 |
There are currently, 315 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
New questions answered by GWE
Posted on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 11:07:08 UTC by vlad
|
|
What is true? (from GWE web site):
It has been our experience that no matter how much information is disclosed or proof offered about a given technology, there are always skeptics. This is the case with the Genesis Technology, and is compounded by the fact that we will not disclose our proprietary information to the public. Therefore, the only parties that we are focusing our attention on at this stage in moving the technology to market are potential licensees. It is documented in the Licensing Section that potential licensees are afforded the opportunity to fully evaluate the Edison Device and bear no financial risk in the event that the technology does not operate as claimed by GWE.
New Page 1
No. The Edison Device depicted in the photos is
the original process development system. It was built by the Genesis Team to
test a wide range of configurations and energy output combinations. Production
versions of the systems appear less complicated and include several integrated
items such as water/gas bubble tanks, electronic controllers, inverts and a
reverse transfer switch, although the overall size of the complete production
package is not substantially larger then the development system pictured. On a
historical note, the system in these photographs was the very first device to
totally replace all energy provided by utility companies on a fully
self-contained basis.
Because the process development system in the
photos was designed to operate with or without battery-based electrical
buffering or storage and the configuration of the system pictured operates
independent of batteries. Edison Devices that are intended to operate solely as
generators may eventually be configured by manufacturers to be used without
batteries after startup.
Genesis World Energy has been working with
battery manufacturers to supply batteries that are similar to state-of-the-art
solar batteries. However, the batteries GWE will specify for use with Edison
Device systems will be maintenance free, will not suffer from the effects of
sulfation and will be warranted by manufacturers for the service life of the
Edison Device.
The process development system attaches to the
controller, inverter and reverse transfer switch using male to female electrical
plugs, similar to those used in the welding industry. The female receptacles for
these connections are located on the top of the device; nearest to panel D.
Production systems use standard commercial electrical connections.
During the installation and set-up of the Edison
Device, a self-drying polymer aerosol sealant is released into the natural gas
plumbing that both seals joints that might leak when exposed to the smaller
hydrogen molecule and eliminates potential plumbing incompatibility issues.
At the time the original information for the web
site was being prepared, GWE was considering several possible standardized
configurations to propose to licensees as a basis for production, costing and
marketing evaluation. Since there were so many compelling configurations
possible and each licensee possesses the ability to custom configure Edison
Devices to meet the needs of their individual target markets, GWE decided to
quote energy outputs for home and commercial Edison Device versions to the
public in a very general way. That way, the output descriptions presented on the
web site would at a minimum, generally support whichever configurations were
ultimately selected.
They only treat the source water used to supply
the system. This is done to assure that the water is free of chemicals and
pollutants that might reduce operating life of the Edison Device. The filters
used in the Edison Device are identical to the commonly available filters used
for purifying home drinking water and for purifying water for industrial
applications. An interesting note: The water purification system utilized in the
Edison Device is also capable of supplying over 20 gallons of ultra pure
drinking water per day to homes and businesses that install the Edison Device.
Yes. GWE will supply only certain key assemblies
to licensees. Manufacturing partners or subcontractors will supply many of the
components and subassemblies used by GWE to manufacture those key assemblies.
Furthermore, over the past six months, the Genesis Design Engineering Team has
been working on methods of maximizing production outputs and has greatly reduced
the time and number of components necessary in building the key subassemblies.
The one million and two million production support targets include all forms of
devices that use the Genesis technology, not only Edison Devices.
The Genesis Team has been focusing on several
things:
- Completing the testing of the security safeguards that will keep others
from reverse engineering the Genesis Technology.
- Refining production designs to accommodate much larger than expected
production volumes.
- Completing the development of additional turnkey devices that will allow
the Genesis technology to replace other forms of traditional energy, without
requiring people to change they way they use energy.
Yes. The Genesis Team had begun establishing
market commitments throughout the world for several hundred million systems
prior to the December 5th, 2002 public announcement, ensuring that the
technology would move forward successfully regardless of post announcement
efforts by those opposed to the introduction of the technology. None of the
pre-existing relationships established prior to the public announcement will
receive manufacturing data packages in advance of potential licensees that
expressed interest after the public announcement in December 2002.
