The human race is reaching a tipping point -- where the decisions of the past can no longer be reversed by choices made in the future. The future is now. We must change mankind's dependence on oil and fossil fuels and look toward our future. If we do not act NOW, it is very possible that the 21st Century will be the last for human kind. We must all work together on a plan to conquer global warming.
The Plan....Short Version:
(Using Cutting Edge Technology, or
The Silver Bullet Approach)
by Matt Imber email@example.com
ROUGH OUTLINE FOR THE CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY
SAVING HUMANITY BEFORE THE CENTURY’S END
(OR APOLLO 13, A SUCCESS REVISITED - FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION)
By now (late 2007), it should be a no-brainer that something big must be done in mass to deal with global warming. A great deal of scientific consensus predicts that a 10-20 year window is all we have to change our energy and transportation infrastructure, and current consumer-driven economies in order to have ameasurable impact that would reverse the trend of run-away climate change. Ideas such as carbon trading, carbon taxing, carbon sequestration, biofuels and conservation may provide only a small answer to an ever-growing problem, and are half measures at best. Of all those methods, conservation can get us the most effect. But policies such as these are still being debated and are not even in effect. Even if these policies were underway in the United States, they would probably only scratch the surface of what needs to be done to reverse the course of climate change the world is now on.
It’s time to think outside of the box and look at ways humans can find energy sources for transportation and electrical needs on a mass scale, and implement these technologies aggressively in order to turn down the global thermostat. Peak oil has all but certainly occurred, and world demand for oil is increasing exponentially as economies in developing countries like India and China come online. As the glass becomes half empty, it is being consumed even faster. Something big must be done soon to not only avoid global warming, but world-wide economic meltdown as the last remaining oil reserves are exploited and fought for.
In light of this urgency, and to help expedite a way out of this mess, America’s new Energy Plan should be based on a two-prong strategy: (1) Aggressive conservation mandates and (2) Aggressive alternative energy commercial development. Right now, conservation mandates are possible that can increase automotive engine efficiencies by 50%, and create almost no carbon emissions. (such as Paul Pantone’s GEET device) There are alternatives out there now, that once invested in, can provide pollution free energy for the entire planet (such as Stan Meyer’s Water Fuel Cell). But nothing will happen on its own if we keep waiting for disjointed industries to regulate themselves and kick the fossil fuel habit.
Consider the problem of acquiring clean energy for global transportation needs; What if someone told you that it’s now possible to design a new car, or modify an existing car that has a tank which you could fill up with tap water, and the car could use an onboard device to turn the water into a gas (hydrogen and/or oxygen) ON DEMAND, as needed – to supply the fuel for the car as it used the fuel up as you go. Would you believe such a claim? For the layperson, it would seem like an achievable thing to do. But for anyone who has studied chemistry and knows the basics of electrolysis, this would seem impossible, because the energy needed to “crack” and separate the hydrogen and oxygen gases from the water is far more energy than can be realized after it is burned in the engine, or used in a fuel cell. Plus, the time it takes to crack the hydrogen gas from the water molecule, then separate the acid catalyst from the gas, then run it to the engine for burning, or to a fuel cell for electricity, the car’s consumption of fuel would not be able to keep up with production (under conventional water electrolysis principals).
The ones who argue against such a car based on these limitations may be correct in what they say, provided they are applying old-school thinking to the problem, and applying the well-established laws of conservation to the equation, while ignoring a potential loophole in these laws. Before discussing this loophole, let’s hypothesize a scenario of net energy gain. Suppose you had a bundle of chopped wood and a bushel of kindling and you built a bonfire with it and proceeded to light the fire. Once lit and burning, would you get more energy out of the wood fuel than you put into the fire (the force needed to strike a match)? The simple answer is yes; -- you are getting more energy out of the wood than YOU put into it. But the more complicated answer is, not really. This is because the energy that went into making the wood over time, primarily in the form of solar energy the tree used for photosynthesis to help grow, would be released upon burning the wood, in the form of heat and carbon-based emissions roughly equal the energy used to create the wood. So, although you may get more energy out of the wood than YOU put into it, you are not getting any more energy than nature put into making the wood.
