I worked for a startup called Millennial Cell in Eatontown, NJ that produced hydrogen for cars. We made it from NaBH4 in alkaline solution that produced hydrogen as you needed it. It was called Hydrogen on Demand. We took an old Ford Bronco and converted it. We rode around our industrial park and just kept increasing the speed to see how fast it would go (it got up to 50 mph). A cop stopped us. Here are 4 people in white lab coats and goggles writing down notes in the car. We told the cop what we were doing and he said, well, I think I heard something about that but just stay at the speed limit and he let us go without a ticket.
I'm curious, what is the advantage of using NaBH4? Whe you said "on demand", it sounds like H2 was being made in the Bronco with on-board battery electrical?
There are weak bonding compounds that can easily store it. This has been around since the 1960s. I'm not buying the "notoriously difficult to store" bit. We are constantly reminded of the Hindenburg disaster to scare us of the dangers of hydrogen. It's a constant theme. We now know the Hindenburg disaster was not an accident, but sabotage.
To be fair, what started the fire for the Hindenburg wasn't the Hydrogen, it was the doping compound being overly flammable. The Hydrogen just made it worse.
That goes along precisely with the PsyOp explanation of an accident due to the so-very "dangerous" hydrogen. The same scare mongering was used to ban Borax in Australia. As natural salt that is safer than table salt. Regarding the Hindenberg, there were 22 photographers present at 7 p.m. May 6, 1937 to film the Hindenburg's arrival. This seems like overkill for an event which had already occurred some 20 times in the previous year at the same field without incident. So why would this typical New Jersey airship landing require 22 separate photographers, five of whom were newsreel photographers?
The Hindenburg was behind schedule by exactly 12 hours. It was supposed to land at 7 am. Both the captain and first officer admitted they were wary of a possible bomb attempt because of tensions with Germany. Sabotage was a serious possibility in those days, yet it was not to be mentioned by the press after the "accident".
Everybody knows what supposedly happened. But not one of the photographers caught the actual "spark" that led to the "explosion". There was plenty of footage of a large fireball above the airship with a portion of the outer skin opened up. There was footage of the poor souls trying to get away from the burning wreckage. But no one caught the spark.
It was the most extraordinary "missed-the-shot" photographic blunder of all time.
The biggest problem with the Hindenburg explosion scenario is that Hydrogen, by itself, separated from oxygen as in a sealed gas cell (Hindenburg had 16 separate cells) does not burn. Hydrogen and oxygen need to be combined stoichiometrically. You would take a sample of water, convert it into a gas thus composing two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen. This burns with about seven times the amount of energy than an equal weight of petroleum. But only pure hydrogen was in the Hindenburg.
Blatantly striking a match inside a hydrogen fuel cell would do nothing at all except immediately go out (as soon as the oxygen, in solid oxide form, contained within the match head powder was exhausted.) If a static spark ignited Hindenburg, it would have started burning on the outside of the ship's skin where air containing oxygen could have mixed with the hydrogen escaping from a small leak. Even if there was a static electricity spark, as had never occurred in 30 years of successful operation, how would a flame requiring oxygen burn it's way inside the gas cell where there is no oxygen?
The Hindenburg had instruments that would detect and transmit the slightest changes in gas pressure to the bridge, so any sizable leak would have caused a pressure drop almost immediately and would have been detected.
The pilots would have delayed getting close to any structures and sought to correct the problem. If a spark had then occurred in this split section time window, then we would have seen a small flame on the outside skin burning like the head of a small gas torch where the hole was. But no way could this flame have gone inside the cell, and no way were there any makings of a bomb or explosion there.
Another very large problem with the story of the Hindenburg disaster: The seven year performance of the Graf Zeppelin. This amazing airship proceeded the Hindenburg. Amongst Graf Zeppelin's many incredible aviation feats was her non-stop flight around the world in 1929 carrying 20 passengers! Passenger service using piston driven aircraft did not even offer New York to Paris service until 1939.
Over seven years, Graf Zeppelin logged more than 1,000,000 miles, carried 18,000 passengers in safety and comfort, and made 144 successful Atlantic crossings. Graf Zeppelin used only hydrogen as the lifting material.
Airships are a simple form of anti-gravitation. They are much more efficient for transporting people and cargo than piston driven and modern day aircraft which have to lift such heavy fuel loads and plow through the air to keep them aloft. With a streamlined blimp all one does is cast off a line and let the airship rise. Upon reaching a height of about 500 feet, the engines are started and away they go, like a ship floating in water.
Airship use should have been expanded and continued, but that they were shutdown in favor of inefficient winged aircraft which today consume ungodly amounts of petroleum kerosene, otherwise known as high priced jet fuel.
In 1948, Gestapo Chief Heinrich Muller told his CIA interrogator James Kronthal that the Hindenburg was sabotaged, but they never caught the instigator.
There were 6,057 inventions that were under Secrecy Orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2022. For secrecy orders issued by year see website. The number of secrecy orders have only increased each year. This is technology that is rarely ever released from it's gag order. Tracking of secrecy orders can be found here. In the last 5 years, inventions that were under secrecy orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2018 were 5792. In 2019 it 5878, In 2020, it was 5915, and In 2021, it was 5976 secrecy orders.
