Monday, January 28, 2008

Loose Change



This is an incredible documentary. I would request you watch it and then see if your suspicions still hold true. Mine never have changed because I know my system of government. This is a capitalist country and capital gains have been won.

Pentagon Strike

Out of all of the vids I like this one the best. It was my first.

I can't embed it so you will have to click on the title above if you want to see it. It explains all of the cameras that the plane would have had to pass. Even if they photoshopped the plane in by now it would have been better than leaving it out of public arena. It wasn't even released after the 9/11 commission report.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

9/11 falsehoods.



I said that this was a set up from day 1. Flying planes into buildings to start a war really isn't that big of a motivator. However flying planes into buildings to effectively take complete control of the world's most powerful nation is. This is exactly what the patriot act does for us.

9/11 It is all a fake



Regardless of what you may think of this General "Expert" what he says is correct there is no way a plane hit that building.

United 93 was a scam.



I've always thought from the beginning that 9/11 was a farce of smoke and mirrors. Both the pentagon footage and the flight 93 footage confirm my suspicions. There is no way a 100 ft plane is going to leave a 20' x 10' hole in the ground. That is scientifically impossible. Period. It was all a ploy for the patriot act which strips Americans of all of their rights and gives complete power to the government IF anything else were to happen.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Synthesis of Hydrogen technology HELP!!!

I know I haven't posted in weeks but I have been beating my head over this hydrogen thing. Basically I want to get something for next to nothing. Hydrogen is the almost easiest way to do this. but it naturally isn't turning out so easy. I think personally a lot of the problem is that there are a lot of people looking at pieces of the puzzle from very different angles and not synthesizing all known facts into a nice little bundle and coming out with the solution. I am by no means a genius all I want is to power my house and my car off of some hydrogen.

So the first thing I do which was a giant pain in the buttocks is figure out exactly how much hydrogen I would need for an Internal Combustion Engine vehicle ICE for short. I ran around trying to get the numbers which was very frustrating as I like many people hate math, but I am coming to learn that I need it, especially when trying to figure out how to snatch up some stinking hydrogen. So I start with my car:



2001 Nissan Quest Performance

-
3,275 cc 3.3 liters 6 V engine with 91.5 mm bore, 83 mm stroke, 9 compression ratio, overhead cam and two valves per cylinder
-
Unleaded fuel
-
Fuel economy EPA highway (l/100km): 10.2
-
Multi-point injection fuel system
-
Main 76 liter unleaded fuel tank
-
Power: SAE and 127 kW , 170 HP @ 4,800 rpm; 200 ft lb , 271 Nm @ 2,800 rpm

Then I try to go through all that math and figure out how much fuel this thing burns a minute. So I start guestimating. I first figure that I run through a tank at my normal driving speed on long trips to be about 80mph or 130 km/h for you Euros. I figure I probably leave a liter or two in the tank before I underestimate and have to get out and walk with my gas can. So let's guess 75 liters. I can travel on average 310 miles or roughly 500km. So the math starts 500km / 130 km/h = 3.85 hours which in turn is 230.77 minutes which means I burn 75L / 230.77 minutes = .325 Liters per minute I went around the house looking for something that had roughly the same specs and I found this a bottle of Heinz Malt Vinegar that was 355mL which looking at it I thought it was quite a bit of gas to be going through in one minute.


That means even if I believe this John Heyward guy I am giving up 15 miles if my fuel situation is in fact achieving a 97% burn. I don't believe that it is, but hey what do I know right. So then there is more math, now this math I think is extremely sketchy because it involves liquid to gas conversions and moles and joules and it gets really confusing but here goes. So I figure that 1 liter of water is 1kg so I then transpose that onto fuel. 1kg for a liter of gasoline this would mean that guessing on the high side I would have to make .400 kg per minute to be safe to use in my ICE to drive down the street that translates into 24kg per hour. Ok what does that really mean? Well under normal room temperature electrolysis I would need 60kwh to get 1kg of hydrogen. yeah but what does that really mean. Well 1kg of hydrogen holds 12oMegaJoules per kg, gasoline in comparison holds 44 MegaJoules but to get 1kg of hydrogen I would have to expend 216 Megajoules of regular electricity. So I would be at a energy deficit. This in effect is the energy conundrum.

What in the world is a Joule you ask?