This is exactly the same thing that is happening with petroleum based fuels like gasoline. We are getting energy that was used millions of years ago from the sun, to produce mostly phytoplankton, and algae, which removed carbon from the air millions of years ago, during a long period of global warming. When we burn the gasoline in our cars, we are returning to the atmosphere the carbon that was removed from the air from the oceanic plant life that existed over 100 million years ago. This oil took over 100 million years to form, and humans have used up half of this resource and returned all of its carbon back into the atmosphere within a period of about 100 years. This is not only an unsustainable way to obtain and use energy; it’s nonsensical, environmentally reckless and downright dangerous. We desperately need to find a fuel source, preferably in gaseous or liquid form, that can work like petroleum products, that will drive the one billion internal combustion engines planet-wide (with minimal modifications), but also be carbon-free, or, at the very least -- carbon neutral.
If one were to spend some time studying available conventional alternative fuels, it becomes apparent that instead of using up fossil fuels to power our modern infrastructure, it is far better to use carbon-neutral biofuels that can be grown in one year or less, then replenish these again in a yearly crop cycle, to be used once again as a biofuel. Such carbon-neutral bio-fuels, such as corn-based or sugar-cane-based ethanol can be used as biofuels. They do release carbon back into the atmosphere, but only as much as they absorbed to grow, thus providing a carbon neutral energy source. However, these fuels do have a major drawback – they can only meet a tiny fraction of the demand that the world energy market requires for transportation alone (leaving out fuel for energy production). In addition, increased production of bio-fuels has primarily been made possible via large government subsidies to American farmers. The increased demand for biofuels is now competing for the same grains which go to feed cattle and other livestock, for human consumption, thus driving up the cost of food by as much as 5% or more according to late 2007 studies. This may continue to worsen because the markets are not adequately regulated to properly balance food supply with energy supply, and other industrial uses. See: http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/1997/97-08/img1.gif
In light of this revelation, the quest to find an inexpensive fuel that doesn’t create carbon, is freely available, and is not environmentally harmful, is relatively safe to use, and does not affect the food supply – becomes paramount. The most obvious choice of such a fuel would be hydrogen used as a fuel. But you would want to extract hydrogen and oxygen from water, using clean, carbon free energy. You don’t want to generate hydrogen and oxygen using conventional electrolysis with dirty energy that comes from coal or gas burning, but rather from clean energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar or wind power. However, over 95% of the hydrogen gas produced currently comes as a byproduct from processing natural gas - in the steam methane reformation process. (Source : http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/recordings/2006/061118_GlobalWarming_JimDunn.mp3 To avoid using fossil fuels to produce hydrogen, you can create it using water electrolysis. If you used water electrolysis to extract the hydrogen and oxygen from water, but used clean energy sources like wind and solar to power the electrolysis process, (instead of energy from coal or gas power plants), you would be over the first hurdle to achieving this energy source. However, it must be noted that using pure hydrogen should more accurately be considered as an energy storage and transfer medium, rather than a fuel. This is because the hydrogen produced via electrolysis is produced electromechanically (unlike oil), plus it can be used to generate electricity or used for transportation, when burned in an IC engine.
Enter the second hurdle(s) to the hydrogen economy’s birth: The cost of production, storage and safety. These hurdles may be too far to overcome in the short term for the hydrogen economy to take off in the conventional sense. According to Dr. Peter Lindemann, Ford piloted a water electrolysis project to power their Titan V10 hydrogen engine, and was spending $16-25 per kilogram of hydrogen produced this way. 1 kilogram of hydrogen is equivalent to one gallon of gasoline, in terms of power output upon combustion. To generate hydrogen using conventional (Faraday-style) water electrolysis, you will spend 60-70 KWH to make 1 KG of hydrogen. You just can’t get the hydrogen produced quickly enough, or cheaply enough to make it cost competitive with oil or fossil fuels.
If you started to look at other ways to get hydrogen from water, or improve the electrolysis process to be more efficient, then you would discover that there is such technology that has been around for decades, which may hold the key to obtaining a fuel directly from the air, or from an abundant source like water. There are others ways to get hydrogen from water, and do it in a way which CAN provide enough fuel for a car, and with only a few watts of power applied to ordinary tap water, with no acidic chemical catalysts. When I started to do my own research into the possibilities of creating hydrogen gas on demand in a vehicle, I ran into the “limitation roadblock” of conventional water electrolysis, and how the energy required to extract the hydrogen would negate the practicality of using the gas, because it would require more energy to produce the fuel than the energy realized from exploiting the fuel it creates.