“The dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts, far outweigh the dangers that are cited to justify them. There is a very grave danger that an announced need for an increased level of security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of censorship and concealment. That I do not tend to permit, so long as it’s in my control.” – JFK (source)
Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, patent applications on new inventions can be subject to secrecy orders restricting their publication if government agencies believe that disclosure would be “detrimental to the national security.” The so-called areas which the government deems “sensitive”? These include smartphones, internet-enablers and a whole gamut of technology. Dr Gerald F. Ross invented an anti-electromagnetic-transmissions-jammer and had to wait nearly four decades before it got approved. In the interim, who knows what kind of info the Department of Defense managed to glean from it.
The current list of technology areas that is used to screen patent applications for possible restriction under the Invention Secrecy Act is not publicly available and has been denied under the Freedom of Information Act. (An appeal is pending.) But a previous list dated 1971 and obtained by researcher Michael Ravnitzky is available here pdf.
Most of the listed technology areas are closely related to military applications. But some of them range more widely.
In 1971, under US government secrecy orders on page 14 solar pholtaic cell technology is subject to review and possible restriction if patents for solar photovoltaic generators were more than 20% efficient. Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction if they offered conversion efficiencies “in excess of 70-80%.” The world has since improved solar panel efficiency to 25%… And some scientists from the land down under have come up with solar panels that up to 46% efficient. Who knows how much faster we’d have gotten there if the US government did not try so hard to keep quite so many secrets to itself, or how much slower if it had been American scientists filing those patents. For over 12 years, the Ford Motor Company has sold in Europe the Ford Focus that gets 80 mpg. It’s not authorized here in the United States. It’s not the only manufacturer that sells much higher mpg vehicles in Europe. Yet, there are more technologies in the field of energy that the public at large will ever be allowed to use personally. The world plan appears to be Klaus Schwabb’s view of it. You will own nothing and be happy.
Regarding suppressed technologies, the question needing to be asked is if disclosure of such technologies could really be “detrimental to the national security,” or whether the opposite would be closer to the truth? I suspect the latter. This question would then leads us to the next logical question of what comparable advances in technology may be subject to restriction and non-disclosure today? No answers have been forthcoming, and the invention secrecy system persists with no discernible external review.
Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, secrecy orders may be imposed on patent applications when a government agency finds that granting the patent and publishing it would be “detrimental” to national security.
The U.S. Patent office is place to which ongoing corruption occurs. It appears the Rothschild banking cartel has gained complete control of it. I am not exaggerating this either. I believe that Serco is running that shit show. The USPO outsources the examination of patent applications to outside companies, such as ‘Global Patent Solutions’.
Interesting, I found that it was cellulose acetate butyrate with aluminum powder. Not flamable like the rocket scientists theory, but leaves a nice metalic look while making the covering weather tight and resistant to impacts (hail stones?)
What is little-known about the Hindenburg was that the fabric covering was painted with an aluminum and iron-oxide based paint. These are coincidentally the ingredients of thermite. Any kind of spark would be capable of lighting it off and it would proceed rapidly across the covering, as indeed the photography shows. The destruction of the covering would mean loss of hydrogen and the airship would founder, as it did, with the released hydrogen being consumed in flames above.
Airships are lovely...but they are slow. Maybe several times as fast as an ocean liner. Airplanes were already much faster by that time.
That was what I was referring to as the doping compound. However the Doping compound on the Hindenburg was cellulose acetate butyrate mixed with aluminum powder of which is not a flamable compound. The source of this rumor comes from a rocket scientist referring to the usage of the aluminum powder often used in solid fuel rockets.
Yes, the hydrogen was produced in the bronco. Here's a summary-
A novel, simple, convenient, and safe, chemical process generates high purity hydrogen gas on demand from stable, aqueous solutions of sodium borohydride, NaBH,, and ruthenium based (Ru), catalyst. When NaBH, solution contacts Ru catalyst, it spontaneously hydrolyzes to form H, gas and sodium borate, a water-soluble, inert salt. When H, is no longer required, Ru is removed from the solution and H, generation stops. Since this H, generator is safer, has quicker response to H, demand, and is more efficient, than commonly used H, generators, it is ideal for portable applications.
Thanks for your response. You mentioned it being a chemical process. I'm interpreting this as using no electrolysis for this conversion. I sodium borohydride and ruthenium catalyst price prohibited? Why isn't this method on the market?
This is interesting. Do you have some reference info I can read. I'd greatly appreciate it.
I can only speculate but we were a small company that went public and the board brought in a CEO who had worked for a large company (Air Liquide). He brought in quite a few people from Air Liquide, pushed the inventor Steve Amendola to the side and the politics went bad.
One of our problems was bringing down the price of sodium borohydride (which is high) and we never achieved that. We would have probably tried other catalysts than Ru but the sodium borohydride cost was our primary concern.
Steve Amendola was a brilliant chemist and a nice guy. Unfortunately he died from cancer a few years ago. He's the kind of guy you could just call and he would talk to you. His jokes were the best!
