Re: [LAD] OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
5 Aug
2008
5 Aug
'08
8:09 a.m.
Quoting Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com>om>:
Ouch. The blog is just keeping track of recent
developments that have
been made that use water as a source of fuel.
You're right that hydrogen is the actual power source but as hydrogen is
very nicely and efficiently compressed into water it make sense to call
water a fuel.
If you look through the archives you will see that there are people
running motors with water. Straight out of a bottle and run through this
new circuit that you label childish with enough power to charge a piston
and spin a rotor.
What bothered me about these experiments that there was absolutely no
description of what they were doing.
You've been able to run cars on hydrogen for decades:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM
"Enough power to charge a piston and spin a rotor"? Where is that power
coming from exactly? If you use water as the fuel, you need an alternative
energy source to extract the oxygen and hydrogen. By the laws of
thermophysics, you will need _more_ energy to do the extraction than what
you will get from burning the hydrogen (as burning hydrogen is the exact
opposite reaction).
If they would actually be using water as a fuel for an internal combustion
engine - they would have invented a perpetual motion device as their exhaust
would be the same stuff as their fuel. And we all know that's not possible,
right?
What they are doing is electric motor conversion using hydrogen as a medium
to use old style engines. I guess that has it's uses. That seems to be what
the company Jack Nicholson was promoting was trying to do.
The people doing the research and experimentation are
doing it open
source style with limited funding and resources usually in the garage at
home. It may look unprofessional at first glance but if you look deeper
you will see there is some very professional work being achieved.
Don't get me wrong. I want nothing more than get rid of our dependency on
gasoline and other fossil fuels and have non polluting options.
I'd like more details than videos of bubbling canisters and "exposions".
Open Source means, open source, I just see videos and no explanation to what
they are doing and _how_. Without explanations the videos look like playing
around with dangerous things (electricity, hydrogen) for no good reason.
The MIT stuff is way cool though. That looks like it could (and should)
change the way we power our lives. But that's using solar energy as the
energy store, using water as a battery and hydrogen as a fuel.
I'll try to stop now.
Sampo "OT" Savolainen
5 Aug
5 Aug
8:27 a.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 13:09 +0300, Sampo Savolainen wrote:
Thanks for this feedback. I will try to provide more details. The blog
is only a couple of weeks old so there is still lots of room for
improvement.
Quoting Patrick Shirkey
<pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com>om>:
According to one resource the first ever piston engine was run on
hydrogen as oil hadn't been discovered when it was built back in the 17
hundreds. I haven't verified this claim though it does seem plausible.
There were also perfectly good electric cars manufactured by ford in the
1920's that were eventually taken out of production apparently because
there wasn't enough demand.
Ouch. The blog is just keeping track of recent
developments that have
been made that use water as a source of fuel.
You're right that hydrogen is the actual power source but as hydrogen is
very nicely and efficiently compressed into water it make sense to call
water a fuel.
If you look through the archives you will see that there are people
running motors with water. Straight out of a bottle and run through this
new circuit that you label childish with enough power to charge a piston
and spin a rotor.
What bothered me about these experiments that there was absolutely no
description of what they were doing.
You've been able to run cars on hydrogen for decades:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM
"Enough power to charge a piston and spin a rotor"? Where is that power
coming from exactly? If you use water as the fuel, you need an alternative
energy source to extract the oxygen and hydrogen. By the laws of
thermophysics, you will need _more_ energy to do the extraction than what
you will get from burning the hydrogen (as burning hydrogen is the exact
opposite reaction).
If they would actually be using water as a fuel for an internal combustion
engine - they would have invented a perpetual motion device as their exhaust
would be the same stuff as their fuel. And we all know that's not possible,
right?
No one is claiming the over unity prize yet. What they have found is a
way to instantly split a water atom and burn the hydrogen at the same
time. It's clearly a very revolutionary concept and appears at first
glance to go against the 2nd law of physics. But there is more to it
than that and the details are only just emerging. However several people
have claimed they understand what is going on and that it is perfectly
within the laws. I'm not at that point yet but I will make a concerted
effort to understand it so that I can post it on the blog to save others
some time.
What they are doing is electric motor conversion using hydrogen as a medium
to use old style engines. I guess that has it's uses. That seems to be what
the company Jack Nicholson was promoting was trying to do.
This is slightly different but along the same lines. In this case there
is no need to store hydrogen as it can be instantly extracted from water
using this new circuit.
The people
doing the research and experimentation are doing it open
source style with limited funding and resources usually in the garage at
home. It may look unprofessional at first glance but if you look deeper
you will see there is some very professional work being achieved.
Don't get me wrong. I want nothing more than get rid of our dependency on
gasoline and other fossil fuels and have non polluting options.
I'd like more details than videos of bubbling canisters and "exposions".
Open Source means, open source, I just see videos and no explanation to what
they are doing and _how_. Without explanations the videos look like playing
around with dangerous things (electricity, hydrogen) for no good reason.
The MIT stuff is way cool though. That looks like it
could (and should)
change the way we power our lives. But that's using solar energy as the
energy store, using water as a battery and hydrogen as a fuel.
I'll try to stop now.
Sampo "OT" Savolainen
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
8:59 a.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Le 5 août 08 à 12:28, Patrick Shirkey a écrit :
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 13:09 +0300, Sampo Savolainen
wrote:
Thanks for this feedback. I will try to provide more details. The blog
is only a couple of weeks old so there is still lots of room for
improvement.
"Yet another miracle solution for the energy problem that nodoby ever
found before or maybe *they* already found but just kept it
secret..." that obviously contradict the " 2nd law of physics."... or
maybe even another one??
Are you sure this "stupid" OT discussion should be continued on this
list?
Stephane
Quoting Patrick Shirkey
<pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com>om>:
According to one resource the first ever piston engine was run on
hydrogen as oil hadn't been discovered when it was built back in
the 17
hundreds. I haven't verified this claim though it does seem plausible.
There were also perfectly good electric cars manufactured by ford
in the
1920's that were eventually taken out of production apparently because
there wasn't enough demand.
Ouch. The blog is just keeping track of recent
developments that
have
been made that use water as a source of fuel.
You're right that hydrogen is the actual power source but as
hydrogen is
very nicely and efficiently compressed into water it make sense
to call
water a fuel.
If you look through the archives you will see that there are people
running motors with water. Straight out of a bottle and run
through this
new circuit that you label childish with enough power to charge a
piston
and spin a rotor.
What bothered me about these experiments that there was absolutely no
description of what they were doing.
You've been able to run cars on hydrogen for decades:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM
"Enough power to charge a piston and spin a rotor"? Where is that
power
coming from exactly? If you use water as the fuel, you need an
alternative
energy source to extract the oxygen and hydrogen. By the laws of
thermophysics, you will need _more_ energy to do the extraction
than what
you will get from burning the hydrogen (as burning hydrogen is the
exact
opposite reaction).
If they would actually be using water as a fuel for an internal
combustion
engine - they would have invented a perpetual motion device as
their exhaust
would be the same stuff as their fuel. And we all know that's not
possible,
right?
No one is claiming the over unity prize yet. What they have found is a
way to instantly split a water atom and burn the hydrogen at the same
time. It's clearly a very revolutionary concept and appears at first
glance to go against the 2nd law of physics. But there is more to it
than that and the details are only just emerging. However several
people
have claimed they understand what is going on and that it is perfectly
within the laws. I'm not at that point yet but I will make a concerted
effort to understand it so that I can post it on the blog to save
others
some time.
What they are doing is electric motor conversion using hydrogen as
a medium
to use old style engines. I guess that has it's uses. That seems
to be what
the company Jack Nicholson was promoting was trying to do.
This is slightly different but along the same lines. In this case
there
is no need to store hydrogen as it can be instantly extracted from
water
using this new circuit.
The
people doing the research and experimentation are doing it open
source style with limited funding and resources usually in the
garage at
home. It may look unprofessional at first glance but if you look
deeper
you will see there is some very professional work being achieved.
Don't get me wrong. I want nothing more than get rid of our
dependency on
gasoline and other fossil fuels and have non polluting options.
I'd like more details than videos of bubbling canisters and
"exposions".
Open Source means, open source, I just see videos and no
explanation to what
they are doing and _how_. Without explanations the videos look
like playing
around with dangerous things (electricity, hydrogen) for no good
reason.
The MIT stuff is way cool though. That looks like
it could (and
should)
change the way we power our lives. But that's using solar energy
as the
energy store, using water as a battery and hydrogen as a fuel.
I'll try to stop now.
Sampo "OT" Savolainen
9:05 a.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 12:59 +0200, Stéphane Letz wrote:
"Yet another miracle solution for the energy
problem that nodoby ever
found before or maybe *they* already found but just kept it
secret..." that obviously contradict the " 2nd law of physics."... or
maybe even another one??