But then I discovered a new way to get fuel from water by using a tiny fraction of the energy required using conventional water electrolysis. Unlike traditional water electrolysis, where a DC current is applied to a water-catalyst mixture and separates the oxygen and hydrogen gasses from each other via platinum electrodes, an alternative approach uses stainless steel electrodes with pulsed DC voltage to split the water molecule into gas/plasma clusters. These plasma clusters (AKA hydrolyzed electrons) consist of diatomic and monatomic hydrogen and oxygen atoms that form a stable, yet fully combustible stoiciometric gas. Once ignited, the implosive gas that has 2.5 times the power of gasoline when ignited, much like pure hydrogen, and the resulting implosion creates pure water. This technology was developed in the mid 1980s, and perfected in the mid 1990s by several inventors; two of the most noted inventors in this area were Yull Brown and Stan Meyer – the inventor of the Water Fuel Cell (WFC). Both of these men created similar devices which used a new form of water electrolysis that uses an array of stainless steel electrodes that apply a special pulsed voltage to the water, (usually a square pulse, varying around 20 -40 KHZ), to create what’s known as HHO Gas, or Brown’s gas.
This resulting gas is ideal for use in a vehicle and can be produced on demand, and used in just the way that you would need for a car.
The energy needed to create the gas in amounts to drive on indefinitely is less than 20 watts of power, and can easily be provided with a typical 12 volt battery and be replenished with the alternator. The only drawback with using the HHO gas in today’s cars is that most current internal combustion 4 stroke engines are designed to burn an explosive blend of petroleum and air, and will not run optimally on the implosive HHO gas alone, but can instead run on a mixture of petroleum and HHO gas, which is fed through the air intake, after slight modifications to the vehicle are made. For current vehicles to run exclusively off of HHO gas, modifications to the timing would be necessary or a simple redesign of the engine is needed to use the gas to its fullest potential. Diesel engines are easier to modify to run exclusively off of HHO gas, but an engine designed from the outset to burn the gas would be ideal. You can also burn the HHO gas in an engine that’s designed to burn pure hydrogen.
Although the technology of the water fuel cell is real, and has been used for over 2 decades in the form of welders and mileage enhancers, many in academia and industry refuse to accept the very reality of the technology. This is mostly because the HHO electrolyzers that produce the gas are breaking well-established laws of thermodynamics, and they do what recent physics has told us is impossible: you can’t get more energy out of something that you put into it. You can convert one form of energy into another, such as electrical energy into mechanical energy (such as an electric motor), but the mechanical force provided by the motor can not exceed an established conversion ratio that translates into the electrical energy put into the motor. Those in industry may reject the technology based on the same reasons as stated above, or they may be aware of the incredible merits of the water fuel cell, however suppress the technology because it may threaten their profit margins because if fully exploited, it would compete with their oil-based investments.
For those in academia who refute the technology, they usually do not even examine the technology once they hear about the claims of over-unity. Some water fuel cells, examined by David Wenbert (Hearth Institute), and his associates, have shown to produce one liter of HHO gas with as low as 0.38 watt per hour worth of energy. (see: http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/recordings/2007/070827_H2EarthWaterFuelCells_DavidWenbert.mp3). Compared against creating hydrogen using conventional water electrolysis, which may use 60-70 kilowatt hrs (KWH) to produce the cracking power to separate 1 liter of pure hydrogen gas from water (minus the cost to filter out the acidic catalyst and storage), you can see that HHO production’s ability to create a liter of hydrogen/oxygen at 0.38 watts per hour (266% less energy), the Water Fuel Cell becomes something that’s not too good to be true, it’s something that’s too good to ignore.
