[from occupied ga]

H2 debate on this forum

Here part of the difference. There is no real point in "debating" the "merits" of H2 as a motor fuel any more than there is "merit" in debating whether or not 1 + 1 = 3. You can debate all you want, but the result is not changed by the debate. It is not a matter of opinion. It is foreordained by the laws of physics.

The problem is that a lot of people just don't understand that you can't violate the laws of physics. Hold an egg over your head. Do you have to have a debate to figure out what will happen if you drop it? No of course not. You are familiar with the law of gravity. H2 as a motor fuel is exactly the same thing except the rules are a little less obvious.

H2 generation on demand is simple and cost effective. This has been proven numerous times

This statement is false. H2 generation IS simple. You can generate H2 from water by adding Sodium hydroxide solution to aluminum shavings. What could be simpler? You can generate hydrogen by electrolysis of water It is not cost effective. The only way it could be cost effective is if the egg dropped up rather than down, and this isn't going to happen.

As far as your internet reference to the perpetual motion machine goes there are two and only two possibilities. I won't explain how it violated the laws of thermodynamics because it cannot violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. 1+1 does not = 3 and can never = 3. The two possibilities are:

1. The device is a fraud and the claims are fraudulent
2. The device works, but gets it's energy from some source such as the battery in the car and a combination of burning aluminum. If we assume that it gets it's energy from burning aluminum using the O2 in water, producing Al2O3 from the O in water and releasing the H as gas, then it is NOT cost effective. There is a lot of energy to be had burning aluminum, but this energy must overcome the H-O bonds in water and there are pretty strong. Because it is a very energy intensive process to produce aluminum (costs a lot of fossil fuel as electric generation - more than you get back out when you burn the Al) it is a very inefficient process to produce energy by burning aluminum. In short if the device works at all, it produces very expensive H2 - much more expensive per calorie than simply burning fossil fuel.

Yes there is a law against free energy devices (perpetual motion machines) It is the first law of thermodynamics and it goes something like "You can't get something from nothing." or "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed."

(1 + 1 will never ever = 3 no matter how much you think it should)

[radioman]

LMAO!!!
You decide what is and what is not worth debating?
Prpetual motion machine? How is this device, or any of the others, a perpetual motion machine? Science called Tesla's invention of the alternator a perpetual motion machine, yet we all use AC power today!

The device is a fraud and the claims are fraudulent

Prety good fraud. It was granted US and German patents.
Not cost effective? Aluminum wire purchased at your local welding supply will release more power dollar for dollar than gasoline.

Look, I'm not saying this is a practical device. This is just one example of hydrogen generation that refutes the "impossible" dogma.

The whole point of this debate is to get people thinking. I remember the Arab oil embargo. I, and many others, would have happily shelled out our money for an alternative to gasoline. Price was not a factor, availability was. We do not need to depend solely on fossil fuels.

I was joking about the free energy device, but could easily demonstrate your misinterpretation of the law on that one too.

Come on Doc, science is fun and without crackpots like me you eggheads would die of boredom, or bore the rest of us to death!