Are you sure this "stupid" OT discussion should be continued on this
list?
It doesn't contradict any laws.
Simply put hydrogen can be used to run a car. Water is a very efficient
storage medium of hydrogen and there are recent developments which allow
hydrogen to be instantly split from water and used to run an engine.
Definitely off topic but probably not stupid.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
9:23 a.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
If you want a hydrogen car, you can visit tokyo and lease one from Mazda
whenever you like.
http://gas2.org/2008/06/20/mazdas-new-premacy-hydrogen-hybrid-rotary-engine…
Hydrogen engines have been in testing and protype production since the
80s by BMW and Mazda.. They're already here. If you wanted to modify a
mazda renesis crate motor to run hydrogen, all youd need to do is plumb
a hydrogen direct injector into the periphery of the chamber, connect a
megasquirt ECU and a wideband O2 sensor, fire it up and tune it. I don't
know if its been done before outside Mazda, but youd get plenty of help
on the megasquirt forums if you were serious.
This doesnt belong on this list, and it is stupid to discuss it here.
There are far more appropriate forums.
Definitely off topic but probably not stupid.
9:39 a.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 23:23 +1200, Pete Black wrote:
If you want a hydrogen car, you can visit tokyo and
lease one from Mazda
whenever you like.
http://gas2.org/2008/06/20/mazdas-new-premacy-hydrogen-hybrid-rotary-engine…
Interesting link. There is another company in Japan that is releasing a
purely hydrogen run car with no gasoline requirements. The fuel is
water, which is then converted to hydrogen gas via electrolysis and
burnt piped into the engine...
Hydrogen engines have been in testing and protype
production since the
80s by BMW and Mazda.. They're already here. If you wanted to modify a
mazda renesis crate motor to run hydrogen, all youd need to do is plumb
a hydrogen direct injector into the periphery of the chamber, connect a
megasquirt ECU and a wideband O2 sensor, fire it up and tune it. I don't
know if its been done before outside Mazda, but youd get plenty of help
on the megasquirt forums if you were serious.
There are several companies that provide conversion kits for any car to
run on hydrogen gas.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
11:40 a.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 23:23 +1200, Pete Black wrote:
You mention repeatedly mention that water is an efficient transportation
form of hydrogen. While you are right, it is rather irrelevant. You
don't want to transport water or hydrogen, you want to transport
people/goods/... . You need energy to do this transport. Hence you have
to carry along energy, whatever from it may have.
The problem is that water is a very low-energetic form of hydrogen. In
order to convert it into the high-energetic H2 form you have to provide
at least the energy difference between the two forms. So what I don't
understand in this story is where that energy comes from? Since
electrolysis uses electricity, it probably means carrying along batteries.
Which leads me to the next surprise... why one would bother to carry
along a battery to provide power for the electrolysis to then use the
resulting gasses to drive an inferior combustion engine. If you carry
along electrical energy anyway, why not use it to drive an electrical
engine? They are far more efficient than a combustion engine.
Some thoughts for the masses,
Pieter
If you want a hydrogen car, you can visit tokyo
and lease one from Mazda
whenever you like.
http://gas2.org/2008/06/20/mazdas-new-premacy-hydrogen-hybrid-rotary-engine…
Interesting link. There is another company in Japan that is releasing a
purely hydrogen run car with no gasoline requirements. The fuel is
water, which is then converted to hydrogen gas via electrolysis and
burnt piped into the engine...
12:04 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Pieter Palmers wrote:
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
In most places water is fairly easy to come by as you only have to wait
for the rain or go to a lake/ocean whereas electricity is slightly more
complex to attain and usually requires payment for the privilege.
If you can burn water directly without having to extract the hydrogen
first then you can utilize it in much the same way we currently use
petrol. i'e once you start the car you will be providing enough energy
to keep the engine running. It's a very efficient form of energy
extraction compared to current standards.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 23:23 +1200, Pete Black
wrote:
You mention repeatedly mention that water is an efficient
transportation form of hydrogen. While you are right, it is rather
irrelevant. You don't want to transport water or hydrogen, you want to
transport people/goods/... . You need energy to do this transport.
Hence you have to carry along energy, whatever from it may have.
The problem is that water is a very low-energetic form of hydrogen. In
order to convert it into the high-energetic H2 form you have to
provide at least the energy difference between the two forms. So what
I don't understand in this story is where that energy comes from?
Since electrolysis uses electricity, it probably means carrying along
batteries.
Which leads me to the next surprise... why one would bother to carry
along a battery to provide power for the electrolysis to then use the
resulting gasses to drive an inferior combustion engine. If you carry
along electrical energy anyway, why not use it to drive an electrical
engine? They are far more efficient than a combustion engine.
Some thoughts for the masses, If you want a hydrogen car, you can visit tokyo
and lease one from
Mazda whenever you like.
http://gas2.org/2008/06/20/mazdas-new-premacy-hydrogen-hybrid-rotary-engine…
Interesting link. There is another company in Japan that is releasing a
purely hydrogen run car with no gasoline requirements. The fuel is
water, which is then converted to hydrogen gas via electrolysis and
burnt piped into the engine... 
12:26 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Klaus Kosten wrote:
Patrick Shirkey schrieb:
Oh. Please explain your angle here or are you just trolling?
This should be a good test of the validity of the videos on my blog that
show people exploding water to run their engines.
Exploding/burning water has been done and it is definitely absolutely
possible. If after watching the videos you still think it is impossible
that so many people from different parts of the world are able to
replicate the circuit and literally explode water then I would love to
hear your opinion as it will give me another topic for my blog.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
If you can burn water directly
then you have some really severe problems with thermodynamics.
12:38 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Am Dienstag, 5. August 2008 schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
Klaus Kosten wrote:
Burning something means breaking up its molecular connection (there is no
water atom!, just a water molecule) and connect at least one participant with
oxygen. Burning water would mean breaking up the H2O to form H2O. Even if
that works spontaneous (only with a catalyst) it takes as much energy as it
gives. So it is rather pointless for driving something. Unless you push
energy into the reaction somehow. And everyone in this thread is asking you
what is providing that energy, how you transport it and (in the case of
electricity) why you don't use that energy directly instead of going the H2O
route...
Arnold
PS: I got my physics diploma today (similar to the master of science)...
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
Patrick Shirkey schrieb:
Oh. Please explain your angle
here or are you just trolling?
This should be a good test of the validity of the videos on my blog that
show people exploding water to run their engines.
Exploding/burning water has been done and it is definitely absolutely
possible. If after watching the videos you still think it is impossible
that so many people from different parts of the world are able to
replicate the circuit and literally explode water then I would love to
hear your opinion as it will give me another topic for my blog. If you can burn water directly
then you
have some really severe problems with thermodynamics.
12:54 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Arnold Krille wrote:
Am Dienstag, 5. August 2008 schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
I don't have a physics degree. I don't know exactly how the circuit works.
What I have ascertained from watching the videos of people demonstrating
the effect is that water can be exploded and the energy that is released
can be used to turn a rotor on an engine.
If you haven't had time to get through the approximately 50 videos that
are already on the blog here are some video links here that show the
phenomenon in action:
Detailed circuit explanation and demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMELbK8zDQ
Motorbike engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUv6M0N6z4
Burning water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bWZR52DINc
Lawnmower engine:
This guy has also modified his camino which he claims to have driven
30,000 miles on only water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBCl3OdM9Y4
Jumping marble demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_yn0AOUnOU
Alternatively you can view the Fundamentals section on my blog to see
all these videos and more...
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
Klaus Kosten wrote:
Burning something means breaking up its molecular connection (there is no
water atom!, just a water molecule) and connect at least one participant with
oxygen. Burning water would mean breaking up the H2O to form H2O. Even if
that works spontaneous (only with a catalyst) it takes as much energy as it
gives. So it is rather pointless for driving something. Unless you push
energy into the reaction somehow. And everyone in this thread is asking you
what is providing that energy, how you transport it and (in the case of
electricity) why you don't use that energy directly instead of going the H2O
route...
Arnold
PS: I got my physics diploma today (similar to the master of science)...
Patrick Shirkey schrieb:
Oh. Please explain your angle here or are you just trolling?
This should be a good test of the validity of the videos on my blog that
show people exploding water to run their engines.
Exploding/burning water has been done and it is definitely absolutely
possible. If after watching the videos you still think it is impossible
that so many people from different parts of the world are able to
replicate the circuit and literally explode water then I would love to
hear your opinion as it will give me another topic for my blog.