Yes. Genesis World Energy had developed a
component supply infrastructure capable of supporting the supply and
distribution of significant quantities of key components and was prepared to
supply licensees worldwide with a range of independent sources for commercially
available non-key components. Since the December 5th public announcement, GWE
has begun the process of greatly expanding its supply infrastructure
capabilities.
Genesis World Energy has currently received
proposals from governments, private organizations and individuals within 59
countries that meet the specified requirements listed in the Licensing
Section.
Genesis World Energy will open another
opportunity for new potential licensees in January of 2004.
No. Genesis World Energy anticipated from the
beginning that certain individuals and industries would be adamantly opposed to
the proliferation of the Genesis Technology and would attempt to stop its market
introduction. Thus, we fully expected the dissemination of false information.
That is why the only correct source of valid information on the Genesis Project
and Team is on this website.
What is true?
It has been our experience that no matter how much information is disclosed or
proof offered about a given technology, there are always skeptics. This is the
case with the Genesis Technology, and is compounded by the fact that we will not
disclose our proprietary information to the public. Therefore, the only parties
that we are focusing our attention on at this stage in moving the technology to
market are potential licensees. It is documented in the Licensing
Section that potential licensees are afforded the opportunity to fully
evaluate the Edison Device and bear no financial risk in the event that the
technology does not operate as claimed by GWE.
We at Genesis World Energy would like to thank people worldwide for their
overwhelming positive response.
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 4.2
Votes: 5
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 11:45:25 UTC | | I believe these guys are honest. I just hopt that the device can actually make it to market before special interest squashes it. I would bet that they are getting slammed by skeptics and such, but all you can do is move forward and try to shrug off those who are blasting them. The skeptics are obviously having some kind of effect. But i hope its not because they are harrassing them by calling and leaving crude messages and stuff. When this thing comes out I hope those that are hammering them also post huge apologies on their slandering sites. |
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 12:12:44 UTC | I hope that they are honest, because their website (even though admittedly not totally precise) seems convincing.
If their technology is real it could change the world, but again I would like to see some more confirmation.
I also would like to issue a call by all those who have done their homework to post what they have discovered on this thread. Whether it is pro or con please post whatever information you have found..
We need to get all the information possible so we can know whether or not to boldly support GWE or protect the alternative energy community from another hoax.
I hope if anyone from GWE is reading this that they do not believe that I am one of the ditractors wanting to squash their technology. I really do hope that their technology is legitimate, because this planet MUST have an alternative energy source other than petrolium. But naturally, there have been false claims in the past, and we need to protect ourselves.
So whatever anyone has found on this company, please post it here!
|
]
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 12:31:41 UTC | I have spoken to Diana Echeverria
Director of Public Relations, Guy Rome & Associates, Inc., and she seems extremely sincere.
She tells me that the Genesis people are very busy putting together marketing information and logistics. She also said that they are moving forward and that they are for real, contrary to the skeptism going on.
|
]
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 13:22:21 UTC | | I wish I can invest in this thing...It is going to be an unbelieveable opportunity for those who did invest. It disappoints me that they are not going to trade publicly but those private investors are going to be swimming in riches. I just hope those manageing the books don't pull another Enron or something like that. I would guess that quaterly dividends are the way to go. Can anyone guess how much those shares would be worth once the product goes to market? I know nothing about the stock market or how private stocks operate but i do know math and if there are 50 million shares each worth about $20 a share. Thats alot of money If an investor has 10,000 at $20 thats a quick $200,000 for the quater. Not bad, I dont know how long it takes the shares to reach 20 dollars I guess it all depends on how much money the products pull in minus the costs of running the company and the bills that must be paid. I wonder if there are any royalty fees that will get paid to the investor since they only plan on licensing to third parties. Damn, i'm so jealous it sickens me. |
]
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 13:44:43 UTC | Of course I am NOT a scientist, but one thing mentioned in a previous Q and A really perplexes me:
"An average all electric home located in the United States could consume as little as 30 gallons over the Edison Device's approximately twenty years plus service life."
And in another section they state that the process is purely CHEMICAL.
In my opinion, that is IMPOSSIBLE! PERIOD!
Some process other than chemical must be taking place.
Lets calculate this out: There are two hundred and fourty months in twenty years.
They claim that as little as thirty gallons could power a home for twenty years.
That means that their device would only use .125 of a gallon of water a month. Or 12.5% of a gallon a month.
Lets say the typical month has thirty days.
That means you would be using very, very, very little water!