You can search for Steve Amendola and hydrogen. Here's a patent
https://patents.justia.com/patent/20070217994
This is interesting, I had a diesel that I used a hydrogen generator on to supplement into the intake and heard about how hydrogen destroys metal. I sold that truck so don't know how that engine paired bc I sold it with 397k miles on it and still ran good
No one really thought about that. Most of the people who worked there were chemists and they think only about chemical reactions. Now that hydrogen powered cars are becoming more popular for development, tests on hydrogen embrittlement are being done. It is bad for the HS steels used in car engines,
Didn’t Bob Lazar, the Area 51 guy have one of those? He wanted to create a company that sold hydrogen cars but China had all the resources for the hydrogen absorption apparatus. Metal Hydrides or something like that.
Bob Lazars car used 6Li (lithium-6) H (hydride) for H1 storage which he created in his own particle accelerator as you cannot easily purchase that material because it has to do with nuclear weapons iirc.
Basically it stores the hydrogen and then when heat is applied it releases the hydrogen which is then used in the engine.
This is the video explaining it better than i can
enter text
Stanley Meyer was definitely on to 'something' regarding splitting water into H2 and oxygen. He used harmonics similar to what Royal Rife did in his experiments on parasites, except Meyer applied it for breaking the covalent bonds of water. This was used in conjunction with electrolysis. Finding consistency for the harmonic of water made the applicability beyond reach though. Water resonance varies with impurities. Under a controlled environment Meyer was able to find success, but outside the controlled environment the applicability not successful. Toward the end of his life, Meyer started to investigate plasma for breaking the bonds of water. He was using a super spark plug and applying aerosol water directly for combustion.
The auto industry used to be famous for keeping other people's inventions to themselves, even denying they had not invented the process themselves. I remember the intermittent wiper guy taking the industry to court. He had a terrible fight, finally won-I believe-and got his royalties. The industry is, like most other money hungry "people", all for itself and wants all the credit.
For years it was Ralph Nader against General Motors, who went so far as to hire private detectives to discredit him. They sent a prostitute to try to seduce him at a food counter at Safeway's but he turned her away. So the gumshoes tried to prove he was homosexual but were caught as they tried to follow him into Congress. The scandal made Mr Nader into a hero overnight. The car makers were forced to introduce seat belts, and ultimately air bags.
The combustion of hydrogen produces water. Water causes Climate Change. Proof: every single time it rains the climate changes. Water is the MOST IMPORTANT molecule involved in Climate Change.
In addition, burning hydrogen causes heat to be released, thus contributing to global warming. When the sun burns hydrogen it causes gamma ray radiation, thus the better we get at using hydrogen for fuel, the more it destroys our environment.
ON TOP OF ALL THAT, just like with fossil fuels, there is only a limited amount of Hydrogen in the universe. It is estimated that only 99% of all visible matter is hydrogen and it is only going down as stars burn it for fuel. It is not a renewable resource. Once it's all gone, our entire universe will die. Using it for fuel will destroy all life, forever.
Pushing hydrogen combustion against EV's is evil, and will cause us to lose not just our planet, but the entire universe, probably by 2030.
Unironically the water could be a problem if scaled up enough.
I remember one of the lectures by the head of Greenpeace saying that heat is more easily trapped in humid/moist areas. Which they carried out studies on.
Then they will blame water as the source for climate change hysteria and impose restrictions on water access
If they can sell CO2 as the "bad molecule" when it is one of the most important molecules for life on earth, with numerous methods of natural regulation, including increasing plant life, which increases oxygen, which increase animal life, etc., then they can easily sell H2O as a "bad molecule" and impose a "water tax."
That water tax would be devastating for the Eskimos who build their homes out of it, but I guess it's just a round about way of selling them their own ice. We may have hit on the overarching motivation for their evil plan. Selling ice to Eskimos!
It should read like satire. Satire often employs strawman arguments, but not all strawman arguments are satire. Thus, if you appreciate the strawman arguments, but not the satire, you are not appreciating the argument for what it is in it's entirety, but rather, what it is in part, which is itself something of a strawman.
The satire of The Bee is oddly predictive these days of bizzaro sound/visual bites. OTH, some MSM headlines I've seen here defy the definition of satire. Tongue in cheek is the cheeky now.
Hydrogen was almost ready in the 80s. Something else supplanted it. hmmm. They do not WANT real sustainable affordable energy to support a decent standard of living for the "masses", do they? [OK who is "they" one might ask.]
Thermochemical Processes. Some thermal processes use the energy in various resources, such as natural gas, coal, or biomass, to release hydrogen from their
molecular structure. ...
If the government was serious about climate change specifically, EVs wouldn't be their solution. We could've easily switched to natural gas. Conversion kits have existed for years. We're the Saudi Arabia of natural gas for fucks sake.
Hydrogen would be great too, obviously, but we essentially have CNG on tap
I sat in a CISO meeting where Martin Ebwrgard (actual founder of Tesla) spoke and he said the problem with hydrogen is you’re spending energy to create the hydrogen energy for the car which is inefficient compared to electricity. Then you expend energy to get the hydrogen back into electricity. So, great idea but I don’t know if it’ll be the long term solution over electric due to that.