One joule is the work done, or energy expended, by a force of one newton moving one meter along the direction of the force. This quantity is also denoted as a newton-meter with the symbol N·m. Note that torque also has the same units as work, but the quantities are not identical. In elementary units:

\, 1\, \mathrm{J}=1\, \mathrm{N} \cdot \mathrm{m}


\, 1\, \mathrm{J}=1\, \mathrm{kg} \cdot \frac{\mathrm{m}^{2}}{\mathrm{s}^{2}}

One joule is also:

  • The work required to move an electric charge of one coulomb through an electrical potential difference of one volt; or one coulomb volt, with the symbol C·V.
  • The work done to produce power of one watt continuously for one second; or one watt second (compare kilowatt-hour), with the symbol W·s. Thus a kilowatt-hour is 3,600,000 joules or 3.6 megajoules
I desperately searched for the conversion formula that would sustain my vehicle flat out but I really couldn't figure out a formula so I am posting it here in hopes that some science major with a love of volume math post me a response that I have seen so wittingly posted on other forums. So I guess on if I need to produce 24kg per hour then I need to sustain a constant pressure guessing here of 17.7psi. I guess that much because hydrogen is 3 times a powerful as gasoline so that is a 3rd of what I need to produce per hour. The consumption of which gets into flow rates and other stuff that is over my head really. Oh I estimated my RPMs to be around 2500 - 3000 I know that info is needed.

So then I realize that ultimately the problem with hydrogen is really a Rate of Production problem more than it is anything else. Rate of production/ Rate of consumption = Unity or viability to do work. What is aimed at is Over Unity or a ratio above 1:2 this is the ultimate hydrogen goal. If you could do that on a consistent basis you could really go anywhere and do anything for free. You could drive all over the US for pennies literally. So in come the innovators those who have claimed overunity all of which have met with untimely deaths after being visited by the oil companies and government per se. You know how I love Conspiracy theories. I'm convinced that United flight 93 was shot out of the sky somewhere else because that golf divot that they showed on the news was no gigantic plane. I'm sorry there would have been much more than that and that was unofficially confirmed by someone in the intelligence community.
I however digress, so don't get me started on the pentagon. ANYWAY Muhammad if you will please.

Ok so collectively what do we know about hydrogen production and water? I'm not going to get into all of the beneficial ways to get hydrogen out of hydrocarbons or oxides or zinc or a million other chemicals because frankly I don't understand it. I will stick to the simple electromechanical ways of producing hydrogen.

First the Laws as we know them:

Faraday's 1st Law of Electrolysis
The mass of a substance produced at an electrode during electrolysis is directly proportional to the number of electrons (the quantity of electricity) transferred at that electrode.
Faraday's 2nd Law of Electrolysis
The number of faradays of electric charge required to discharge one mole of substance at an electrode is equal to the number of "excess" elementary charges on that ion.
More expertly expressed by:

In modern form, Faraday's laws are summarised by:

m \ = \ { QM \over zF }

where

m is the mass of the substance produced at the electrode
Q is the total electric charge passed through the solution
z is the valence number of ions of the substance (electrons transferred per ion)
F = 96 485 C mol-1 is the Faraday constant
M is the molar mass of the substance

The total charge Q is the integral electric current I(t) over time t:

 Q = \int_0^T I(t) \ dt

where T is the total amount of time of the electrolysis.

In the simple case of constant current electrolysis this reduces to:

Q = It

and leads to

n \ = \ { I t\over zF }

where n is the amount of substance ("number of moles") produced.

Uggh math breathe breathe. Anyway that little snippet of math will tell us some neat things later. However it doesn't include something that I thought is of dire importance temperature.

So these are the building blocks of getting Hydrogen from electricity which I actually know a little something about, and so here starts my quest at getting hydrogen for my ICE. So I'm researching and researching and finding more and more neat little clues of how to get more hydrogen faster.

First off I will list everything by numbers and then give my hypothesis at the end of how to get on demand hydrogen for my ICE. I feel it is rather simple actually and some key elements have been overlooked. However people who don't know much actually think that way. I think it is a blessing because people who know it all or a little bit of something overlook the obvious, OFTEN.