Once many in academia hear this, their minds usually shut off to the idea and they don’t proceed further into examining the technology. Others in academia who begin to look at the WFC and become instantly skeptical are applying their knowledge of well established laws of thermodynamics and the laws of energy conservation. The basic argument goes something like this: You can’t get more energy out of something you put into it, or “you can’t get something for nothing.” You can only transfer one form of energy into another, but the end resulting energy can not exceed the input energy, and you can never achieve “over-unity.” This argument may be scientifically sound with regard to most mechanical devices which convert and use energy. But even the mechanic efficiencies of motors that have been established for over 100 years may now have to be reexamined. Many current electrical motors claim over 90% efficiency, but this conversion rate formula of mechanical out put vs. electrical input included the back EMF power into the equation. (see: http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/recordings/2007/070421_ElectricMotorSecrets.mp3) Back EMF (electromagnetic field) is the drag which is created by the electromagnetic currents created by the input current used to turn the motor. But innovative motors such as the Bedini Motor, which overcome the back EMF achieve efficiencies of 35 times more than their counterpart motors without the back EMF canceling device. Such motors have been proven in countless experiments conducted and repeated in laboratories across the globe. The first law of thermodynamics seems necessary to be revised.
Back to the bonfire scenario – why couldn’t you simply replace the wood bonfire, and look at water as your fuel? But in order to “light the fire”, why couldn’t you simply use the right resonance frequency to pull apart the water molecules into a stoiciometric gas? (Say, around 42.8 KHZ) Would this not be the same thing as our hypothetic wood bonfire? In the WFC, you are essentially loosening orbits of electrons which hold the oxygen and hydrogen atoms together magnetically. The weakening of these covenant bonds creates perfectly charge water plasma, and is initial explosive once ignited, but much more implosive. You are using the water as a fuel, and it’s a perfectly renewable fuel that comes form water and forms water once combusted and is very safe to use because the gas is created on demand and is implosive in nature when burned.
The water fuel cell is the ideal energy source that, once combined with another Stan Meyer invention – the electron extraction circuit, or the EEC (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clafqu0Xw6E), we can easily supply the world energy grid with clean, non polluting energy, and can be installed nationally with one 1—20 years –and have much more energy to spare. The water fuel cell, in combination with the EEC, coal and gas power plants can be retrofitted to use water as the fuel, and establish the wide distributed energy grid, but residents and other private entities can generate their own energy to sell to the market and profit from, thus strengthening the reliability of the national and global energy grid. The Water Fuel Cell and EEC take care of the Second prong of America’s energy plan (Alternative Energy Commercial Development). The first prong – Conservation Mandates, can be easily implemented on all car and truck manufacturers in the form of the GEET device, (see: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Geet/) and (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p99Eb7Pstjg) Mass producing automobiles with the GEET, and modifying existing vehicles, coupled with standardizing fuel standards to conform to the GEET optimally, should be the first priority in the second prong of America’s energy independence strategy, and war on global warming. This technology can be implemented immediately onto automobiles for increased efficiencies’ (40-50% in most cases), and with ZERO carbon emissions. The device seems to tap into unknown natural energy sources by creating a plasma gas via the exhaust/intake catalytic converter.
The Water fuel cell looks like the optimal energy choice for both electrical and transportation needs, and therefore can satisfy both strategies (prongs) of America’s Energy Independence and Global Warming Mitigation Plan. But the GEET device can be retrofitted more easily into vehicles, than trying to modify an IC engine to run off of pure HHO gas. To do this, the IC engine must be designed to burn the HHO gas from the outset. However, it may also be possible to merge an HHO generator with the GEET and petroleum, and create even more efficiencies than the 50% improvements shown using the GEET alone.
For energy production, the water fuel cell can be scaled first for residential use, and can provide 100KW or more of steady to power, which can be sold back to the energy grid for profit. Such systems could pay for themselves within a year, and help serve to stabilize the faltering electrical grid with reserve energy, while the coal and natural gas and nuclear power plants are retrofitted to use the water fuel cell technology coupled with the EEC (Electron extraction circuit). Scaling up large power plants can be implemented simultaneously as the decentralization and strengthening of the electrical grid with additional private generation, and can be made tohappen even more easily, thanks to the many states that have deregulated their energy markets. With the addition of the EEC to the water fuel cell, each gallon of water can produce the energy equivalent of 2.5 million barrels of oil. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clafqu0Xw6E).
To demonstrate such a residential system, please click on the illustration or this link to see a PDF file, which contains hyperlinks to vendors and other developers of such technology. Just click on the component you wish to learn more about, and a web link will open to explain it further:
There are also two narrated videos explaining the schematic.
Residential Water Fuel Cell Energy System (1 of 2 on YouTube)
Let’s not wait for industry to change on its own. We need to demand form our elected officials to implemented such a plan right away, and do everything they can to support such technology and integrated plan.
Contact your state representatives today and send the message!