That's all fine, but time is possibly more important. Electric cars take too long to charge. Solve that problem and it won't matter if they are slightly less efficient. If you can get it to roughly the same time as filling up your car with case it will be adopted. If I recall correctly, something like that happens with Solar - something to do with converting from DC to AC for battery storage.
Meanwhile, back at the water plant! We are venting hydrogen into the atmosphere from our chlorine mixed oxidant generators. Now if we could collect that…
Be advised that most hydrogen is produced by steam reformation of natural gas. The reaction converts 2.2 tons of methane and 4.9 tons of water into 6 tons of carbon dioxide and 1.1 tons of hydrogen. In effect, you have to "burn" the oxygen out of water and strip off hydrogen from the methane---but you produce as much carbon dioxide as if you had simply burnt the methane directly in an engine.
Electrohydrolysis sounds like a fine solution...but only if you have plentiful nuclear power, since you still have to produce the energy required to break the chemical bonds in water between hydrogen and oxygen.
It would be easier to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels from water and scrap carbonaceous matter (e.g., plants), which would result in a closed cycle. Hydrocarbon fuels are easier to handle than hydrogen and we already have a widely-established distribution network.
In the end, there is no problem being solved by any of this.
As an engineer, the talking points make me so mad. 1) Carbon is NOT BAD. Carbon dioxide is also NOT BAD. 2) Hydrogen is not "exhaust free". The exhaust is just different; it's H2O instead of CO2. 3) Every "real" engineer knows the electric hype is bullshit and isn't realistic or good for the environment. Toyota, Honda, Aston Martin, and BMW all know this, which is why they've been making Hydrogen vehicles for over 30 years to develop them. Aston did a full lap of the Nordschleife on Hydrogen just a few years ago.
The material itself is easily ignited and burns vigorously ... from pubchem.
So, no safer than gasoline.
Where does one find NaBH4 mines or wells? Most likely, this is generated using electric power, which means it needs a greatly expanded electric grid, just like EV.
It might be cleaner burning, but that depends on the whole cycle, from the coal mine to the power plant to the manufacturing plant to the car.
My hubs grandparents just got a hydrogen car in LA. Yes they are asleep and full libtards. But kind people. I dont understand the appeal but they kept bragging they get free hydrogen for life bc they got it, go figure
Won’t excess water vapor produced by these cars make more rain clouds? What if rainy regions of the world get a bunch of flooding from this phenomenon? Could be a problem.
One of many many problems
#1). Prove its possible
#2). Demonstration of Reliability at scale
#3). Build Super Structure to support wild scale deployment
This means parts, maintenance, specifications, training of techs, fueling stations, disposal centers, etc
It’s phenomenally complex. It’s going to take decades. But the sooner you get started, the faster it happens. In the meanwhile; life is full of transitions. We transitioned from vinyl, to 8-track, to cassette, to Digital tape, to CD, to LaserDisk, to DVD, to Bluetooth and to cloud. We went from steam, to gas and diesel, to electric and now to Hydrogen. Perhaps someday to fusion
One of the big problems with hydrogen is it just embrittled metals, eats everything, it is very reactive and caustic, it's so small (an atom)it just leaks and goes through solid metal and other materials, destroying them in the process. The other problem is you still have to make the hydrogen, which itself is an energy intensive process, . It's really kind of a stupid fuel to use when so many other fuels are available. It just looks good as an end product, because people can say they have a zero emissions vehicle, which is a lie
I worked for a startup called Millennial Cell in Eatontown, NJ that produced hydrogen for cars. We made it from NaBH4 in alkaline solution that produced hydrogen as you needed it. It was called Hydrogen on Demand. We took an old Ford Bronco and converted it. We rode around our industrial park and just kept increasing the speed to see how fast it would go (it got up to 50 mph). A cop stopped us. Here are 4 people in white lab coats and goggles writing down notes in the car. We told the cop what we were doing and he said, well, I think I heard something about that but just stay at the speed limit and he let us go without a ticket.
I'm curious, what is the advantage of using NaBH4? Whe you said "on demand", it sounds like H2 was being made in the Bronco with on-board battery electrical?
Hydrogen leaks through everything and is notoriously difficult to store. On demand solves on of the biggest hurdles
There are weak bonding compounds that can easily store it. This has been around since the 1960s. I'm not buying the "notoriously difficult to store" bit. We are constantly reminded of the Hindenburg disaster to scare us of the dangers of hydrogen. It's a constant theme. We now know the Hindenburg disaster was not an accident, but sabotage.
To be fair, what started the fire for the Hindenburg wasn't the Hydrogen, it was the doping compound being overly flammable. The Hydrogen just made it worse.
That goes along precisely with the PsyOp explanation of an accident due to the so-very "dangerous" hydrogen. The same scare mongering was used to ban Borax in Australia. As natural salt that is safer than table salt. Regarding the Hindenberg, there were 22 photographers present at 7 p.m. May 6, 1937 to film the Hindenburg's arrival. This seems like overkill for an event which had already occurred some 20 times in the previous year at the same field without incident. So why would this typical New Jersey airship landing require 22 separate photographers, five of whom were newsreel photographers?