  1. We find that passing a relatively small amount of current can produce electrolysis. The separating of hydrogen from oxygen in water. (Yes there are other kinds of electrolysis but we are talking about this one).
  2. We know that molecules are made up of two or more elements and are bonded together covalently or ionically (I suppose).
  3. We know that mass at certain temperatures has certain characteristics. At higher temperatures it moves around more.
  4. We know that lines of magnetism has its effect on matter some more than others.
  5. We know that ICE engines are about 18-25% efficient the rest of their efficiency is lost primarily in heat or energy transfer from one direction to another.
  6. We know that at 2500 C electrolysis happens instantaneously in a process known as thermolysis.
  7. We know that ridiculously high voltage and current can atomize water.
  8. We know that salt water can burn when exposed to radiation.
  9. We know that hydroxy (HHO or Brown's Gas) can increase fuel efficiency.
  10. We know that John Keely made claims that oscillating water at 42,800khz causes it to dissociate. This is unconfirmed but ultrasonic vibrations do cause water to vaporize commonly used in Fog Machines in concerts.
  11. We know that the resonant frequency for hydrogen is 1,420,405,752 Hz. Presumably to effectively agitate hydrogen should probably be attempted at one of its harmonics. One of which would bring us close to John Keely's frequency -15th 43347.344 hz. If working on a harmonics theory it would be safe to say that the length of the conductor be brought into account. It is also said that John Keely's frequency was done in a cord. Therefore it would be safe to say that other frequencies should be taken into account which would be the resonant frequency of Oxygen (currently unknown to me) and either the resonance of the container of water or the resonance of the cathode/anode used to induce the frequency during electrolysis.
  12. We know that transformers induce an emf on coils nearby and if the primary winding has less turns than the secondary the voltage will be increased on the secondary.
  13. We know a man named Stan Meyer claims to have come up with a way to get 300% efficiency from cold hydrolysis.
  14. We know that his design has been improved on by several people Dave Lawton being one of them.
  15. We know that water molecules have certain ways of acting in water.
  16. We know that HTE is more efficient than normal room temperature Electrolysis.
Now some of this stuff maybe hoax, some of it maybe ignorant guessing but either way it is the asking of the question "What if" that is at the core of true science. In science there are laws and laws are meant to be broken, so they say. Or at least they remain the same when all of the variables that made them laws are in place.

So here is my hypothesis: Since lighting off your vehicle on Hydroxy will undoubtedly not yield enough to run your car you can do the second best thing boost your octane with it. So I say you start your car like normal sucking down cups of gas, then you flip on your hydroxy unit. Your primary hydroxy unit first bubbles through a water bubbler to clear it and then through a fuel bubbler to mix with your engines fuel and effectively giving you a higher octane rating. Possibly having a second hydrolysis machine that performs hydrolysis on the fuel itself who knows but safely just water. That hydrogenized fuel is then fed into the car giving it an extra boost. The secondary hydrolysis unit is fed into the air intake to provide a richer mixture and allowing you to use less fuel. Then after the engine gets hot run pressurized water around the exhaust to collect the heat from there creating superheated water. Run this super heated water through an electrolysis process getting even more hydrogen and as hydrogen production increases with the heat from the engine hydroxy production becomes more and more efficient using less energy to create. The fuel hydroxy mixture can then be leaned out further and further so that less and less fuel is used because hydroxy gas will be so high and effectively increasing fuel efficiency to extremely acceptable levels and contributing to the overall efficiency of the engine.

This way you aren't really getting something for nothing you are just using that which is wasted, so you are in effect recycling energy rather than pulling it out of thin air. If you could reclaim 50% of the energy that is wasted it would effectively increase miles per gallon and my financial happiness.

I know it is a long post but hopefully a brainiac will come along and either agree with me or give me the necessary formulas so I can figure out what will possibly work and what won't.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

First Rule of Science

The Quran sums it up best where it says "And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little." Surah Bani Isra'il 17:85

I have been searching for a solution to run vehicles off of water for a couple of days now. Ideastorming and thinking and storming some more, losing sleep and having a lot of hyper brain activity. I keep running into the same answers over and over and over again. They've already done that. WHAT!! If this stuff has already been done over and over and over again then why the hell are we still using fossil fuels? The answer consistently "It's too expensive, It's not cost effective." To fricking who? If you can give me a motor for $100,000 that will provide all of my energy needs and the only thing that I have to worry about is maintenance? Are you fricking serious? Let's see the average light bill these days is about $150 to $400 depending on the size of house for normal people size houses. At $400 a month that would translate into 20 years worth of free energy and I could run all of my fricking appliances all year round. So please really give me a break. If it was in a car which are already reaching astronomical proportions I could drive for 20 years to and from work. When I was living in VA I commuted 120+ miles a day creating a $300 dollar a month gas bill. So if all of my vehicles and home was equipped with these engines I would pocket over $1000 a month. Increasing my standard of living. So really you must ask yourself Cost inefficient for whom? If everyone did this and they made engines so they wouldn't break after 20 miles then the biggest companies in the world would theoretically go out of business tomorrow. So yeah I guess that wouldn't be cost effective.