Certainly less than one percent of a gallon of water each day!
In my opinion, such a device cannot be working PURELY on CHEMICAL means!
*Something* other than a purely chemical reaction must be occuring! Of course the water, electricity, or catalysts may be involved in starting a non-chemical reaction but they alone simply CANNOT be the reaction!
So what do you think is occuring in those cells? Something along the lines of cold fusion, the Black Light Power process, some over unity mechanism, etc?
What do you think?
|
]
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 1)
by pol on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 16:37:11 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | I think also there is a connection with the Black Light Power process. On there website in the item developments/heater they said "The catalyst reacts with atomic hydrogen to greatly intensify the plasma and to release energy from the atomic hydrogen that is 1000 times that of its combustion—" |
]
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 1)
by Johnny on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 18:40:06 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | There may be a simpler explanation... GWE may be referring to a case where an Edison device is installed in a house which does not use hydrogen gas, but only electrical output. In this case, the water split into hydrogren and oxygen is recombined in the fuel cell to produce electricity and water again.
My guess is the water is recycled back to the input water tank... The 30 gallons over 20 years in this case would be water lost due to ineffeciencies, small leaks, etc.
Houses which use the Edison device for hydrogen output as well would have a much larger water usage as you wouldn't be able to recover the water from the hydrogen that you would burn in the same manner that you can in a fuel cell..
Johnny |
]
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, March 10, 2003 @ 14:41:12 UTC | I do not believe I am watching this conversation. Well, maybe I do. First of all, probably many of these postings are done by GWE staff (did I say "staff"? please , posing as common people just to give more color to their hoax.
I will explain as briefly and clearly as I can: the energy produced in the combining of oxygen and hydrogen to form water is a result of the excess energy liberated in this conversion. Because water is a less "energetic" molecule than the sum of the oxygen and a hydrogen molecules that joined to form it. The surplus is released in form of energy. Now, the opposite also holds true. To take one water molecule and make it into both an oxygen and a hydrogen molecule, one has to put in all that surplus energy back. EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT. Because the energy is simply part of those molecules, and they cannot exist without it. There is NO WAY to circunvent this, no "molecular excitements" and Genesis Cataytic Fonchbonkers could do it. The most perfect method would in theory use exactly the same amount of energy in breaking down water than is gained in reforming it. |
]
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, March 10, 2003 @ 15:57:11 UTC | | I doubt that GWE is posting on this site, and if they did I wish they would identify themselves so we all can have a productive thread going. Anyway, based on what i read on GWE's site and what you are saying is exactly what GWE has expected. You are obviously referring to the laws of thermodynamics, and for them to explain exactly what their technology is doing to answer the question of breaking the laws of thermodynamics, is asking them to reveal their intellectual property. So i wouldnt expect them to answer the question. I don't know that they did or did not break those laws. Maybe you and I are not thinking outside the box but rather using conventional thinking. All i know is that i'll wait to see what happens and reserve judgement untill then. |
]
if you are patient, you will get to watch it for some time (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Monday, March 10, 2003 @ 17:23:28 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | The first response to this comment does look like it's written by the PR firm. But it probably is not. Why should they bother? I can tell you that some comments that look the most like they are written by the PR firm are not, since I've recieved them as part of private email discussions.
Maybe there is something for us all to learn. Why should an idea that seems so implausible to you and me attract so many supporters? How can an intelligent conversation be held between different points of view? (Not really different sides, since I think Guy-Rome's not posting here. We're all on the same side. Just like France and the USA are on the same side.) |
]
|
|
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 1)
by bender772 on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 14:22:19 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.suppressedscience.net | First a disclaimer: I'm not one of the pathological skeptics who dismiss every new energy technology on a priori grounds. I'd like to see the GWE technology succeed.
With that being said, it doesn't inspire confidence that whoever wrote the above Q&A still doesn't know high school physics. The correct answer to the "KW/day" question would have been:
We messed up. Our webmaster does not know physics, and he got confused by the difference between energy (measured in Kilowatt Hours, KWH), and power, which is energy generated PER TIME (measured in Kilowatts, KW). So he made the nonsensical statement that our device produces a certain number of Kilowatts per day, which is like saying that the top speed of a car is 150 miles per hour per day.