If you can burn water directly
then you have some really severe problems with thermodynamics.
1:17 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Patrick Shirkey, mused, then expounded:
What I have ascertained from watching the videos of people demonstrating
the effect is that water can be exploded and the energy that is released
can be used to turn a rotor on an engine.
If I may suggest, surf over to - http://www.theoildrum.com/ for a
serious lesson on energy, because Hydrogen is not a fuel, in the
traditional sense - it's a synthethic fuel. It requires fuel
natural gas or electricity to create it.
While they have a very nice search function, perhaps the place to start
is - http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/4077
Title - Weekend Energy Listening: The H2 Economy vs the Electron Economy
Gee, I got lucky. Something that ties this list in with the topic.
Bob
-
1:59 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Bob Sanders wrote:
Patrick Shirkey, mused, then expounded:
Or as MIT researchers have just proven it just needs a little bit of
sunlight to split hydrogen from water. Could it be that physicists have
been missing a critical proponent of molecular bonding of water for the
past couple hundred years and that recent research has filled in a gap
in the knowledge base? Could it even be possible that we don't actually
know everything about the machinations of the universe and there is
knowledge that we could be learning in this next century that will make
considerable differences to the laws that we know already?
What I have ascertained from watching the videos
of people demonstrating
the effect is that water can be exploded and the energy that is released
can be used to turn a rotor on an engine.
If I may suggest, surf over to - http://www.theoildrum.com/ for a
serious lesson on energy, because Hydrogen is not a fuel, in the
traditional sense - it's a synthethic fuel. It requires fuel
natural gas or electricity to create it.
While they have a very nice search function, perhaps
the place to start
is - http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/4077
Title - Weekend Energy Listening: The H2 Economy vs the Electron Economy
Gee, I got lucky. Something that ties this list in with the topic.
Bob
-
Interesting interview. What he made clear is that we need multiple
energy sources. My blog is focused on water as the source and hydrogen
gas is a possible part of the solution. What I'm mostly interested in is
this electrical circuit which can be used to instantly create an
explosion from water. That seems like a very useful solution if current
engines can be converted to use the circuit...
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
2:34 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Patrick Shirkey, mused, then expounded:
And you continue to ignore the issue of EROEI - Energy Return on Energy
Invested. Any internal combustion engine has a very low efficiency,
regardless of the source of fuel. At best, an internal combustion
engine can manage 35% efficiency. In a world of decreasing power per
human, the lack of efficiency will kill the majority of these engines.
I can tell you're very fascinated with this and that's fine on an
individual scale. But on a commercial scale it's a dead-end. Hydrogen
is a dead end.
And, as others have mentioned, water is getting hard to come by. Just ask
the people in India and Pakastan, or ask the folks in the Southeast USA.
Or the farmers in the Midwest of the USA. Wasting water to move your
butt from one place to another is close to criminal when supplies are
dwindling. But then the vast majority of the USA wastes water keeping
worthless, mono-culture lawns alive, so it's hard to say using it for
fuel is worse.
BTW - without water, one can't run coal or nuclear power plants which
require significant water for cooling. And without power, there won't
be any pumps delivering water to the taps so you can fill up your car.
As for water from the Arctic...if all that melts, which includes
Greenland, along with the Western Antarctic ice sheet, better make
sure your home is well above the current sea level. At least 25 ft
(7.62M) above.
Bob
-
Bob Sanders wrote:
The MIT work as reported is not the panacea that the media made it
out to be. Plus it's not known whether it's practical outside of
a lab. Practical in the sense of commercial production. Much
more work needs to be done.
Patrick Shirkey, mused, then expounded:
Or as MIT researchers have just proven it just needs a little bit of
sunlight to split hydrogen from water. Could it be that physicists have
been missing a critical proponent of molecular bonding of water for the
past couple hundred years and that recent research has filled in a gap
in the knowledge base? Could it even be possible that we don't actually
know everything about the machinations of the universe and there is
knowledge that we could be learning in this next century that will make
considerable differences to the laws that we know already?
What I have ascertained from watching the videos
of people demonstrating
the effect is that water can be exploded and the energy that is released
can be used to turn a rotor on an engine.
If I may suggest, surf over to - http://www.theoildrum.com/ for a
serious lesson on energy, because Hydrogen is not a fuel, in the
traditional sense - it's a synthethic fuel. It requires fuel
natural gas or electricity to create it.
While they
have a very nice search function, perhaps the place to start
is - http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/4077
Title - Weekend Energy Listening: The H2 Economy vs the Electron Economy
Gee, I got lucky. Something that ties this list in with the topic.
Bob
-
Interesting interview. What he made clear is that we need multiple
energy sources. My blog is focused on water as the source and hydrogen
gas is a possible part of the solution. What I'm mostly interested in is
this electrical circuit which can be used to instantly create an
explosion from water. That seems like a very useful solution if current
engines can be converted to use the circuit...
1:08 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was:?Re:?Car?engine?sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas??]
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 04:38:14PM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
PS: I got my physics diploma today (similar to the
master of science)...
It shows ! Congratulations !
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
12:46 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:24:05PM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Exploding/burning water has been done and it is
definitely absolutely
possible. If after watching the videos you still think it is impossible
that so many people from different parts of the world are able to
replicate the circuit and literally explode water then I would love to
hear your opinion as it will give me another topic for my blog.
Well, a nice topic would be how we've arrived at the quite
alarming situation that there are people who believe something
because they've seen a video of it, and who have apparently lost
all sense of even the most elementary criticism. Act like that,
and you'll be the cherished victim of marketeers, preachers,
dictators, and all other sort of confidence tricksters.
To what level of stupidity have are we falling ?
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
1:03 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
On Tuesday 05 August 2008, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:24:05PM +0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
First off, this whole thread is absolutely off topic, second off, there seems
to be a serious gap between what some folks believe and TANSTAAFL.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
"Your stupidity, Allen, is simply not up to par."
-- Dave Mack (mack(a)inco.UUCP)
"Yours is."
-- Allen Gwinn (allen(a)sulaco.sigma.com), in alt.flame
Exploding/burning water has been done and it is
definitely absolutely
possible. If after watching the videos you still think it is impossible
that so many people from different parts of the world are able to
replicate the circuit and literally explode water then I would love to
hear your opinion as it will give me another topic for my blog.
Well, a nice topic would be how we've arrived at the quite
alarming situation that there are people who believe something
because they've seen a video of it, and who have apparently lost
all sense of even the most elementary criticism. Act like that,
and you'll be the cherished victim of marketeers, preachers,
dictators, and all other sort of confidence tricksters.
To what level of stupidity have are we falling ?
Ciao,
1:11 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 August 2008, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
So should we only be interested in this kind of stuff if it comes from a
reputable mega corporation or institute of higher learning affiliated
and funded by said reputable mega corp?
If you don't watch the videos then you should not comment on the
validity of the results.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:24:05PM +0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
First off, this whole thread is absolutely off topic, second off, there seems
to be a serious gap between what some folks believe and TANSTAAFL.
Exploding/burning water has been done and it is
definitely absolutely
possible. If after watching the videos you still think it is impossible
that so many people from different parts of the world are able to
replicate the circuit and literally explode water then I would love to
hear your opinion as it will give me another topic for my blog.
Well, a nice topic would be how we've arrived at the quite
alarming situation that there are people who believe something
because they've seen a video of it, and who have apparently lost
all sense of even the most elementary criticism. Act like that,
and you'll be the cherished victim of marketeers, preachers,
dictators, and all other sort of confidence tricksters.
To what level of stupidity have are we falling ?
Ciao,
2:01 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:08:59PM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
So should we only be interested in this kind of stuff
if it comes from a
reputable mega corporation
No. But this provides some insight in why you want to believe
this: because it's not coming from that angle but 'alternative'.
In both cases you just blindly believe on 'authority'. Which is
of course very comforting if you desperately want something to
believe in this bad world, and it's why many people are religious.
or institute of higher learning
In that case you're never asked to believe something on
the basis of some video, or on authority. If it's science,
it will build on previous results that have been verified,
usually over and over, and that are logically consistent.
You can, with some effort, learn these things and verify
them for yourself. Science was 'open source' before the
term existed - it's the essence of it.
affiliated and funded by said reputable mega corp?
Private funding of scientific research is a problem, but
does not invalidate it as long as it follows the rules
of science.
If you don't watch the videos then you should not
comment
on the validity of the results.
Why not ? The accumulated body of knowledge of physics,
of which I know some parts, and some others on this list
probably a lot more, weights in much more heavy than a
video. If I send you a video on which you see my head
turning 720 degrees while my shoulders remain fixed,
would you believe it ? Maybe you would, starting from
the idea that anatomy and medical science must be evil,
since the latter is funded by some large private firms ?