This then in fact means it is much cheaper to tell the world it can't be done than having fifty million Einstiens in their back yard discovering the wonders of cold-fusion. Knowing the money at stake would make it in your best interest to infest the education centers of the world and give them bogus information and systematically force everyone into focus on working than on thinking to maximize efforts of enslaving a planet. Paycheck to Paycheck is probably the reality of the worlds brightest individuals.

Question everything is definitely the answer. Non-Religious folk would probably chime in including God, that however is not a wise position to take. I can go into more than that if you wish to comment on it. However Question everything in this universe. The Laws of Science definitely should be one of the things questioned. For the establishment lack of questioning only leads to predictability and higher profits.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

300 mile per Gallon Vehicle and the Big Oil Conspiracy

Whilst contemplating my latest ideaquest I was seriously pondering starting a lottery. A lottery for renewable energy, mainly for my car. I was going to name it FreedomFromOilLottery.com and on such site I would collect monies that would eventually lead to the invention that would free us from such a massive dependency on Oil. Then I found this.

While I don't want to belittle blue-collar ingenuity, the vapor carb's inventors are trying to solve a nonexistent problem. According to John Heywood, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT and an authority on internal-combustion engines, incomplete burning of fuel is insignificant in modern cars. Fuel combustion today typically exceeds 97 percent. While it's true cars aren't very efficient--only 20-35 percent of the fuel energy is converted to useful work--that's mostly due to heat loss (through the engine block, out the exhaust pipe) and unavoidable energy loss during burning itself.

The theoretical (and unobtainable) maximum efficiency for a small car like a Honda Civic is around 200 mpg; for your big beaters it's much lower. Claims to the contrary are fraudulent, and I gather Professor Heywood said as much in a report he wrote for the Postal Service, which was investigating high-mileage carb vendors for fraud.


So I'm sitting here thinking the maximum efficiency for a small car like a Honda Civic is around 200mpg? Well hell most people would take half of that. Half is better than all of the hybrids combined just about. Then I found this article:

Eric's Autos: 300 mpg or Conspiracy Theory? - The 2008 Aptera
Eric Peters
Maybe the conspiracy theorists were right after all. That was the first thought to pop into my head as I read about an engineer named Steve Fambro - and his 300 mpg hybrid Aptera two-seater. Yes, you read that right. Three hundred miles per gallon. Really. And even if he's off by half, the mileage of the snarky little gullwing coupe would be at least double that of the best hybrid a major automaker ever delivered - the 70 mpg Honda Insight- and two to three times the best-case mileage of an '08 Toyota Prius. Wow.


I dug further and found this little tidbit from the Shell corporation:

Some folks at Shell Oil Co. wrote “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine” (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); it was published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1977. On page 42 Shell Oil quotes the President of General Motors, he, in 1929, predicted 80 MPG by 1939. Between pages 221 and 223 Shell writes of their achievements: 49.73 MPG around 1939; 149.95 MPG with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35 MPG with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59 MPG with a 1959 Opel in 1973. The Library of Congress (LOC), in September 1990, did not have a copy of this book. It was missing from the files. I bought my copy from Maryland Book Exchange around 1980 after a professor informed me that it was used as an engineering text at the University of West Virginia. VPI published a paper, March 1979, concerning maximum achievable fuel economy. This paper has several charts illustrating achievable and impossible fuel economy. About 1980 I contacted the author concerning conflicts between the paper and documented achieved “impossible” mpg. The author said, “I will get back to you.” I am still waiting for his response.


So then I start to get pissed and think that this company who has a great idea but is really thinking too small. Automotive X Prize has a measly 10 million dollar prize for someone to make a 100 mpg vehicle with various and sundry stipulations. So I write them a letter:

From: Muhammad XXXX[mailto:moomtaz@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:47 PM
To: 'autoprize@xprize.org'
Subject: Not thinking big enough

Hello all,

I think you have an outstanding concept here. I was just thinking of doing it myself and naming it Freedom from oil lottery or something to that effect. I think that there is one significant problem with your concept and that is that it simply isn’t big enough. I think you need or should shift it from a prize to a lottery. One where Me and every other consumer can say you know what I’m sick and tired of paying $4.00 at the pump because people are buying patents and locking them away in a drawer. That’s BS.

The only way we the consumer can compete is if our purse is bigger than the purse of the oil empire. $10 mil is no doubt a nice chunk of change but it is petty cash to big oil business and for that price they can buy up 50 of your winners a week every week and pass the savings back down to us. I don’t think anyone will really take you serious until you get into the $100 million dollar range. I’m being honest here. There literally needs to be enough money to win and then start manufacturing the next day, and or possibly take over a car company. Seriously. You have to go bigger, much bigger. If you start a lottery how many people would pay a buck just to make the pot ridiculous? The pot needs to be huge. Large enough so that someone who knows the simple alteration of getting the results you ask for to say hey this is definitely better than retirement. If the pot gets large enough greed will take over and someone will roll over off of the solution.