The Hindenburg was behind schedule by exactly 12 hours. It was supposed to land at 7 am. Both the captain and first officer admitted they were wary of a possible bomb attempt because of tensions with Germany. Sabotage was a serious possibility in those days, yet it was not to be mentioned by the press after the "accident".
Everybody knows what supposedly happened. But not one of the photographers caught the actual "spark" that led to the "explosion". There was plenty of footage of a large fireball above the airship with a portion of the outer skin opened up. There was footage of the poor souls trying to get away from the burning wreckage. But no one caught the spark.
It was the most extraordinary "missed-the-shot" photographic blunder of all time.
The biggest problem with the Hindenburg explosion scenario is that Hydrogen, by itself, separated from oxygen as in a sealed gas cell (Hindenburg had 16 separate cells) does not burn. Hydrogen and oxygen need to be combined stoichiometrically. You would take a sample of water, convert it into a gas thus composing two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen. This burns with about seven times the amount of energy than an equal weight of petroleum. But only pure hydrogen was in the Hindenburg.
Blatantly striking a match inside a hydrogen fuel cell would do nothing at all except immediately go out (as soon as the oxygen, in solid oxide form, contained within the match head powder was exhausted.) If a static spark ignited Hindenburg, it would have started burning on the outside of the ship's skin where air containing oxygen could have mixed with the hydrogen escaping from a small leak. Even if there was a static electricity spark, as had never occurred in 30 years of successful operation, how would a flame requiring oxygen burn it's way inside the gas cell where there is no oxygen?
The Hindenburg had instruments that would detect and transmit the slightest changes in gas pressure to the bridge, so any sizable leak would have caused a pressure drop almost immediately and would have been detected.
The pilots would have delayed getting close to any structures and sought to correct the problem. If a spark had then occurred in this split section time window, then we would have seen a small flame on the outside skin burning like the head of a small gas torch where the hole was. But no way could this flame have gone inside the cell, and no way were there any makings of a bomb or explosion there.
Another very large problem with the story of the Hindenburg disaster: The seven year performance of the Graf Zeppelin. This amazing airship proceeded the Hindenburg. Amongst Graf Zeppelin's many incredible aviation feats was her non-stop flight around the world in 1929 carrying 20 passengers! Passenger service using piston driven aircraft did not even offer New York to Paris service until 1939.
Over seven years, Graf Zeppelin logged more than 1,000,000 miles, carried 18,000 passengers in safety and comfort, and made 144 successful Atlantic crossings. Graf Zeppelin used only hydrogen as the lifting material.
Airships are a simple form of anti-gravitation. They are much more efficient for transporting people and cargo than piston driven and modern day aircraft which have to lift such heavy fuel loads and plow through the air to keep them aloft. With a streamlined blimp all one does is cast off a line and let the airship rise. Upon reaching a height of about 500 feet, the engines are started and away they go, like a ship floating in water.
Airship use should have been expanded and continued, but that they were shutdown in favor of inefficient winged aircraft which today consume ungodly amounts of petroleum kerosene, otherwise known as high priced jet fuel.
In 1948, Gestapo Chief Heinrich Muller told his CIA interrogator James Kronthal that the Hindenburg was sabotaged, but they never caught the instigator.
This, simple form of antigravity is what we should be using for long distance trips. Until the aliens give us the really good tech.
Technology is being withheld from the American public.
There were 6,057 inventions that were under Secrecy Orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2022. For secrecy orders issued by year see website. The number of secrecy orders have only increased each year. This is technology that is rarely ever released from it's gag order. Tracking of secrecy orders can be found here. In the last 5 years, inventions that were under secrecy orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2018 were 5792. In 2019 it 5878, In 2020, it was 5915, and In 2021, it was 5976 secrecy orders.
“The dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts, far outweigh the dangers that are cited to justify them. There is a very grave danger that an announced need for an increased level of security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of censorship and concealment. That I do not tend to permit, so long as it’s in my control.” – JFK (source)
Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, patent applications on new inventions can be subject to secrecy orders restricting their publication if government agencies believe that disclosure would be “detrimental to the national security.” The so-called areas which the government deems “sensitive”? These include smartphones, internet-enablers and a whole gamut of technology. Dr Gerald F. Ross invented an anti-electromagnetic-transmissions-jammer and had to wait nearly four decades before it got approved. In the interim, who knows what kind of info the Department of Defense managed to glean from it.
The current list of technology areas that is used to screen patent applications for possible restriction under the Invention Secrecy Act is not publicly available and has been denied under the Freedom of Information Act. (An appeal is pending.) But a previous list dated 1971 and obtained by researcher Michael Ravnitzky is available here pdf. Most of the listed technology areas are closely related to military applications. But some of them range more widely.
In 1971, under US government secrecy orders on page 14 solar pholtaic cell technology is subject to review and possible restriction if patents for solar photovoltaic generators were more than 20% efficient. Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction if they offered conversion efficiencies “in excess of 70-80%.” The world has since improved solar panel efficiency to 25%… And some scientists from the land down under have come up with solar panels that up to 46% efficient. Who knows how much faster we’d have gotten there if the US government did not try so hard to keep quite so many secrets to itself, or how much slower if it had been American scientists filing those patents. For over 12 years, the Ford Motor Company has sold in Europe the Ford Focus that gets 80 mpg. It’s not authorized here in the United States. It’s not the only manufacturer that sells much higher mpg vehicles in Europe. Yet, there are more technologies in the field of energy that the public at large will ever be allowed to use personally. The world plan appears to be Klaus Schwabb’s view of it. You will own nothing and be happy.