Instead, the error is further compounded. That answer about quoting "energy outputs for home and commercial Edison Device versions to the public in a very general way" shows that the anonymous author has NO CLUE WHATSOEVER what the point is. He seems to think that the question is about the numbers, when it is in fact about the nonsensical units. |
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 14:33:05 UTC | Your exactly right about how they are explaining the output of the device. It could be a mistake or a misunderstanding, or pure stubborness but does that make them frauds, or scam artists. Some people seem to think so.
I would love to see this device succeed, and I think it will. But i hope those who have sites slandering this group or company or whatever you want to call them replaces the slander with sincere apologies. I can almost bet that they don't...they will just disappear, never to be heard from again. |
]
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 1)
by bender772 on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 21:50:39 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.suppressedscience.net | | I agree. Scientists have better things to do than administer web sites, and the fact that the person who writes the web site apparently does not know physics means nothing with regard to the question whether the device is legit. It does, however, give easy ammunition to the pathological skeptics. That is the last thing a new energy technology needs. |
]
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, March 10, 2003 @ 16:10:44 UTC | | It absolutely gives ammo to the skeptics. Which i think would get proof read before posted on the web. I also wouldn't expect GWE to give to much information to reveal how their device works. I would absolutely love to know how this thing is producing more energy then what is being put in. But I know that is a question that will never be answered, because it would reveal how the intellectual property is designed. Does it actually break the laws of thermodynamics? have they found a way around those laws? when this device comes to market i dont have a few grand to blow on one to crack open and see what its doing. And from what I read on GWE's site they are trying to impliment some security features to prevent reverse engineering. I don't know what they can legally do to safeguard it, Its not like they can make it blow up or release some acidic compond to disolve the fuel cells. I would think that can be dangerous. |
]
this one almost makes sense (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Saturday, March 08, 2003 @ 03:44:53 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | I think what happened here is that I made a bunch of criticisms of the use of measurements on their page, and that someone was told that the answer to all of these was "because we wanted to be vague". Really, the answer they give here is a dimensionally proper answer to the question "Why is the energy content of a gCell given in home-years?" You see this is one of the questions in http://members.cox.net/john.lichtenstein/units.htm
Some people might not like "because we want to be vague" as an answer, but there is a question to which this answer makes sense. |
]
Re: New questions answered by GWE (Score: 1)
by Bjoern on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 @ 16:43:24 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Dear friends.
I agree to that. As far as I know 1kW=1000W or 1000 J/s or 1000 Nm/s. So to involve per day in that makes it to some strange sort of acceleration. Anyway Nm/s/day is no usable unit at all.
Ether the webmaster has been told to say something of his own mind or been told some error facts from the scientists, what is even worse. |
]
]
|
|
Water Filters (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Sunday, March 16, 2003 @ 17:03:50 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | Thirty Gallons of Water
2003-03-16
Summary:The March 6 Q&A from Genesis World Energy states that the Edison device water filters are used only to filter water input to the system. This might be a retort to our pointing out that the composition of the "catalytic reactants" is impossible to keep secret, as the spent chemicals will wind up in the water filters. If GWE really plans on filtering water only as it's input to the system, not as it cycles through, they need a trip to the drawing board.
Q: What role do the water filters play in the operation of the Edison Device?
A: They only treat the source water used to supply the system. This is done to assure that the water is free of chemicals and pollutants that might reduce operating life of the Edison Device.
Of course, this is a side issue. If the gCell is used up then the spent components have to go someplace. That's just conservation of mass. And wherever they go they can be found and identified. But the claim that the water that cycles through the Edison device does not need filtering is pretty silly, and examining it gives us a chance to do some fun physical chemistry, and visit some very well written chemistry education sites, so let's have at it.
Lets assume that the gCell works as described, converting water to hydrogen and oxygen essentially for free. GWE has stated that "the entire process becomes self-generating, recycling both water and electricity". How many times will the water be recycled? GWE claims that the Edison device will use as little as 30 gallons of water in its 20 year life. So this is easy.
First we need to assume some amount of energy that the Edison device will produce. GWE never says how much energy the Edison device produces. The average USA home uses a little less than 30 kwh/day of electricity. But GWE states 30 "kw/day" as a maximum "power" of the device, and suggests that the device should not be run past 75% of its peak output. They also state, thankfully without either reference or translation, that the typical home uses five to six kilowatts of "power per day". Lets just use a slightly below national average of 20 kwh of energy per day as an average for a sample Edison device. How much water would be generated?