Anyway, nobody is contesting the videos. You can make
water explode (done it myself), as you can make explode
anything you want, by putting enough energy in it.
That doesn't mean the water provides any energy. In
other words these videos are completely irrelevant.
Is there any of them in which the experimenters
provide a calculated or measured balance of the
energy they put in and what comes out ? If not
they are just amusement.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
2:20 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Well if you said that your head could spin and you stayed alive it would
take a bit of convincing but if many people all over the world said the
same thing and had video evidence for it then we would have something to
look into.
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:08:59PM +0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
No. I just don't believe that all scientific breakthroughs have to be
discovered by someone with a university or mega corp backing them. In
much the same way that I don't think all useful software has to be
developed in the same circumstances.
So should we only be interested in this kind of
stuff if it comes from a
reputable mega corporation
No. But this provides some insight in why you want to believe
this: because it's not coming from that angle but 'alternative'.
In both cases you just blindly believe on 'authority'. Which is
of course very comforting if you desperately want something to
believe in this bad world, and it's why many people are religious.
or institute
of higher learning
In that case you're never asked to believe something on
the basis of some video, or on authority. If it's science,
it will build on previous results that have been verified,
usually over and over, and that are logically consistent.
You can, with some effort, learn these things and verify
them for yourself. Science was 'open source' before the
term existed - it's the essence of it.
affiliated and funded by said reputable mega
corp?
Private funding of scientific research is a problem, but
does not invalidate it as long as it follows the rules
of science.
If you don't watch the videos then you should
not comment
on the validity of the results.
Why not ? The accumulated body of knowledge of physics,
of which I know some parts, and some others on this list
probably a lot more, weights in much more heavy than a
video. If I send you a video on which you see my head
turning 720 degrees while my shoulders remain fixed,
would you believe it ? Maybe you would, starting from
the idea that anatomy and medical science must be evil,
since the latter is funded by some large private firms ?
Anyway, nobody is contesting the videos. You can make
water explode (done it myself), as you can make explode
anything you want, by putting enough energy in it.
That doesn't mean the water provides any energy. In
other words these videos are completely irrelevant.
Is there any of them in which the experimenters
provide a calculated or measured balance of the
energy they put in and what comes out ? If not
they are just amusement.
Ciao,
They are measuring the amount of energy that is required and reporting
back significant results that go against conventional understanding. As
in it is possible to get the explosion using just a standard car battery
with this specific circuit. Hence there are some people who are
reporting that they are already driving around in cars that run on water
and other people are in the process of validating the claims themselves.
Perhaps it is all a hoax though. That would be quite clever to get so
many people involved.
If you seriously believe that the current knowledge base of accepted
science within the energy industry doesn't include suppressing
information for political and financial gain then I would have to
question your sanity as much as you question mine.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
2:48 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 11:17:46PM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
They are measuring the amount of energy that is
required and reporting back
significant results that go against conventional understanding.
If that's the case, provide a link to scientific report or paper
containing these results. That, at least, would be somehting
that can be examined, and proven right or wrong. Having your results
examinded by others is at the core of how science works. A video is
useless for that.
As to the surpression of scientific research: they can't even keep
the nuclear science required to make weapons secret, even if there
are big international agencies, treaties, etc. etc. that try and
do this.
The way to keep things of the market (for financial purposes) is to
buy the exclusive rights to patents and then not use them, something
quite different. It doesn't stop scientific research.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
8:02 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Exploding/burning water has been done and it is
definitely absolutely
possible.
Sure. Getting net energy from that is the hard part. :)
Reminds me of a story by Stanislaw Lem where Prof. Tarantoga is visited
by one of those crackpots who's invented a perpetuum mobile, claiming
that it's a real device. He keeps on turning the handle on that thing,
"See, it's working! I don't have to turn the handle, just ignore that,
it would work anyway!" Hilarious. Anyone else know that story?
So what's next? Quadrature of the circle? P=NP? Proof of the Riemann
hypothesis?
--
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email: Dr.Graef(a)t-online.de, ag(a)muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de
WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag
8:54 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:35:10PM +0200, Albert Graef wrote:
Reminds me of a story by Stanislaw Lem where Prof.
Tarantoga is visited
by one of those crackpots who's invented a perpetuum mobile, claiming
that it's a real device. He keeps on turning the handle on that thing,
"See, it's working! I don't have to turn the handle, just ignore that,
it would work anyway!" Hilarious. Anyone else know that story?
I know a real one, who has plagued me during most of the 20 years
or so that I've been living in Antwerp - I made the fatal mistake
to go into discussion with him once in the beginning of that period.
Went as far as ringing my doorbell in the middle of the night.
During all that time, his plans (well drawn, almost art), never
changed. The basic idea was somoe complex closed stucture that
expanded its volume under increasing water pressure.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
7 Aug
7 Aug
8:33 a.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
On Tuesday 05 August 2008, Albert Graef wrote:
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Yep, i have it in a collection of his radio plays called "Mondnacht" (german
translated title). There are other nice stories in there.. Like the one where
Tarantoga has devised a machine for instant travelling and they visit
(Tarantoga and his assistant) strange places in the unmistakable Lem-Style
(e.g. they meet The Creator and he admits to have created humans by accident
because he failed to stir the starmush continously, so it burnt which lead to
proteins and thus to human life) :)
Regards,
Flo
P.S.: I once planned to read all of Lem's fiction. Haven't quite got through
yet. Too many papers and textbooks to read in the evenings ATM..
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://tapas.affenbande.org
Exploding/burning water has been done and it is
definitely absolutely
possible.
Sure. Getting net energy from that is the hard part. :)
Reminds me of a story by Stanislaw Lem where Prof. Tarantoga is visited
by one of those crackpots who's invented a perpetuum mobile, claiming
that it's a real device. He keeps on turning the handle on that thing,
"See, it's working! I don't have to turn the handle, just ignore that,
it would work anyway!" Hilarious. Anyone else know that story?
5 Aug
5 Aug
12:37 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:01:55PM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
In most places water is fairly easy to come by as you
only have to wait
for the rain or go to a lake/ocean whereas electricity is slightly more
complex to attain and usually requires payment for the privilege.
Are we living on the same planet ? In most places water supply will
become as big a problem as petrol supply.
If you can burn water directly without having to
extract the hydrogen
first
But you can't since it is already 'burned'. It's the 'ashes'
of burning hydrogen.
once you start the car you will be providing enough
energy
to keep the engine running
Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh ! The perpetuum mobile again....
What sort of waste does this produce ? Water ? Any
different from the one you have to put in ?
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
1:02 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Am Dienstag, 5. August 2008 schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:01:55PM +0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
And the fun thing as that this discussion is a perpetuum mobile itself.
Because from asking how it works we get "see the videos" from which we ask
how it works...
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
once you start the car you will be providing
enough energy
to keep the engine running
Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh ! The perpetuum mobile again....
1:18 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
ahem, A water molecule is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.
Therefore separating the parts gives us two whole hydrogen atoms to
excite and extract energy from. I have read that Hydrogen is
approximately 10 times more unstable than gasoline and therefore you
need less of it to create the same amount of explosive force.
So how is this different from a car motor that runs on gasoline?
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:01:55PM +0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
Not once we melt the arctic and the antarctic. Then we will have lot's
of extra water all round ;-)
Anyway I don't see this issue as I live in a tropical part of the world
and have a big river 10 minutes walk away. Also the Ocean is only 2
hours drive away.
In most places water is fairly easy to come by as
you only have to wait
for the rain or go to a lake/ocean whereas electricity is slightly more
complex to attain and usually requires payment for the privilege.
Are we living on the same planet ? In most places water supply will
become as big a problem as petrol supply.
If you can
burn water directly without having to extract the hydrogen
first
But you can't since it is already 'burned'. It's the 'ashes'
of burning hydrogen.
once you start
the car you will be providing enough energy
to keep the engine running
Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh ! The perpetuum mobile
again....
What sort of waste does this produce ? Water ? Any
different from the one you have to put in ?
Not as far as I know but it doesn't recycle every millilitre so there is
eventual need to top up the reserves.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
1:39 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Am Dienstag, 5. August 2008 schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
ahem, A water molecule is two parts hydrogen and one part
oxygen.
Therefore separating the parts gives us two whole hydrogen atoms to
excite and extract energy from. I have read that Hydrogen is
approximately 10 times more unstable than gasoline and therefore you
need less of it to create the same amount of explosive force.
Yes. And splitting H2O to H2 + O takes at least as much energy as you get from
bunring the H2 to H2O! That is a fundamental law of the universe we live in!