Regarding suppressed technologies, the question needing to be asked is if disclosure of such technologies could really be “detrimental to the national security,” or whether the opposite would be closer to the truth? I suspect the latter. This question would then leads us to the next logical question of what comparable advances in technology may be subject to restriction and non-disclosure today? No answers have been forthcoming, and the invention secrecy system persists with no discernible external review.
Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, secrecy orders may be imposed on patent applications when a government agency finds that granting the patent and publishing it would be “detrimental” to national security.
The U.S. Patent office is place to which ongoing corruption occurs. It appears the Rothschild banking cartel has gained complete control of it. I am not exaggerating this either. I believe that Serco is running that shit show. The USPO outsources the examination of patent applications to outside companies, such as ‘Global Patent Solutions’.
Interesting, I found that it was cellulose acetate butyrate with aluminum powder. Not flamable like the rocket scientists theory, but leaves a nice metalic look while making the covering weather tight and resistant to impacts (hail stones?)
Thank you for inspiring to dig a little deeper.
What is little-known about the Hindenburg was that the fabric covering was painted with an aluminum and iron-oxide based paint. These are coincidentally the ingredients of thermite. Any kind of spark would be capable of lighting it off and it would proceed rapidly across the covering, as indeed the photography shows. The destruction of the covering would mean loss of hydrogen and the airship would founder, as it did, with the released hydrogen being consumed in flames above.
Airships are lovely...but they are slow. Maybe several times as fast as an ocean liner. Airplanes were already much faster by that time.
That was what I was referring to as the doping compound. However the Doping compound on the Hindenburg was cellulose acetate butyrate mixed with aluminum powder of which is not a flamable compound. The source of this rumor comes from a rocket scientist referring to the usage of the aluminum powder often used in solid fuel rockets.
https://www.airships.net/hindenburg-paint/
Crazy that the whole project got shelved. Imagine we all have personal blimps...better than living in a van!
Also probably safer I'd assume
Yes, the hydrogen was produced in the bronco. Here's a summary- A novel, simple, convenient, and safe, chemical process generates high purity hydrogen gas on demand from stable, aqueous solutions of sodium borohydride, NaBH,, and ruthenium based (Ru), catalyst. When NaBH, solution contacts Ru catalyst, it spontaneously hydrolyzes to form H, gas and sodium borate, a water-soluble, inert salt. When H, is no longer required, Ru is removed from the solution and H, generation stops. Since this H, generator is safer, has quicker response to H, demand, and is more efficient, than commonly used H, generators, it is ideal for portable applications.
Thanks for your response. You mentioned it being a chemical process. I'm interpreting this as using no electrolysis for this conversion. I sodium borohydride and ruthenium catalyst price prohibited? Why isn't this method on the market?
This is interesting. Do you have some reference info I can read. I'd greatly appreciate it.
I can only speculate but we were a small company that went public and the board brought in a CEO who had worked for a large company (Air Liquide). He brought in quite a few people from Air Liquide, pushed the inventor Steve Amendola to the side and the politics went bad.
One of our problems was bringing down the price of sodium borohydride (which is high) and we never achieved that. We would have probably tried other catalysts than Ru but the sodium borohydride cost was our primary concern. Steve Amendola was a brilliant chemist and a nice guy. Unfortunately he died from cancer a few years ago. He's the kind of guy you could just call and he would talk to you. His jokes were the best!
You can search for Steve Amendola and hydrogen. Here's a patent https://patents.justia.com/patent/20070217994
How did you deal with hydrogen embrittlement?
This is interesting, I had a diesel that I used a hydrogen generator on to supplement into the intake and heard about how hydrogen destroys metal. I sold that truck so don't know how that engine paired bc I sold it with 397k miles on it and still ran good
That probably didn't introduce a lot of hydrogen - at least not enough to cause a problem before other things failed.
True it was a very small amount but you could definitely see how corrosive it was
No one really thought about that. Most of the people who worked there were chemists and they think only about chemical reactions. Now that hydrogen powered cars are becoming more popular for development, tests on hydrogen embrittlement are being done. It is bad for the HS steels used in car engines,
It’ll only be allowed to succeed if Chy-nah controls the world’s ruthenium supply.
The Chinese are already in on it - coming up with different catalyst, e.g. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsanm.1c03067
But it was Steve Amendola who came up with this.
Didn’t Bob Lazar, the Area 51 guy have one of those? He wanted to create a company that sold hydrogen cars but China had all the resources for the hydrogen absorption apparatus. Metal Hydrides or something like that.
Lazar is still riding in his Corvett prototype.
Steve Amendola was the inventor. Great chemist and businessman.
Bob Lazars car used 6Li (lithium-6) H (hydride) for H1 storage which he created in his own particle accelerator as you cannot easily purchase that material because it has to do with nuclear weapons iirc.
