While we don't create energy, what we do is convert energy. Coal or other fossil fuels uses chemistry to change chemical energy to electrical energy or via heat energy. Potential energy becomes kinetic energy which becomes electro-magnetic energy. Energy converted, but conserved.

So the more efficient one can convert energy, the more economical. Of course the great thing about fission is the great conversion rate we get, because of the high multiplier we get to use, C².

It was once thought that fission would always take more energy than the energy we could get out of it, there are films of Einstein saying that fission was as likely as hunting for birds in the dark in a country where there are very few birds. However, a way was found and now we have nuclear power.

Energy is still conserved, but we get a better conversion rate. Same holds true of fusion, if we can find a way to get the high pressures and temperatures needed to cause fusion, and release more energy than we need to convert it. However, right now we still do not know how. Perhaps we never will.

Elizabeth

I've always thought Fusion would only work ("sustainably") in something utterly huge like a Star... Thats a totally un-scientifically tested notion, of course, but based on what I've studied I think practical fusion on a human scale (ie: something we could do here on Earth) is both an impossibility and a pipe dream. At least with today's technology... Its going to take some kind of a radical breakthrough to make practical fusion here on Earth feasible.

As for making Hydrogen:

I wonder how practical it would be to create Hydrogen with Solar Panels?

Would it be more practical/efficient to use Solar Panels to charge batteries and then run cars/appliances/etc from them?

Or would it be more practical/efficient to use Solar Panels to create Hydrogen (or HHO) and then either burn it (in some kind of engine) or create electricity with Fuel Cells (or some similar technology)?

In simple terms, the problem with the 12 volt car battery model is at some point the battery will run out, and will need to be recharged. You will NEVER EVER EVER get enough HHO gas out of it to completely re-charge the 12 volt battery (because you can never get 100% efficiency). Similarily, you would only get enough HHO gas out to run the car for maybe a few miles by the time the 12 volt battery was discharged...

Basically it would be the same as if you connected the 12 volt battery directly to an electric motor, and used that electric motor to run the car. It will work but you will not get too far before the battery is dead.

You could use Solar Panels to recharge your 12 volt battery... But then my previous question comes up: Is it more efficient to re-charge the battery, or more efficient to just connect the Solar Panels to the HHO generator directly?

Prudence (imported) wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:19 pm Or would it be more practical/efficient to use Solar Panels to create Hydrogen (or HHO) and then either burn it (in some kind of engine) or create electricity with Fuel Cells (or some similar technology)?

In simple terms, the problem with the 12 volt car battery model is at some point the battery will run out, and will need to be recharged. You will NEVER EVER EVER get enough HHO gas out of it to completely re-charge the 12 volt battery (because you can never get 100% efficiency).

Yes, you will recharge your battery with HHO - and much more than that. You can get "overunity" efficiency by activating H2O to HHO. This is not electrolysis, but a kind of electromagnetic "activation" that makes water combustible. At first glance, this looks like breaking all sorts of laws of physics and chemistry - but it is working, as shown in the video that I have linked to before.

So once you have started the process, you just need a little water, no solar energy or any other energy source.

I have no doubt that "free energy" sources like this will be the future.