So H2O is a good battery. But its not a fuel. And you need energy to split it
up so it burns. And in cars this energy is better used to directly drive a
motor, not only because you loose energy in the H2O -> H2 + O -> H2O -process
but also because the combustion engines have a bad effectiveness compared to
direct electrical motors.
The only reason why they try to develop hydrogen-cars is because it could be
easier to carry the hydrogen (note: not water but hydrogen) instead of big
chunky batteries...
Now back to my system-setup and music-making and maybe even working...
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Scientists aren't sure of that! Because ice has a lower density then water,
one volume-unit of ice is bigger than the same volume-unit of water. So if
the ice-caps melt and there is no ground underneath, just ice and water, it
might very well be that the sea-level goes down instead of up!
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:01:55PM +0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
Not once we melt the arctic and the
antarctic. Then we will have lot's
of extra water all round ;-) In most places water is fairly easy to come by as
you only have to wait
for the rain or go to a lake/ocean whereas electricity is slightly more
complex to attain and usually requires payment for the privilege.
Are we living on
the same planet ? In most places water supply will
become as big a problem as petrol supply. Anyway I don't see this issue as I live in a
tropical part of the world
and have a big river 10 minutes walk away. Also the Ocean is only 2
hours drive away.
Try to explain that to people in the middle of Africa, in the tundra, in the
Chinese landsite, heck, even here in germany there are regions that are
really dry compared to "big river 10 minutes away".
And you will notice that the water of the ocean is _not_ suitable for these
alternative engines per se. It needs to be cleaned and de-salted...
That is another reason why melting the icecaps doesn't help with the
water-needs: the water we get is salted.
If you can burn water directly without having to
extract the hydrogen
first
But you can't since it is already 'burned'. It's the
'ashes'
of burning hydrogen.
2:05 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Arnold Krille wrote:
Not really interested in that as I'm sure they will find alternatives
that are better suited to their environment.
ahem, A water molecule is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.
Therefore separating the parts gives us two whole hydrogen atoms to
excite and extract energy from. I have read that Hydrogen is
approximately 10 times more unstable than gasoline and therefore you
need less of it to create the same amount of explosive force.
Yes. And splitting H2O to H2 + O takes at least as much energy as you get from
bunring the H2 to H2O! That is a fundamental law of the universe we live in!
No one is denying that law. What has been found is that there is more
than one way to leverage the amount of energy required and it can be
done with very little current if the right circuit is used.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
Am Dienstag, 5. August 2008 schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
Oh, so all this talk of rising sea levels and islands in the pacific
already going under water is just being wasting time?
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Scientists aren't sure of that! Because ice has a lower density then water,
one volume-unit of ice is bigger than the same volume-unit of water. So if
the ice-caps melt and there is no ground underneath, just ice and water, it
might very well be that the sea-level goes down instead of up!
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:01:55PM +0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
Not once we melt the arctic and the antarctic. Then we will have lot's
of extra water all round ;-)
In most places water is fairly easy to come by as
you only have to wait
for the rain or go to a lake/ocean whereas electricity is slightly more
complex to attain and usually requires payment for the privilege.
Are we living on the same planet ? In most places water supply will
become as big a problem as petrol supply.
Anyway I
don't see this issue as I live in a tropical part of the world
and have a big river 10 minutes walk away. Also the Ocean is only 2
hours drive away.
Try to explain that to people in the middle of Africa, in the tundra, in the
Chinese landsite, heck, even here in germany there are regions that are
really dry compared to "big river 10 minutes away".
And you will notice that the water of the ocean is
_not_ suitable for these
alternative engines per se. It needs to be cleaned and de-salted...
That is another reason why melting the icecaps doesn't help with the
water-needs: the water we get is salted.
That's what is amazing about this circuit. It doesn't matter what
salinity the water is. In fact having some salt in the mix might even
make for more powerful explosions.
If you can
burn water directly without having to extract the hydrogen
first
But you can't since it is already 'burned'. It's the
'ashes'
of burning hydrogen.
3:13 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Am Dienstag, 5. August 2008 schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
Arnold Krille wrote:
No. I just said that one theory is that the sea-level will rise when the ice
melts. But another theory is that the sea-level will actually drop (while
there is more water in the liquid phase in the sea).
Its just that no one tested it yet wether actually melting the actual ice-caps
is going to rise or lower the sea level.
And even if you know the non-ice landscape both in the arctic and greenland,
you still have to calculate a lot of ice-volume against a lot of water-volume
to know which theory seems to be true..
Arnold
PS: Please don't CC me, I am subscribed...
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
Am Dienstag, 5. August 2008 schrieb Patrick
Shirkey:
Oh, so all this talk of rising sea levels and islands in the pacific
already going under water is just being wasting time? Not once we melt the arctic and the antarctic.
Then we will have lot's
of extra water all round ;-)
Scientists aren't sure of that! Because ice has a
lower density then
water, one volume-unit of ice is bigger than the same volume-unit of
water. So if the ice-caps melt and there is no ground underneath, just
ice and water, it might very well be that the sea-level goes down instead
of up! 
15 Aug
15 Aug
10:20 a.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Am 2008-08-05 23:02:46, schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
The only way to get Hydrogene is using the Sun, but it has the disavan-
tage, that you need very big installations...
I repeat: I get with an installation of 48 m³ over the year arround
2200 dm³ per day, which is NOT enough to power a Hydrogen Hi-Speed
Turbine which serv a 24V DC Light-Running Generator of 4,3kW over the
night.
If I get a new terrain in Germany, I like to increase the Installation
to arround 200 m² but maybe I will run into trouble with the
administration and the LBV (Landes BauVerordnung).
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
That's what is amazing about this circuit. It
doesn't matter what
salinity the water is. In fact having some salt in the mix might even
make for more powerful explosions.
Ehm what?
Make an experiment and try dyalysis on 1 dm³ of
clean water and one liter of sea-salted water.
It seems you have never done it.
Yes. And
splitting H2O to H2 + O takes at least as much energy as you get from
bunring the H2 to H2O! That is a fundamental law of the universe we live in!
No one is denying that law. What has been found is that there is more
than one way to leverage the amount of energy required and it can be
done with very little current if the right circuit is used.
10:20 a.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Am 2008-08-05 22:16:08, schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
Not once we melt the arctic and the antarctic. Then we
will have lot's
of extra water all round ;-)
Do you not think, that the Netherlands have something against?
ahem, A water molecule is two parts hydrogen and one
part oxygen.
Therefore separating the parts gives us two whole hydrogen atoms to
excite and extract energy from. I have read that Hydrogen is
approximately 10 times more unstable than gasoline and therefore you
need less of it to create the same amount of explosive force.
Sorry, but with my H/O spliter with 48 m³ I gaet over the year arround
2200 dm³ per hour which is not even evough to power a Light-Running
Hi-Speed Hydrogen-Turbine. The system is based on a study of the German
"University of Freiburg"...
If I read the messages from this thread, I can only smile.
(...or should I laughting/wineing?)
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
5 Aug
5 Aug
3:29 p.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Pieter Palmers wrote:
If one would be able to extract energy from "burning" water, you would
be right. However, given my science background, I seriously SERIOUSLY
doubt that this is possible. In fact I don't believe it.
From my point of view comparing burning petrol with "burning water"
illustrates a lack of fundamental understanding of chemistry and
physics. Personally, I would only defend statements like those you're
making if I'm VERY sure about them, and know what I'm talking about.
Simply to not make a fool of myself.
Nevertheless I am open for new ideas. It's just that the current
evidence is not convincing at all. Online video's don't provide the
information required to be able to tell whether these claims are
justified. And I'm not saying that these are lies, it's just that I
wonder whether everything is accounted for.
And while we're at the topic of the video's... They don't really give me
a lot of confidence due to the video's posted under the "It had to be
done..." headline. I'm sorry, but the following statement:
"Here’s a few vids of the mighty power of hydrogen explosions. Not an
endorsement of nuclear power but just a reference for anyone who is
doubting the energy contained in Hydrogen."
is ridiculous. It's not because that type of atomic bomb is called a
"hydrogen bomb" that it has anything to do with hydrogen as a power
source. The former is about splitting the hydrogen atom itself, the
latter is about splitting the bonds a hydrogen atom has with other
atoms. Mixing the two as if they are comparable is a very non-scientific
thing, since anybody that knows how these things work should know that
they are not comparable.
Greets,
Pieter
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
In most places water is fairly easy to come by as you only have to wait
for the rain or go to a lake/ocean whereas electricity is slightly more
complex to attain and usually requires payment for the privilege.
