, when I said there are "no" old cars on the road, I didn't mean absolutely not a single one. Obviously there are a few - but from what I've always understood there are very few. As you said, the few there are are owned by rich people who can afford to pay the inspection fees and have them brought them up to the new standards or whatever to keep them. What I meant was that they don't have millions of older cars, and they certainly don't outnumber new cars by a large margin - like they do here.

There's no need (or point) to parse every word of every post looking for something to correct someone on or something to argue about, is there?

RichC · #**115** 05-14-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

The retroactive controls "appear" to apply only to diesel engined vehicles. In that case, we are both correct. The people I dealt with before were working with gasoline powered cars.

I guess we disagree about parsing and to parse is in my nature. I was a dual major in philosophy and theoretical linguistics -- focusing on logic and mathematics. The misinformation in this thread presented as all encompassing fact is a direct result of a lack of such parsing with respect to hydrogen injection.

.

No, you just cannot see that what I said was very direct and answered
your question.

It will take you a while but you will get there.
You will finally be able to see the wrong assumptions that you have made.
And then you will see what I have said is on target.
And relates perfectly with what you were asking.

You insist on taking the long road.
Don't come down on others that know the shortcut.

I do not need to understand the quantum, particle and wave paradoxes
of light to know that I cannot read in the dark.

RichC
.

RichC · #**116** 05-14-2008, 06:19 PM

.

Yes, be skeptical of everything,
including skeptics, and yourself.

It has worked well for me at least.

.....

Think of it this way.
Kinda from the top down.

The amount of energy in the universe has been exactly the same
since the beginning.
But we continually loose a tiny amount of energy.
No one has figured out for sure where it goes ???
That is called entropy.

And since matter is nothing but potential energy,,,
Energy , like matter, cannot be created or destroyed, just changed.

What was wood becomes heat, which becomes pressure differences
in the air which causes condensation, which causes rain to form, which falls, and nourishes the next tree.

Energy and matter move thru many many different states.
But there is always a balance kept.
With a small amount of entropy added in from somewhere ??

Everything is still in balance since the beginning.
That can be proved mathematically.
So even what we have learned about quantum physics must abide
by this balance.

Even things as massive as black holes are offset by new stars being born.

Nothing seems to be beyond this balancing power.

....
A system can be extremely complex, as most really are when you look
close enough.

Energy changes thru so many states it becomes virtually impossible for
us to keep track.

It can be easy to miss one little thing and think there has been
an increase in energy.
But nature herself shows us we are most likely wrong.

RichC
.

rcounts · #**117** 05-14-2008, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

.

The amount of energy in the universe has been exactly the same
since the beginning.
But we continually loose a tiny amount of energy.
No one has figured out for sure where it goes ???
That is called entropy.

And since matter is nothing but potential energy,,,
Energy , like matter, cannot be created or destroyed, just changed.

What was wood becomes heat, which becomes pressure differences
in the air which causes condensation, which causes rain to form, which falls, and nourishes the next tree.

Energy and matter move thru many many different states.
But there is always a balance kept.
With a small amount of entropy added in from somewhere ??

Everything is still in balance since the beginning.
That can be proved mathematically.
So even what we have learned about quantum physics must abide
by this balance.

Even things as massive as black holes are offset by new stars being born.

Nothing seems to be beyond this balancing power.

RichC
.

How can you say there has been exactly the same amount of energy since the beginning, and in the next breath say that we continually loose (even a tiny bit) of energy - those are contradictory statements.

Every thing I learned in physics, chemistry, etc. supports the first statement, and that it CHANGES, but not that any of it is ever LOST.

The definition of Entropy that I learned is that all organized systems, absent any outside influence, become increasingly disorganized.

Dissipation of heat from a solid object into a gas - the object being cooled by air for example - is an example of entropy applied in thermodynamics. The molecules of the solid are more organized than the molecules of the air. The energized (hot) molecules of the solid (more organized) transfer their energy into the gas (less organized). Therefore the energy moves from a more organized to a less organized state. HOWEVER, none of it is lost. Not one iota.

If energy could be lost into nothingness, the balance that you are referring to as a support for your argument would also mean that the opposite can be accomplished - that energy can be drawn from nothingness - i.e. created.

And that is the very idea you are arguing against (and physics supports the argument that it isn't possible).

I think you have just looped back on yourself like a snake eating his tail, Rich - you're making conflicting arguments. Not saying you are wrong about there being no energy created, but if you think that there has ever been any energy that was truly lost, then that part I have to disagree with. And I think just about every physicist of any repute who ever lived would disagree as well.

xdjio · #**118** 05-14-2008, 07:35 PM

Saying we are loosing energy and we don't know where it goes, this is wrong for a few reasons:

1) Energy is not "lost".
2) Energy dissipates from ordered states to disordered states. That is, heat, random particle motion, aka entropy.
3) The universe as a whole is a closed system, therefore the entropy of the universe is tending upwards.

Nothing is being "lost" here, except for the nebulous quantity - "information". And I should say that even the conjecture that information can be "lost" is highly debatable.

RichC · #**119** 05-14-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcounts

How can you say there has been exactly the same amount of energy since the beginning, and in the next breath say that we continually loose (even a tiny bit) of energy - those are contradictory statements.

Every thing I learned in physics, chemistry, etc. supports the first statement, and that it CHANGES, but not that any of it is ever LOST.

The definition of Entropy that I learned is that all organized systems, absent any outside influence, become increasingly disorganized.

Dissipation of heat from a solid object into a gas - the object being cooled by air for example - is an example of entropy applied in thermodynamics. The molecules of the solid are more organized than the molecules of the air. The energized (hot) molecules of the solid (more organized) transfer their energy into the gas (less organized). Therefore the energy moves from a more organized to a less organized state. HOWEVER, none of it is lost. Not one iota.

If energy could be lost into nothingness, the balance that you are referring to as a support for your argument would also mean that the opposite can be accomplished - that energy can be drawn from nothingness - i.e. created.

And that is the very idea you are arguing against (and physics supports the argument that it isn't possible).

I think you have just looped back on yourself like a snake eating his tail, Rich - you're making conflicting arguments. Not saying you are wrong about there being no energy created, but if you think that there has ever been any energy that was truly lost, then that part I have to disagree with. And I think just about every physicist of any repute who ever lived would disagree as well.

.

I ran into this energy loss idea when reading about the expansion of the
universe.

Current theory suggests that the universe will not continue to expand
nor will it contract.

The idea is that everything will slowly wind down.
There will be less and less movement. (energy,matter).

I guess the more proper term would be universe entropy ??

..

What you have said would be a dam good argument against that theory.
That the reverse should be possible, ie.. getting energy from nowhere.

..

I guess if they figure out where the energy is going they might figure
out how to get some back.

Thinking about it this way leads me to think it is a mathematical error
they have not caught yet.

Thanks
Have Fun
RichC
.

pmckechnie · #**120** 05-14-2008, 08:00 PM

About 158 post ago someone ask a simple question. Has anyone tried hydrogen as a supplement with any success?(or something to that effect). We all can earn a degree in physics now but the original answer has not been answered. By the way, I have no degrees in anything but I know that energy is never lost, only misplaced until found again.