Let's just calculate how much energy would be used and convert it to joules, the unit of energy most commonly used in chemistry.
20 kwh/day * 365.25 days/year * 20 years = 1.46 E5 kwh
1.46 E5 kwh * 3600 seconds/hour * 1 joule/watt*seconds = 5.26 E11 joules
This excellent Georgia State page explains why an ideal fuel cell produces, for each mole of water 2.37E5 joules of electrical power and 4.87E4 joules of waste heat. Of course the eCell is not an ideal fuel cell, this Princeton page introduces us to the notion of "voltage efficiency" which measures the actual voltage of a fuel cell against the 1.23 volts of the ideal fuel cell. Genesis World Energy has stated that their eCells produce 0.5 volts under load. That makes their cells 41% voltage efficient, but we'll round that up to 50% to simplify the math. Now we can determine how many moles of water would be produced.
5.26 E11 joules electrical energy / 50% efficiency = 1.05 E12 joules
1.05 E12 joules / 2.37E5 joules/mol = 4.43 E6 moles of water
4.43 E6 moles * 18g/mole = 7.97 E7 grams = 7.97 E4 litres of water
So we have about 79,700 litres, or 21,100 gallons of water produced. But we are using only 30 gallons. So these 30 gallons are circulating through the system an average of 700 times (or more).
Genesis World Energy is now claiming that these 700 cycles through the system, and 20 years of exposure to the elements do not leave any contaminants that require filtering. At the same time the system is so sensitive to contaminants that the input of these 30 gallons to the system requires not only that municipal water be filtered, but that the filters be changed! Why make such an outlandish claim? To quiet investors who are no doubt questioning the strategy of not using patents, and relying on secrecy alone to protect their IP, when there is nothing preventing the reverse engineering of their secret formula.
This page built using 100% recycled electrons.
John Lichtenstein
http://members.cox.net/john.lichtenstein/30gallons.htm
|
Re: Water Filters (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Sunday, March 16, 2003 @ 20:36:59 UTC | | Thank you for your theories Pickle, but you make a lot of presumptions that really don't mean anything without you having first hand knowledge of how it works. My question was please explain exactly where GWE has changed their their position on the water filters? |
]
back on planet Earth (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Sunday, March 16, 2003 @ 21:43:08 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | | Conservation of mass counts as a physical law, not a presumption. There simply is no way to reconcile the consumable gCell "catalytic reactants" with secrecy. |
]
Re: back on planet Earth (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, March 17, 2003 @ 03:59:20 UTC | | Pickle, from what I can see they haven't told anyone what's being done interally to the water, so everything you write is conjecture. You just presume that they hadn't thought of that, but if they are securing the technology from being reverse engineered, I would think that they must of thought of ways of handling the chemical reactants as to not allow anyone access to them. From what I can see, the things you write about on your web site consist of the same caliber of conjecture as this. Now, back to the question you keep avoiding, you stated that they have changed their position on the filters. Where have they done that? |
]
vague -> silly = a change (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Monday, March 17, 2003 @ 11:11:58 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | Their original position was vague, but a charitable interpretation made sense. The water had to be filtered as it spent hundreds of loops through the cycle. They have taken away any charitable interpretation. The new position is that the 30 gallons of water the system uses needs to be filtered going into the system. Needs so much filtering that the filters need periodic changing. A filter lasts for, what, 5 gallons?
Everything anyone reads on that page requires a little charity (what you call conjecture). They talk agout "1000 watts of energy would be consumed to break water down to its molecular state". What do they mean by that? Water is always in a molecular state. What is a watt of energy? You see the thread above discussing the 6 kw per day of power. What's a reader supposed to do when encountering such nonsense? You can skip over it or try to apply charity to it to guess at the author's meaning. If you don't apply charity, Genesis World Energy noplace claims that the Edison can produce any more than a trivial ammount of energy.
|
]
Re: vague -> silly = a change (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 @ 08:18:50 UTC | Okay, in other words you admit when pushed for facts to support your statements that you don't have any facts except what you make up and then state as fact. My interpretation of the need to filter the water going into the system is so that water in the system is pure from outside chemicals, minerals (and probably bacteria) that would cause the chemical reactants to be damaged and would keep the water from "going bad" over time.