If you can burn water directly without having to extract the hydrogen
first then you can utilize it in much the same way we currently use
petrol. i'e once you start the car you will be providing enough energy
to keep the engine running. It's a very efficient form of energy
extraction compared to current standards. On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 23:23 +1200, Pete Black
wrote:
You mention repeatedly mention that water is an efficient
transportation form of hydrogen. While you are right, it is rather
irrelevant. You don't want to transport water or hydrogen, you want to
transport people/goods/... . You need energy to do this transport.
Hence you have to carry along energy, whatever from it may have.
The problem is that water is a very low-energetic form of hydrogen. In
order to convert it into the high-energetic H2 form you have to
provide at least the energy difference between the two forms. So what
I don't understand in this story is where that energy comes from?
Since electrolysis uses electricity, it probably means carrying along
batteries.
Which leads me to the next surprise... why one would bother to carry
along a battery to provide power for the electrolysis to then use the
resulting gasses to drive an inferior combustion engine. If you carry
along electrical energy anyway, why not use it to drive an electrical
engine? They are far more efficient than a combustion engine.
Some thoughts for the masses, If you want a hydrogen car, you can visit tokyo
and lease one from
Mazda whenever you like.
http://gas2.org/2008/06/20/mazdas-new-premacy-hydrogen-hybrid-rotary-engine…
Interesting link. There is another company in Japan that is releasing a
purely hydrogen run car with no gasoline requirements. The fuel is
water, which is then converted to hydrogen gas via electrolysis and
burnt piped into the engine... 
21 Aug
21 Aug
6:59 p.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
hi guys.
Pieter Palmers wrote:
I'm sorry, but the following statement:
"Here’s a few vids of the mighty power of hydrogen explosions. Not an
endorsement of nuclear power but just a reference for anyone who is
doubting the energy contained in Hydrogen."
is ridiculous. It's not because that type of atomic bomb is called a
"hydrogen bomb" that it has anything to do with hydrogen as a power
source. The former is about splitting the hydrogen atom itself, the
latter is about splitting the bonds a hydrogen atom has with other
atoms.
for the record, there is not much to split in a hydrogen atom (generally
it's just one proton, very rarely accompanied by one or two neutrons).
the principle behind the h bomb is fusion of hydrogen into heavier
elements, where the "activation energy" (i hope the term is applicable
here) comes from a previous nuclear fission explosion.
i guess more of those water exploders should venture in this direction -
if we could somehow keep the collateral damage at bay, it might raise
the average intelligence of our species considerably.
douglas adams has presented this weird idea of a super-powerful alien
species about to blast earth away to make room for a hyperspace bypass.
i always wonder: what arguments can we give those guys not to do it?
"hey, look, they've figured out the standard model, and they have
something called UNO, and OLPC!" - "yeah, maybe, but what about those
dorks doing videos on water combustion?" - "right. fire away."
ok, i'm currently in hospital and really REALLY bored. and probably
still under the residual influence of anaesthestics. just the perfect
mood to join a thread such as this.
btw, it might be even more efficient to use the mythical "hydrogen
stripping trick" on ethanol. you get five parts hydrogen in one go, and
if it doesn't work, you can at least get hammered.
--
jörn nettingsmeier
home://germany/45128 essen/lortzingstr. 11/
http://spunk.dnsalias.org
phone://+49/201/491621
Kurt is up in Heaven now.
8:37 p.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
and in case any of you are curious about the little green laptop and
you happen to be at the ICMC next Monday, come and
see it there at around 9:20 in the morning
http://www.icmc2008.net/programme/schedule/paper?type2=studio
I hope to be able to amuse you with a little talk...
Regards
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joern Nettingsmeier" <nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>
Cc: "The Linux Audio Developers' Mailing List"
<linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:59 PM
Subject: [LAD] joining the fun...
"hey, look, they've figured out the standard model, and they have
something called UNO, and OLPC!"
22 Aug
22 Aug
5:04 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:37:35PM +0100, victor wrote:
and in case any of you are curious about the little
green laptop and
you happen to be at the ICMC next Monday, come and
see it there at around 9:20 in the morning
http://www.icmc2008.net/programme/schedule/paper?type2=studio
I hope to be able to amuse you with a little talk...
Regards
Victor
Hi Victor,
Do you know if there are videos made of ICMC talks?
-Eric Rz.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
7:10 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
Am Donnerstag, 21. August 2008 schrieb Joern Nettingsmeier:
douglas adams has presented this weird idea of a
super-powerful alien
species about to blast earth away to make room for a hyperspace bypass.
i always wonder: what arguments can we give those guys not to do it?
"hey, look, they've figured out the standard model, and they have
something called UNO, and OLPC!" - "yeah, maybe, but what about those
dorks doing videos on water combustion?" - "right. fire away."
Irony is that the vogons might have stopped if they heard our worlds
literature before. :-P
Or that their bosses might have stopped the destruction if they knew that
the "answer" went down the toilette when the original earth population got
extinct and replaced by telephone-cleaners, video-journalists and the like...
Joern, have fun in the hospital and get well!
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
10:46 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
hi guys.
Pieter Palmers wrote:
/me crawls in a corner and
hides full of shame. Of course the H-bomb is
fusion. small atoms -> fusion. large atoms (plutonium) -> fission.
Sometimes it's better to shut up.
In any case, my error doesn't invalidate my point. I hope they are not
experimenting with fusion nor fission in their backyard.
Greets,
Pieter
I'm sorry, but the following statement:
"Here’s a few vids of the mighty power of hydrogen explosions. Not an
endorsement of nuclear power but just a reference for anyone who is
doubting the energy contained in Hydrogen."
is ridiculous. It's not because that type of atomic bomb is called a
"hydrogen bomb" that it has anything to do with hydrogen as a power
source. The former is about splitting the hydrogen atom itself, the
latter is about splitting the bonds a hydrogen atom has with other
atoms.
for the record, there is not much to split in a hydrogen atom (generally
it's just one proton, very rarely accompanied by one or two neutrons).
the principle behind the h bomb is fusion of hydrogen into heavier
elements, where the "activation energy" (i hope the term is applicable
here) comes from a previous nuclear fission explosion.
25 Aug
25 Aug
5:08 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
Pieter Palmers wrote:
Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
The reaction I got from some people on this list was quite a shock to
me. Now that I have had some time to process it here is what I would
like to add in my defence. This has nothing to do with the technical
merits of the topic that was discussed. I will leave that up to your
personal judgement. However I am slightly concerned at the closed
attitude that I was presented with by people I have worked with for over
ten years and found in general to be quite open minded about ideas that
may or may not be mainstream.
Libre Energy - The Open Source Paradigm
<http://yeswaterisfuel.com/?p=45>
When people think of free energy they tend to get immediately confused.
Obviously the first thing that comes to mind for anyone is “I can get
energy for free!!! That can’t be possible”. The “powers” that be have
definitely got us up against the wall when it comes to getting access to
energy resources. The next thing people think of when discussing the
possibility is that so many people have claimed they could create “free”
energy and they are always hoaxes or snake oil salesmen or often just
plain crazy paranoid schizophrenics. The last thing most people think of
if they even dare is that we have the opportunity to actually create
“Free” as in speech energy. Energy production and conversion technology
and resources that are publicly owned and not subject to patents and
corporate or governmental control.
One of the biggest problems that inventors of so called “Free” as in
beer energy in the past has been bringing the technology or concept to
market. There are several cases of gifted inventors and engineers who
had very credible technology that provided energy at a fraction of the
cost and greatly increased efficiency of currently widely used
technologies who were killed, bought off or shutdown and their
inventions and breakthroughs destroyed or locked away from the public.
Open source and Libre Energy promises to make it a lot harder for the
energy oligarchs to shut down and keep from the public the advances that
are made.
In this modern day and age with the whole world connected via internet
and mobile phone we see amazing speed of information dissemination. It’s
very difficult to stop knowledge from being shared once it has been
released to the public space and internet. There are even laws that make
it hard for the most powerful forces to have control of public
information. There are certainly uncountable avenues for sharing
information in a non public grassroots way as the various illegal
activities performed by internet citizens has proven.
The great thing about the internet is that they can’t shut us down now.
So sharing knowledge learned through open research and development is a
very safe way to make sure the common people of the world have the
upperhand and not the corporate powers and selfish forces of greed.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
hi guys.
Pieter Palmers wrote:
/me crawls in a corner and hides full of shame. Of course the H-bomb is
fusion. small atoms -> fusion. large atoms (plutonium) -> fission.
Sometimes it's better to shut up.
In any case, my error doesn't invalidate my point. I hope they are not
experimenting with fusion nor fission in their backyard.