Basically it stores the hydrogen and then when heat is applied it releases the hydrogen which is then used in the engine.
This is the video explaining it better than i can enter text
It was fun but jerky. We didn't have the right powertrain for it,
Interesting, I never heard of that company and I lived in North Eastern Monmouth County for 30 years.
We started in the late 90s, went public in 2000, went out of business in 2008. Never got big.
I wonder if Toyota had anything to do with all those suspicious untimely deaths of the various inventors who already created this tech
The sarcasm went over 1 persons head, hence the downvote.
Stanley Meyer
Poisoned.
In broad daylight.
Stanley Meyer was definitely on to 'something' regarding splitting water into H2 and oxygen. He used harmonics similar to what Royal Rife did in his experiments on parasites, except Meyer applied it for breaking the covalent bonds of water. This was used in conjunction with electrolysis. Finding consistency for the harmonic of water made the applicability beyond reach though. Water resonance varies with impurities. Under a controlled environment Meyer was able to find success, but outside the controlled environment the applicability not successful. Toward the end of his life, Meyer started to investigate plasma for breaking the bonds of water. He was using a super spark plug and applying aerosol water directly for combustion.
The auto industry used to be famous for keeping other people's inventions to themselves, even denying they had not invented the process themselves. I remember the intermittent wiper guy taking the industry to court. He had a terrible fight, finally won-I believe-and got his royalties. The industry is, like most other money hungry "people", all for itself and wants all the credit.
Hollyweird made a movie about that guy & his story. Flash of Genius (2008)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/
This was almost 20 years ago now:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/22/uselections2004.usa
I do remember Ralph Nader, but in the incident you brought up. Thanks for the article..
The combustion of hydrogen produces water. Water causes Climate Change. Proof: every single time it rains the climate changes. Water is the MOST IMPORTANT molecule involved in Climate Change.
In addition, burning hydrogen causes heat to be released, thus contributing to global warming. When the sun burns hydrogen it causes gamma ray radiation, thus the better we get at using hydrogen for fuel, the more it destroys our environment.
ON TOP OF ALL THAT, just like with fossil fuels, there is only a limited amount of Hydrogen in the universe. It is estimated that only 99% of all visible matter is hydrogen and it is only going down as stars burn it for fuel. It is not a renewable resource. Once it's all gone, our entire universe will die. Using it for fuel will destroy all life, forever.
Pushing hydrogen combustion against EV's is evil, and will cause us to lose not just our planet, but the entire universe, probably by 2030.
TRUST THE SCIENCE!!
Kek!
Well, then, a big thumbs up for a ride anywhere, and make sure you have a towel...
😁
And remember, Don't Panic
Unironically the water could be a problem if scaled up enough.
I remember one of the lectures by the head of Greenpeace saying that heat is more easily trapped in humid/moist areas. Which they carried out studies on.
Then they will blame water as the source for climate change hysteria and impose restrictions on water access
If they can sell CO2 as the "bad molecule" when it is one of the most important molecules for life on earth, with numerous methods of natural regulation, including increasing plant life, which increases oxygen, which increase animal life, etc., then they can easily sell H2O as a "bad molecule" and impose a "water tax."
That water tax would be devastating for the Eskimos who build their homes out of it, but I guess it's just a round about way of selling them their own ice. We may have hit on the overarching motivation for their evil plan. Selling ice to Eskimos!
Water tax then sell ice back to the Eskimos... What a genius idea!
Way to haul us all down Debbie….Geez. /s
This reads like a strawman argument
It should read like satire. Satire often employs strawman arguments, but not all strawman arguments are satire. Thus, if you appreciate the strawman arguments, but not the satire, you are not appreciating the argument for what it is in it's entirety, but rather, what it is in part, which is itself something of a strawman.
:)
The satire of The Bee is oddly predictive these days of bizzaro sound/visual bites. OTH, some MSM headlines I've seen here defy the definition of satire. Tongue in cheek is the cheeky now.
But what will all the Congolese children do for work?
They can learn to code.
With how AI is coming, coders are going to be out of a job soon.
It was some heavy sarcasm.
They’ve been working on this since at least 2008, I heard about it right before the crash. I worked in a Toyota dealership.
Hydrogen was almost ready in the 80s. Something else supplanted it. hmmm. They do not WANT real sustainable affordable energy to support a decent standard of living for the "masses", do they? [OK who is "they" one might ask.]
Ummmmm, THEM....
Parentheses intensify
Well, I DID use 2 stars there... 😁
Hmmm. Toyota has a hydrogen vehicle it been out awhile. https://www.toyota.com/mirai/
Only available in Cali in the states, which is weird
I said they were talking about it
Hydrogen Production Processes
Thermochemical Processes. Some thermal processes use the energy in various resources, such as natural gas, coal, or biomass, to release hydrogen from their molecular structure. ...
Electrolytic Processes. ...
Direct Solar Water Splitting Processes. ...
Biological Processes.
copied/pasted Department of Energy (.gov)
I seem to remember a guy that made a car that ran on water. I think he was disappeared! Must have converted the water to a combustible hydrogen. This was 40 years ago or more. Looking for the article now. https://www.gaia.com/article/the-mysterious-death-of-stanley-meyer-and-his-water-powered-car
Back a few years there were a couple of farmers driving their trucks on steam. I don’t know what happened to that.
