Unfortunately, there seems to be big problems with us all switching to renewable-powered cars. For starters, we'd have to build a whole load of new cars and scrap the existing ones. Secondly, if they were battery-powered, we'd have to make a lot of batteries, which aren't environmentally friendly. We might instead try to use hydrogen-powered cars but if we did that, we'd have to construct hydrogen storage tanks and pumps at all our petrol stations… or at least, that's the commonly held belief. But what if we could simply convert normal, gasoline or petrol-powered cars to run on hydrogen? That is the subject of the following video. It has an annoyingly deceptive title, 'car that runs on water' when in fact it runs on hydrogen created from water using electrolysis, but it's still well worth watching.
The video stars Bob Lazar. He came to fame in UFO circles after talking openly about his work at Area 51, and his experiences working on 'flying saucers' or UFOs. People in the UFO community are divided about Bob's testimony. Some think it is correct and others think he is supply false testimony, to confuse and discredit the whole subject. My personal feeling, over the years, is that Bob is a clever, sincere and brave man, but I am sceptical that some of the information he has passed on is correct, not through his own duplicity, but because he was fed false information by people at Area 51. Lazar's reported description of element 115 and its use in advanced anti-gravity ships is, I think, a complete red-herring. It has been created to disguise the fact, as explained by Eric Laithwaite, Nikola Tesla, Paul LaViolette, Thomas Townsend-Brown, John Searle and others, that charge distribution and circular motion in a metal body is enough to generate a gravitational effect. The theoretical underpinning for this phenomenon is described in Dr LaViolette's book, sub quantum kinetics.
This 'create confusion' tactic was were developed in the Second World War by the Allies, and probably earlier. More recently, it has been used in the matter of UFOs, aliens, exotic technology etc. Back in the 1940's, those wartime classified departments realised that just hiding something was too simple an approach. Instead, it was better to hide important material but also to create false material. In this way, any investigators searching for the truth would think they'd found something.They'd finish their work, satisfied, but in fact they'd been duped and they were actually worse off than before.
Returning to the matter of adapting a car to run on hydrogen, Bob Lazar shows that this isn't a difficult process. He has already adapted his Corvette to run on hydrogen, which he creates overnight with an electrolysis unit using mains water and a solar-power array. Unfortunately, there's a catch; Bob explains in the video that a special hydride, a chemical, is needed in the storage process. This hydride has been marked classified by the U.S. government and can't be bought. Lazar got around this problem by making the hydride himself.
How accurate are Lazar's claims? Is it practically achievable to alter a car to run on hydrogen? I don't know but it's definitely worth investigating. This is the first time I've heard of someone adapting a normal, petrol or gasoline-powered car to run on hydrogen but, in principle, it should be do-able. A car's engine is simply a metal case containing set of cavities in which a fuel is burnt. The expansion of the gases created by the burning pushes a piston around, thereby turning the car's wheels. Hydrogen should work just as well as petrol, as they're both chemicals being oxidised. I can imagine all sorts of technical issues but in principle, it's a sound idea.
The idea of adapting existing cars to run on hydrogen is brilliant from a climate-change and environmental perspective. We don't have to trash all our existing cars and we still get clean cars that can run on renewable power. I can see that the major car manufacturers wouldn't be very interested in this, as no one's buying a new car. Also, the safety people might have a lot to say about a car that's had hydrogen tanks fitted to it, but I would say that's better that staying with fossil fuels, which are destroying our planet's climate, polluting our cities and will eventually decimate the human race. Hopefully, we'll hear more on this subject soon.
If we follow the current, accelerating temperature changes, in fifty years time, no one will be able to survive outdoors in Australia for any significant length of time and the vast majority of its agriculture will be gone.
The net effect of such a strategy would be that the greater the media exposure of a controversial theory, the more likely that it's wrong. This situation also creates a sad side-effect; intelligent readers who only look at the most well-known theories will rapidly see that they're false and conclude the whole area is bunk, when in fact important and correct theories do exist, they're just being ignored and/or suppressed.
'the inventors… could hardly have asked for a better intercessor than Tutt. His vivid, level-headed and engrossing commentary is as entertaining as it is thought-provoking.'
I'm not sure that the New Scientist would be so positive in its view now, since Tutt's book talks extensively about inventors, scientists and engineers who developed new forms of energy creation that don't fit the official scientific view. Their creations were powered by zero-point energy (allegedly), cold fusion (allegedly), free energy from high-voltage, high-charge devices and other seemingly exotic sources. As a formerly avid reader of the New Scientist, I developed a good understanding of its trends and where science journalism in Britain generally was going. As a result, I'd be surprised if they gave the book such a positive review now.
How real is the threat of rogue A.I.'s? Can one really become sentient, accelerate in intelligence, form its own agenda and take over the world, destroying humanity in the process? Read More...
"The plan to sell home data centres to customers as heat sources sounds innovative, but seems to be missing some key financial points (7th February, pg20). Each customer will need to seek the extra computing power online. The cost of a high-bandwidth connection to the internet and an intermediary to handle the processing tasks is not mentioned. More importantly, the article doesn't mention Moore's law, which states that computing power doubles every two years [Although this law isn't as straightforward nowadays with processor speed limits, it is still roughly true]. This means that the expensive kit a Project Exergy customer buys will roughly halve in value every two years. Also, companies buying the processing power will invariably switch to newer users with newer and faster kit. Early Exergy adopters will be abandoned, leaving them with nothing more than [wildly] expensive electric heaters."
As can be seen from my letter, I wasn't impressed with the strategy of Project Exergy described in the article, but I think their sentiment is positive. As the article states, 'it takes the energy from 34 coal power plants to sustain all digital activities in the US every year'. That's an awful lot of CO2 and innovative ways to reduce this consumption are most welcome, but I think their current strategy isn't the answer.
How about this for an alternative approach? Instead of each household installing servers that remote companies can use for processing tasks, why not set up the servers to mine bitcoins? Bitcoins are created by running an algorithm to solve a mathematical equation for certain values. In other words, processing time is converted into units of digital currency. If households set up their Exergy servers to do this work, they would not need to encourage remote clients to use their machines and they would therefore not need an intermediary. They would also not need to transmit lots of data and would therefore not need a fat pipe to the internet. In addition, their servers would still be able to grind out bitcoins as the years went by, just at a relatively slower rate. These households would therefore not get 'dumped' by processor clients switching to new customers.
It's still not ideal, but it's hard to think of any currency accumulation that isn't energy intensive. Gold is inert and non-toxic, but it takes a lot of effort and power to get it out of the ground and refine it. Also, its mining processes are hideously bad on the environment. Much of the wealth of the modern world is effectively petroleum turned into money, which isn't much good either. By comparison, generating bitcoins while heating your home doesn't seem too irresponsible. If I can, I'll suggest the idea to the Project Exergy people.
Apart from all that, I'm still immersed in writing a science-fiction comedy novel. I'll try and knock out an article on something interesting soon, when there's a natural gap in the writing. Until then, if you're in the Northern Hemisphere, I hope you're enjoying the longer, sunnier days! :-)