I'm sorry, but the following statement:
"Here’s a few vids of the mighty power of hydrogen explosions. Not an
endorsement of nuclear power but just a reference for anyone who is
doubting the energy contained in Hydrogen."
is ridiculous. It's not because that type of atomic bomb is called a
"hydrogen bomb" that it has anything to do with hydrogen as a power
source. The former is about splitting the hydrogen atom itself, the
latter is about splitting the bonds a hydrogen atom has with other
atoms.
for the record, there is not much to split in a hydrogen atom (generally
it's just one proton, very rarely accompanied by one or two neutrons).
the principle behind the h bomb is fusion of hydrogen into heavier
elements, where the "activation energy" (i hope the term is applicable
here) comes from a previous nuclear fission explosion.
5:33 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
However I am slightly concerned at the closed
attitude that I was presented with by people I have worked with for over
ten years and found in general to be quite open minded about ideas that
may or may not be mainstream.
I suggest that many of these people would show just as closed an attitude
towards "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design". They would of
course
be justified because like some of the stuff you brought up, it is just
plain bad science that should be given short shrift by anyone with
any worthwhile level of science education.
Funnily enough, the only places where stupidity like "Intelligent Design"
and "Free Energy" gets any foothold is countries like the US where
science education has been in decline for decades due to the influence
of religious fundamentalists.
One of the biggest problems that inventors of so
called “Free” as in
beer energy in the past has been bringing the technology or concept to
market. There are several cases of gifted inventors and engineers who
had very credible technology that provided energy at a fraction of the
cost and greatly increased efficiency of currently widely used
technologies who were killed, bought off or shutdown and their
inventions and breakthroughs destroyed or locked away from the public.
I call bullshit.
All great ideas are a product of their time with numerous other people
around the world being on the cusp of coming up with the same idea at
the same time. The first to publish usually (but not always) gets their
name on it.
The consipracy you suggest might work against someone inside the US,
but could not possibly have worked in China or the USSR/Russia. Do
you really think that the US would have been able to suppress this
information in China or Russia?
In this modern day and age with the whole world
connected via internet
and mobile phone we see amazing speed of information dissemination.
We also see a huge proliferation of psuedo-science, conspiracy theories,
religious bullshit and porn. So what?
Now it really is time to STFU on this issue on this list.
Erik
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."
-- Winston Churchill in "The River War", published in 1899.
5:37 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 17:33 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Now it really is time to STFU on this issue on this
list.
What issue Eric?
The mighty power of c compared to the inferiority of c++?
People in glass houses...
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
5:48 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 17:33 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo
wrote:
Do you think you could possibly do me the courtesy of spelling my
name correctly, especially since it appears with the correct
spelling just three lines above.
Now it really is time to STFU on this issue on
this list.
What issue Eric? The mighty power of c compared to the inferiority of
c++?
This is the Linux Audio Developer's mailing list. Since C and
C++ are both commonly used languages, C vs C++ discussion is
at least on-topic, while your "Free Energy" crackpottery doesn't
really fit with linux audio or linux audio development.
Erik
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't hate the media. Become the media."
- Jello Biafra
5:50 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 17:48 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Sorry bout that.
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 17:33 +1000, Erik de Castro
Lopo wrote:
Now it really is time to STFU on this issue on
this list.
What issue Eric? Do you think you could possibly do me the courtesy of
spelling my
name correctly, especially since it appears with the correct
spelling just three lines above.
Interesting pov,
I assume you use electricity as you are typing on a computer. Unless you
have a way to transmit your emails by thought.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
The mighty power of c compared to the inferiority
of c++?
This is the Linux Audio Developer's mailing list. Since C and
C++ are both commonly used languages, C vs C++ discussion is
at least on-topic, while your "Free Energy" crackpottery doesn't
really fit with linux audio or linux audio development.
Erik
6:01 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Interesting pov,
I assume you use electricity as you are typing on a computer. Unless you
have a way to transmit your emails by thought.
So since linux audio development is performed on computers then
discussion about word processing on windows is also appropriate
for this forum because word processing is also done on computers?
What part of "this is the Linux Audio Developers mailing list for
discussion of linux audio and linux audio development" do you find
so hard to understand?
Erik
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debian : The community edition of Ubuntu.
6:37 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 18:01 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Hmmm, As I sit here in front of 4 PC's and monitors, and several other
audio devices that use electricity to power themselves in order to do my
job of programming audio software for an audio company I find it
concerning that I am contributing to the overall use of energy resources
for one.
I am also interested in Libre Energy development and research as it
relates to Linux, Libre software, and also Audio hardware that I could
be involved in designing, prototyping and using in the not too distant
future.
As a member, contributor and advocate for Linux Audio for the past 10
years I am also interested in discussing the above issues with other
members of the list as I think there is a lot to be learned and possibly
advanced.
Also I generally value the learned opinions and detailed discussion from
people on this list and fell that there might be some others here who
have something to add.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. If Libre energy and whatever goes on in
the other sites discussing the other topics referenced in this topic are
of little concern to the list then no big deal. It's only a few minutes
of my time and not gonna do anyone any harm.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
Interesting pov,
I assume you use electricity as you are typing on a computer. Unless you
have a way to transmit your emails by thought.
So since linux audio development is performed on computers then
discussion about word processing on windows is also appropriate
for this forum because word processing is also done on computers?
What part of "this is the Linux Audio Developers mailing list for
discussion of linux audio and linux audio development" do you find
so hard to understand?
12:23 p.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 18:01 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo
wrote:
> Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>
>> Interesting pov,
> [cut]
I enjoy many off of topic threads on linuxaudio.org and like the
diversity of both FLOSS, Music and social issues; so let me join the fun:
IMO this whole energy thread is ridiculous; a current effect caused the
blogosphere: CERN files it under "the web strikes back". - Science is
not easy ;) - While some tricky issues can be demonstrated in a simple
manner. Science should never be oversimplified.
You may have heard about the danger we're facing from a black hole at
the Swiss/French border at September 10 2008 ?! - There's a very good
response video http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1120625/
After around 45mins of scientific explanations, Mr Ellis moves on to
/alarmist talk in the bloggosphere/ and the public view on science view
in general.
As a member, contributor and advocate for Linux Audio
for the past 10
years I am also interested in discussing the above issues with other
members of the list as I think there is a lot to be learned and
possibly advanced.
you're right: there's no stupid questions. IMHO as linux-audio-devs
we're not really qualified to discuss libre-energy questions; Thanks for
sharing though; it provoked few good responses from Pieter, Fons and
others that I liked and learned from.
now on to "Wireless Electricity vs audio quality" and maybe even some
sound production..
cheers,
robin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkiywC4ACgkQeVUk8U+VK0II5QCdF4nXRCeMqZXXQkQ71rxSZmqr
tYkAoK5EuTTbkghJAvAPZV3S7V5Fu1TG
=ooiS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
26 Aug
26 Aug
4:29 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
Robin Gareus wrote:
Personally I don't really care for Fons's comments of this subject. He
is clearly just trying to bait me. If others find that entertaining then
they better watch out if they ever have to meet me in person. I can
certainly hold a grudge if I choose to.
However, I do think there is a bit of stagnation on this list over the
past year or so. It seems that we have reached a plateau currently where
there is not much to discuss. If anything my intention is to kickstart
some discussions that could lead to more interesting developments...
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
As a member, contributor and advocate for Linux
Audio for the past 10
years I am also interested in discussing the above issues with other
members of the list as I think there is a lot to be learned and
possibly advanced.
you're right: there's no stupid questions. IMHO as linux-audio-devs
we're not really qualified to discuss libre-energy questions; Thanks for
sharing though; it provoked few good responses from Pieter, Fons and
others that I liked and learned from.
5:39 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 13:28 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Personally I don't really care for Fons's comments of this subject. He
is clearly just trying to bait me.
Yes, Fons was clearly just trying to make you look like a fool, which
was totally uncalled for, since you are doing quite well all by
yourself.
... If others find that entertaining then
they better watch out if they ever have to meet me in person. I can
certainly hold a grudge if I choose to.
So for the rest of us, this year no christmas in Bangkok then?
5:41 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 09:39 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
Well there are 10 mil people here so if you are unlucky enough to bump
into me then I guess it's fate...
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 13:28 +0700, Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
Ok, You're on the list too now.
Personally I don't really care for Fons's comments of this subject. He
is clearly just trying to bait me.
Yes, Fons was clearly just trying to make you look like a fool, which
was totally uncalled for, since you are doing quite well all by
yourself.
... If others
find that entertaining then
they better watch out if they ever have to meet me in person. I can
certainly hold a grudge if I choose to.
So for the rest of us, this year no christmas in Bangkok then?
5:54 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 14:42 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Well there are 10 mil people here so if you are
unlucky enough to bump
into me then I guess it's fate...