As I stated in my response to your recent post in another part of this web site, you totally misread and misstated the reference to the 1000 watts. Anyone that actually reads that part of GWE's site will see that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Another example of your inept conjectures is the above reference to the filters being good for only five gallons. If you really read what they have written about the amount of water their systems use, you will see the 30 gallons over a 20 year period appears to be a best case for an all electric home. They also state clearly that heating a large swimming pool using their gas could use several gallons of water a month, and they say that the system provides up to 20 gallons a day in pure drinking water. Looking at it another way, the filters could easily process a lot of water going into the system over a two year period. Furthermore, if you actually read what they said about replacing the filters, they say the life of filters is dependant on water quality. Using another truly charitable interpretation, one could surmise from this that the filters may never need to be changed if all the water that was used in an all electric home over 20 years was 30 gallons.
Unless I’m totally mistaken, they have stated how much energy the gCell stacks and eCell stacks produce. The notes on the photos state that the gCell stacks shown in pictures produce 100 cubic feet of hydrogen and 50 cubic feet of oxygen each per day, and from what I can see, there are three of them. In another place on their website, they state that each eCell stack produces 2000 amps of electrical current. What’s so vague about that?
After reading what you write (on this and other sites) and comparing it to what they write, you’re the one that comes across as constantly changing your position.
|
]
You are totally mistaken (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 @ 11:56:20 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | You are quite mistaken.
Unless I’m totally mistaken, they have stated how much energy the gCell stacks and eCell stacks produce.
The eCells don't produce energy, they convert it. GWE's been clear enough with them that they are .5 watt power (1000 amps, .5 volts).
It's the gCells that produce energy, and they have never said how much they produce. If you can find where they do, post it. 100 cu ft of H2 per day is a measurement of power or the rate at which energy is produced (if you know pressure and temp). They never state the total energy stored in a gCell.
As I stated in my response to your recent post in another part of this web site, you totally misread and misstated the reference to the 1000 watts. Anyone that actually reads that part of GWE's site will see that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
And as I state above there is no such thing as a watt of energy, and water is always in a molecular state. There is no misunderstanding "1000 watts of energy used to convert water to its molecular state" because there is no proper understanding of such nonsense. Half a dozen other posters have complained about the same error in comments on the "6 kw per day" question. Anyone who reads their page carefully will see that you are guilty of skimming.
Also, I now don't understand what you are saying about filters.
My interpretation of the need to filter the water going into the system is so that water in the system is pure from outside chemicals, minerals (and probably bacteria) that would cause the chemical reactants to be damaged and would keep the water from "going bad" over time.
(Emphasis added.)
Are you saying that you think that the filters are used in part to keep the water cycling through the system from going bad over time? Yeah, a thousand cycles through the system over 20 years, some internal filtering sounds like a good idea. But the last Q&A says that they are used only to filter water input to the system. This is why I say their position has gone from vague to silly. More skimming. |
]
Re: You are totally mistaken (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 @ 21:28:30 UTC | One of the prerequisites for carrying on a debate is using correct meaningful information to support your position. Like usual, you're just making things up to support pure conjecture on your part. From what I can see, nothing in this response is based on what GWE has written. Let's try again, "where specifically has GWE changed its position related to the filters?" Just your opinion that something you don't understand is silly, therefore evidence of a change in their position is meaningless and is actually a public demonstration of your ineptness.
Just so you know Pickle, originally I was following what you would write about things with some interest until your post about Greer's technology being based on a hidden battery. I decided then to start checking out what you were saying about GWE and discovered that virtually everything you write is at the very least an intentional misstatement. |
]
You are still totally mistaken (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 @ 21:59:18 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | You started your last post out that "unless I'm totally mistaken" and then gone on to ignore that you were totally mistaken and changed the subject yet again.
Since you brought it up how have I misunderstood As an example, 1000 watts of energy would be consumed to break water down to its molecular state and only 900 watts of usable gas energy would be yielded from the process
Did I make it up? Is it not on their site? Maybe you could explain it then. If you can't, then it's enough of your childish claim that I make this stuff up. I am not capable of making this stuff up. Bob Newheart could not make this stuff up.
Then you are back to the filters. In your last post you said that you thought that the filters are partially to keep recycled water from getting yeuchy. So, where does your position differ from mine? It does differ from GWE, who says that they are filtering water input only. Sorry if I am really missing your point here, or if I've done an unclear job of explaining mine, or if there are two ACs and I am mixing up your claims.
|
]
|
|
|
|
