Bob Boyce and Electrolysis-Derived ‘Hydroxy’ Power
Chris Martenson – author of the best on-line description of our current economic problems, leader of a growing non-official group with an open-view regarding our economic future
Bob Boyce – independent researcher into energy-related problems, leader of a bigger and older non-official group with an open view regarding our energetic future
For those that understand it, the movie below is pure gold: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1779100537035350538
Some would argue that it’s even better that CM’s Crash Course. Hard to imagine, but they just might be right. Not as a presentation, but as importance. For those that look at it and it’s like chinese to them, please try to remember how some guys feel when they first watch Crash Course.
Time, Scale and Costs – energy is our biggest problem, if we could solve that, everything else would be solved and the 3E will merge together. If you have enough energy you solve the energy problem, the envinonment problem and the economy problem in the same time. You have the power to do all that you want.
Not sure what your science background is but electrolysis is a net energy loser.I read the blurb for the movie but then binned it because of the electrolysis stuff.
If you have some information that contradicts my understanding of the physics of this problem,then Im happy to listen to your thoughts and opinions.At the moment its breaking one of the laws of thermodynamics(cant remember which).
Hydrogen is a battery, not a fuel source.
Since there are no oceans or lakes or underground rivers of hydrogen, it must always be created at a loss of energy. There are no loss-less energy conversions that man can make.
The real issue is where do you get the energy in the first place to create this battery once oil is too expensive to use.
Flavian, you got som ‘splanin to do! (said in a Cuban accent)
Moved thread from Lowesville blog.
Not to heap on you here, but I took issue with a different aspect of your post:
[quote]Time, Scale and Costs – energy is our biggest problem, if we could solve that, everything else would be solved and the 3E will merge together. If you have enough energy you solve the energy problem, the envinonment problem and the economy problem in the same time. You have the power to do all that you want. [/quote]
This, at best, is a shortsighted comment – as eventually we’ll run into the same problem: too many humans competing for too few resources.
I’d venture to say that even if we had a fuel source that was capable of solving our energy woes, that the population is still and absolutely critical element that cannot be overlooked.
Energy is also too broad of a word, and should be broken down into it’s potential uses:
– Power Production
…and possible others.
Just some thoughts,
Good call. It would appear that Faraday’s First and Second Laws have been stepped on a little too liberally here. Even discounting the energy required to produce the electricity, the best you can expect is about 70%-80% efficiency for a water to hydrogen process. It’s a little higher if you account for the energy absorbed by the oxygen too.
I believe there are some special cases (not this one) of electrolysis that are very near zero energ consumers or small net energy producers (theoretical). Steam electrolysis absorbs heat and the hydrogen produced yields higher energy values than the electrical input. Again, I suspect that the energy required to produce the electricity, plus the energy required to achieve the high temps of the steam, hydrogen and oxygen are discounted. In any event, I doubt the interviewee had such a setup for his boats. We used a similar type of electrolysis reaction on the submarines I served on in our oxygen generators (affectionately referred to as Bomb 1 and Bomb 2). They were hight temp, high pressure electrolytic cells – we used deionized water – and we had to closely monitor temp/press levels as well as electrical current input. Once we got them up to the required operating temps and pressures our efficiency curves were nearly linear in terms of O2 output rate vs. electrical input. We bubbled the H2 overboard since hydrogen inside the people compartment is an undesirable condition. Thinking back though, I’m certain we didn’t account for the energy required to heat the water and generate the electricity – all produced by a nuclear reactor. And we certainly didn’t think twice about bubbling the heated hydrogen over the side, so there was lost energy there too.
My old physics lectures came zooming back to me, also.
It would be great if someone working in his basement could circumvent the laws of thermodynamics and energy transfer.
You look at yourself like open-minded guys. That are stunned about the level that manipulation, coverups and lies are constantly hiding the truth about global economy. You do not take for granted what other guys are teaching you in school about economy.
But on the other hand you presume that any breaktrough in science that would fundamentally change our world would not be covered and lied about ? Come on, think about it a little… 😉
Now, regarding hydrogen. Bob Boyce is a veteran in this field and has done a vast work in this area. Same like Stanley Meyer, Daniel Dingel and others. We are not talking "simple" elecrolysis. Yes, you can get to outstanding results, improved mileage on cars, less polution and many other benefits using just brute force electrolysis. But what Bob Boyce and members of his internet group are talking about is an entire different thing. Is an electro-chemical resonance phenomena. That goes beyond what all of us have learned in school.
That is why it resembles CM’s way of talking about an entire different field. It’s not "corrupted" economics here, is bad science teachings we are talking about. And once you see with your own eye a petrol engine with no modifications running 100% on water and electricity, you start to understand what the potential of all these could be.
As you will come to find out, I am a huge fan of Occam’s Razor. So I applied it to my assessment of the "electrochemical resonance phenomenon" and claim that some guy has figured out how to extract more energy from hydrogen produced during electrolysis than is put in as electrical current to conduct the hydrolysis. Liberal assumptions about what to use to calculate all of the required energy sources to conduct the electrolysis aside (energy required to produce the electricity, heat loss/gain, etc.) I am inclined to believe that Farady’s laws have to hold.
And by "electrochemical resonance" I assume you mean impedance spectroscopy? Is Boyce claiming to have figured out a way to map a system’s impedance over a range of frequencies to establish the most efficient energy storage and dissipation chartacteristics that he then runs through an electrolytic process to pull out the highest amount of energy with the smallest imput? What about the energy required to generate such resonance? I suspect this isn’t in the denominator anywhere.
My options are:
1. These guys have found a way to generate more output power from a reaction than they need to put in to conduct the electrolysis utilizing "electrochemical resonance" and their findings have been suppressed by the evil "them". But somehow the definitive video proof exists on You Tube or google video? This option assumes either Faraday’s Laws have been circumvented or that they have employed gross assumptions in calculating all of thier input energy requirements to calculate their >1.0 efficiencies. Or some combination of the two.
2. They haven’t figured out how to do what they claim. None of Faraday’s Laws violated in assuming this option.
I have to go with Option #2.
If you could provide any links or sources (credible or not) that talk about "electrochemical resonance" I would be interested in reading.
Do you or do you not believe in the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another?
This and other laws including those of thermodynamics, in my mind, are not some some of massive government cover-up to hide the hidden potential of Hydrogen as fuel. Simply put, you can’t get something for nothing. Well, actually you can, but it isn’t sustainable (see: economic crash of 2008).
I’m not going to get into a sparring contest with you over this, but the most you can EVER HOPE to achieve (but won’t even come close in reality) is 100% conversion of electricity to hydrogen. I ask again, where does the electricity come from? Why not just use it as electricity in the first place?
Hydrogen is a store of energy, not a source of it. You will not convince me otherwise unless you find some hydrogen buried in a field as big as the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia somewhere accessible to us humans. I’m open minded to you going and looking for said hydrogen field