OK then! I suppose that, as long as we stay clear of:
Boost Hardware Ltd
... we'll be safe? :-D
5:59 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 09:54 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 14:42 +0700, Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
Well that shouldn't be hard seeing as BH is a New Zealand company
located in Wellington.
I guess you will have to stay clear of two places now. Being that it is
significantly more likely you could run into me in Wellington as the
population is 350,000 approx.
Damn if only I was working in a large multinational that had offices in
every city in the world. Then you would really have to be careful...
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
Well there are 10 mil people here so if you are
unlucky enough to bump
into me then I guess it's fate...
OK then! I suppose that, as long as we stay clear of:
Boost Hardware Ltd
... we'll be safe? :-D
6:13 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 15:00 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Damn if only I was working in a large multinational
that had offices in
every city in the world. Then you would really have to be careful...
I believe CIA is hiring, no? Mossad then? ...
Boost Hardware Ltd
7:06 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
I live in Wellington, New Zealand, and i'd like to reassure others on
this list that not all those who inhabit this place behave like this.
Patrick, if you'd please just concentrate on subjects that had some
relevance to Linux audio development, I think we'd all get along just fine.
I just can't believe you aren't willing to accept that there are more
appropriate forums for the discussion of wireless power or hydrogen
motors, or whatever other non-linux-audio subject you have an interest
in, and simply take the discussion on those subjects there.
Not only would you get a warmer reception and a higher quality
discussion, I imagine you wouldn't attract as much personal criticism.
If you want to stimulate interesting discussion to liven up the list,
then surely you can think of a way to do it thats actually on-topic.
I mean how old are you? 12?
-Pete
Well that shouldn't be hard seeing as BH is a New
Zealand company
located in Wellington.
I guess you will have to stay clear of two places now. Being that it is
significantly more likely you could run into me in Wellington as the
population is 350,000 approx.
Damn if only I was working in a large multinational that had offices in
every city in the world. Then you would really have to be careful...
9:12 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
Pete Black wrote:
I live in Wellington, New Zealand, and i'd like to
reassure others on
this list that not all those who inhabit this place behave like this.
Nah, most people in Wellington are complete wankers.
Patrick, if you'd please just concentrate on
subjects that had some
relevance to Linux audio development,
Sorry Pete, are you suggesting that Linux
Audio Development is a very
specific niche that has no relevance to general daily goings on and my
chosen topics are irrelevant. Maybe if there was more discussion on this
list my topics wouldn't be taking such a center stage.
If you want to stimulate interesting discussion to
liven up the list,
then surely you can think of a way to do it thats actually on-topic.
How long have you been reading this list?
There was a time when it was 200 messages a day on various topics under
the sun. Most of them relevant and some of them highly irrelevant.
There have been plenty of things said by various people that could be
deemed offensive. I have participated myself. There are also plenty of
things that have been said by people that have turned out to be complete
BS. For example. VST plugins will never work on Linux. That was a good
one. Several highly respected members were adamant it would never
happen. Then it only took one person to figure out how and now look at
the state of VST in Linux. Pretty good now from what I've seen.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
6:14 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:39:55AM +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
Yes, Fons was clearly just trying to make you look
like a fool,
No, my post was designed to expose the emphatic language
that Patrick is using all the time, which doesn't make
any sense when you try to understand it rationally but
is full of hints and word play that is apparently meant
to trigger emotional reactions in the reader.
It's on the same level as the pope saying that "some
want to destroy the natural family", which seems to
make sense, except that all social science of the last
half century clearly indicates that there is no such
thing as a "natural family".
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
6:43 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
Am Dienstag, 26. August 2008 schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
Personally I don't really care for Fons's
comments of this subject. He
is clearly just trying to bait me. If others find that entertaining then
they better watch out if they ever have to meet me in person. I can
certainly hold a grudge if I choose to.
However, I do think there is a bit of stagnation on this list over the
past year or so. It seems that we have reached a plateau currently where
there is not much to discuss. If anything my intention is to kickstart
some discussions that could lead to more interesting developments...
You want serious discussions on this list and at the same time discard one of
the guys with the best knowledge?
Jens Andreasen is right, you don't need anybody to make a fool of you, you do
that well by yourself...
(Probably that adds me to your list. But I don't care what you say, I much
more care what fons and others say.)
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
9:17 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
Arnold Krille wrote:
Am Dienstag, 26. August 2008 schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
There is no denying that Fons is clever person and certainly a gifted
software engineer.
Personally I don't really care for Fons's
comments of this subject. He
is clearly just trying to bait me. If others find that entertaining then
they better watch out if they ever have to meet me in person. I can
certainly hold a grudge if I choose to.
However, I do think there is a bit of stagnation on this list over the
past year or so. It seems that we have reached a plateau currently where
there is not much to discuss. If anything my intention is to kickstart
some discussions that could lead to more interesting developments...
You want serious discussions on this list and at the same time discard one of
the guys with the best knowledge?
Jens Andreasen is right, you don't need anybody to
make a fool of you, you do
that well by yourself...
Ok, I'll add you too then. Anybody else want to sign their name?
(Probably that adds me to your list. But I don't
care what you say, I much
more care what fons and others say.)
That's great.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
11:22 a.m.
New subject: joining the fun...
On Tuesday 26 August 2008, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Robin Gareus wrote:
Personally I don't really care for Fons's comments of this subject. He
is clearly just trying to bait me. If others find that entertaining then
they better watch out if they ever have to meet me in person. I can
certainly hold a grudge if I choose to.
However, I do think there is a bit of stagnation on this list over the
past year or so. It seems that we have reached a plateau currently where
there is not much to discuss. If anything my intention is to kickstart
some discussions that could lead to more interesting developments...
To redirect some of this energy, how about trying to figure out pulseaudio for
the common user, who may want to do uncommon things. I have 2 audio systems
in this box, and PA refuses to recognize the Audigy2 (emu10k1 driven) card I
use for everything BUT skype. If I want sound at all, I have to excise as
much of it as kde will allow in order that my sound work at all.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
I'd rather be led to hell than managed to heavan.
As a
member, contributor and advocate for Linux Audio for the past 10
years I am also interested in discussing the above issues with other
members of the list as I think there is a lot to be learned and
possibly advanced.
you're right: there's no stupid questions. IMHO as linux-audio-devs
we're not really qualified to discuss libre-energy questions; Thanks for
sharing though; it provoked few good responses from Pieter, Fons and
others that I liked and learned from.
15 Aug
15 Aug
10:20 a.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Am 2008-08-05 23:23:54, schrieb Pete Black:
Hydrogen engines have been in testing and protype
production since the
80s by BMW and Mazda.. They're already here. If you wanted to modify a
"Volkswagen" and some others has done it too.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
10:20 a.m.
New subject: OT: alternative fuel for cars [was: Re: Car engine sound emulation for future electic cars. ideas ?]
Am 2008-08-05 13:09:06, schrieb Sampo Savolainen:
Don't get me wrong. I want nothing more than get
rid of our dependency on
gasoline and other fossil fuels and have non polluting options.
ACK!
I'd like more details than videos of bubbling
canisters and "exposions".
Open Source means, open source, I just see videos and no explanation to what
they are doing and _how_. Without explanations the videos look like playing
around with dangerous things (electricity, hydrogen) for no good reason.
FullACK!
While I was searching the Internet for infos I have gotten the same shit.
Peoples talking about something but refuse to explain HOW they have done
it.
The MIT stuff is way cool though. That looks like it
could (and should)
change the way we power our lives. But that's using solar energy as the
energy store, using water as a battery and hydrogen as a fuel.
Here at the "University of Freiburg" (Germany) they use the sun to split
water directly into Hydrogene and Oxygene and the development is very
advanced.
Using the Sun to split it, is the ONLY economic solution since spliting
it using another method consuming alwasy much more energy as you can get
at the end.
My mobile spliter is arround 48 m² and produce arround 400 dm³ gased
Hydrogene per hour. Not very much, but if I find a new terrain in
Germany I like to increase its size to 200 m² since arround 2200 dm³ per
day is not enough to let a Light-Running Generator working the whole
night as "Grundlast Generator".
I'll try to stop now.
Sampo "OT" Savolainen
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
5730
days inactive
5751
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
60 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
Albert Graef -
Arnold Krille -
Bob Sanders -
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki -
Erik de Castro Lopo -
Florian Schmidt -
Fons Adriaensen -
Gene Heskett -
Jens M Andreasen -
Joern Nettingsmeier -
Klaus Kosten -
Michelle Konzack -
Patrick Shirkey -
Pete Black -
Pieter Palmers -
Robin Gareus -
Sampo Savolainen -
Stéphane Letz -
victor