Yeah he did have a Hummer that ran on hydrogen i remember that as well.
If the government was serious about climate change specifically, EVs wouldn't be their solution. We could've easily switched to natural gas. Conversion kits have existed for years. We're the Saudi Arabia of natural gas for fucks sake.
Hydrogen would be great too, obviously, but we essentially have CNG on tap
I sat in a CISO meeting where Martin Ebwrgard (actual founder of Tesla) spoke and he said the problem with hydrogen is you’re spending energy to create the hydrogen energy for the car which is inefficient compared to electricity. Then you expend energy to get the hydrogen back into electricity. So, great idea but I don’t know if it’ll be the long term solution over electric due to that.
That's all fine, but time is possibly more important. Electric cars take too long to charge. Solve that problem and it won't matter if they are slightly less efficient. If you can get it to roughly the same time as filling up your car with case it will be adopted. If I recall correctly, something like that happens with Solar - something to do with converting from DC to AC for battery storage.
Meanwhile, back at the water plant! We are venting hydrogen into the atmosphere from our chlorine mixed oxidant generators. Now if we could collect that…
Be advised that most hydrogen is produced by steam reformation of natural gas. The reaction converts 2.2 tons of methane and 4.9 tons of water into 6 tons of carbon dioxide and 1.1 tons of hydrogen. In effect, you have to "burn" the oxygen out of water and strip off hydrogen from the methane---but you produce as much carbon dioxide as if you had simply burnt the methane directly in an engine.
Electrohydrolysis sounds like a fine solution...but only if you have plentiful nuclear power, since you still have to produce the energy required to break the chemical bonds in water between hydrogen and oxygen.
It would be easier to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels from water and scrap carbonaceous matter (e.g., plants), which would result in a closed cycle. Hydrocarbon fuels are easier to handle than hydrogen and we already have a widely-established distribution network.
In the end, there is no problem being solved by any of this.
It makes sense they would want to keep ICE around, they have invested billions over the years in development of new engines
They will take the time to make sure its up to Toyota reliability standards before they release it
As an engineer, the talking points make me so mad. 1) Carbon is NOT BAD. Carbon dioxide is also NOT BAD. 2) Hydrogen is not "exhaust free". The exhaust is just different; it's H2O instead of CO2. 3) Every "real" engineer knows the electric hype is bullshit and isn't realistic or good for the environment. Toyota, Honda, Aston Martin, and BMW all know this, which is why they've been making Hydrogen vehicles for over 30 years to develop them. Aston did a full lap of the Nordschleife on Hydrogen just a few years ago.
Toyota hasn't done the whole EV only thing for a reason. They're a smarter company and less interested in the woke shit.
H2O is a greenhouse gas too.
Okay... What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
MAGA by Toyota. Make A-bombs Great Again!
George W. always wanted hydrogen.
Ohmasa gas?
The material itself is easily ignited and burns vigorously ... from pubchem.
So, no safer than gasoline.
Where does one find NaBH4 mines or wells? Most likely, this is generated using electric power, which means it needs a greatly expanded electric grid, just like EV.
It might be cleaner burning, but that depends on the whole cycle, from the coal mine to the power plant to the manufacturing plant to the car.
Sensible company, sensible approach.
Terrible video though!
My hubs grandparents just got a hydrogen car in LA. Yes they are asleep and full libtards. But kind people. I dont understand the appeal but they kept bragging they get free hydrogen for life bc they got it, go figure
Stop listening at "...Carbon emissions worldwide..". Can't stand that bullshit.
That’s what I said when gas is banned, don’t worry about it.
Won’t excess water vapor produced by these cars make more rain clouds? What if rainy regions of the world get a bunch of flooding from this phenomenon? Could be a problem.
One of many many problems #1). Prove its possible #2). Demonstration of Reliability at scale #3). Build Super Structure to support wild scale deployment
This means parts, maintenance, specifications, training of techs, fueling stations, disposal centers, etc
It’s phenomenally complex. It’s going to take decades. But the sooner you get started, the faster it happens. In the meanwhile; life is full of transitions. We transitioned from vinyl, to 8-track, to cassette, to Digital tape, to CD, to LaserDisk, to DVD, to Bluetooth and to cloud. We went from steam, to gas and diesel, to electric and now to Hydrogen. Perhaps someday to fusion
Well, it will burn clean. But it also blows up a lot.
"But it blows up a lot." No more than a Lithium solution.
Ain't gonna go far into space with EV motors
Ammonia on demand is technically a way to run an engine on water.
We could use our own pee?
Agree.
Except that you have to make the ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen, which is an energy intensive process.
One of the big problems with hydrogen is it just embrittled metals, eats everything, it is very reactive and caustic, it's so small (an atom)it just leaks and goes through solid metal and other materials, destroying them in the process. The other problem is you still have to make the hydrogen, which itself is an energy intensive process, . It's really kind of a stupid fuel to use when so many other fuels are available. It just looks good as an end product, because people can say they have a zero emissions vehicle, which is a lie