Think about it, I have my $5 dollars a month standing by and I’m sure the entire state of California isn’t too far behind me. I know that Oprah’s audience will chip in a buck or two.

Sincerely,

Muhammad XXXX

P.S. That Virgin Millionaire just put up $25 Million for anyone coming up with a solution to reducing greenhouse gasses. His $25 and your $10 that’s $35 and now you are talking enough money to make people listen.

Oh yeah and you might need to think about sponsoring it in a neutral country, fearing that our government will claim the winning solution as some national defense secret or some nonsense.


Because really the only way to get past this is to be able to pay more than the Big Oil Companies and possibly the US government and World Banks. Realistically you need to be in the neighborhood of $400 million. Honestly before greedy people will begin to renege on promises they made to colleagues and friends.

I went on to say that to be really in the ball park you need to say that the vehicle is a SUV or something that everybody is currently driving.

So then I go back to my first love. Hydrogen. It is clean and readily available all over the planet. However common scientific knowledge dictates by repeatedly drilling it into our heads that getting more out of something than what you put into it is scientifically impossible. This however is a lie. The only two circumstances that the Science establishment says that you get more out than what you put in is in terms of Fusion which our sun is a ready example, but the problem is that you can't control it, or presumably Cold Fusion which is a figment of all of our collective imaginations.

Well I would have to look around me to find out that is a lie. My family started with 2 people now there are 6. Cells replicate multiplying themselves numerous amounts of times. 1 kernel of corn goes on to produce hundreds of kernels of corn and if replanted will reproduce several times over. These are biological examples however properties in one science can spread to other sciences. In Physics this must be true as well. If Energy is Neither created nor destroyed then it stands to reason that it can be recycled indefinitely. There is a perpetual machine out there. It has to exist, I would suppose that it is only limited by piss poor management.

Free energy is available on every coast around the world with a decent tide flow. Completely capable of producing millions of kilowatts of electricity. If I had a beach house I would have a small building with a bank of batteries and a Ocean Generator. Free Power.

Over and over Physicists talk about heat loss, heat loss and the inability to control heat loss however the heat isn't used. If it was used then I suppose that it could be put to work.

The only thing that I could really establish is that if Conspiracy Theorists question the establishment then the entire establishment must be questioned. The Laws of science are no different. Everything must be verified to assess the veracity of the truth. If we accept Science as given by the establishment then we have surrendered the creative spirit that makes us human, and are thus doomed to become subservient mindless gnomes PHD's and all.

Be sure to check out the Quasiturbine. Been watching it for a while now.

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

At first I wasn't concerned!

Then I realized that if something else stupid conveniently happens between now and the time the next president is inaugurated then we are STUCK with BUSH forever. Now that is scary. Check Mate!!


Furthermore, on May 9 2007, Bush signed the
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive,
which gives Bush near full dictatorial powers in the event of a "National Emergency". Bush, and the people he works for, will be able to do ANYTHING they want if a "National Emergency" is deemed. All they need is a "New 9/11".
The US Constitution will no longer be applicable.

In regards to this Directive, Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan administration, has come
out and said he feels the White House is preparing to STAGE A NEW 9/11 and the executive order is designed to capitalize on such an attack, specifically to impose Martial Law and Invade Iran.

IN ORDER TO STOP MARTIAL LAW AND THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION
OF THE US CONSTITUTION, WE MUST STOP ANOTHER FALSE
FLAG ATTACK. THE FIRST STEP IS TO EXPOSE THE 9/11 FRAUD.
THIS IS THE EVENT THAT IS BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE DEVELOPING POLICE STATE, NOT TO MENTION WORLDWIDE OPPRESSION.


I read Zietgiest and looked at the full 1:58 hour movie and it was pretty convincing. Especially since I don't believe most of the 9.11 nonsense anyway. Some of the lost news clips prove that United 93 was shot out of the air though. Chances also are that the Pentagon got hit by a Missile. I believe that. Now if you go to zeitgeistmovie you can watch the whole thing for yourself. What I have posted is only the end. Also the first part is pretty anti-Christian which I think is a stupid move on his part. But hey it's his movie.

Watch this NOW!!!

Watch this NOW!!!

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

First Sunrise of 2008





This is not where I wanted to go to get the sunrise but when I set out for my spot I had a flat so oh well. It was a lovely sunrise anyway. I hope you like it.