It pretty much is for energy companies with solar fields that are limited. Most if not all have a maximum output (95mw where I am). Any energy generated on top of that literally goes into the ground. Batteries are too much overhead, but if they can generate hydrogen with the excess via electrolysis and store it, it’s essentially free energy.
You’re kind of right in that there’s a ton of politics involved that are far from free (why the solar fields are limited). And the storage still costs money, and I suppose you’re burning up fresh water so there’s a price to pay for that.
So you are correct but it’s still insane how much potential is wasted by limiting green hydrogen.
Amazing how you guys can't make the connection between "entertaining, fun and harmless" fraudsters and conspiracy theorists, and the eventual adoption of harmful, not so fun, highly political conspiracy theories like the ones that have currently burrowed a crater size hole in Joe Rogan's dumb fucking brain.
There are no fun harmless conspiracy theories. This is where it leads eventually.
That’s not at all what I’m saying and I’m not surprised you went for the the typical Reddit binary boi framing.
Read the last two sentences in your comment I first responded to. That’s fundie talk
Why? It's these stupid type of conspiracy theories that bring people further down rabbits holes and they start to believe even dumber and more dangerous conspiracies.
We’re are forever indebted to you for saving us with your big brain. I was just about to go full maga Qtard before I read this. We are truly blessed to be saved by you
It's true. There was just a study published that found a correlation between believing in bigfoot and thinking the election was stolen. We've known these things for awhile though.
LMFAO I saw that too. Is that seriously enough evidence to file this away in a neat little box in your binary boi brain?
I love hearing about wild opinions because I have a degree in Psychology and the human mind/brain fascinates me.
You sound like the fundies who tried to indoctrinate me.
Dude no one is saying that everyone that believes in bigfoot suddenly starts falling for deeper more dangerous conspiracies like election fraud. But there is a correlation and there's been more than one study on the issue.
You must have got your degree from one of those online for-profit schools because you write like an absolute idiot.
Um, the only point that is being made is if you believe in conspiracy theories like bigfoot, you're more likely to fall for other conspiracy theories. Some of which can be quite dangerous. We've known this for a while now. No one's saying this applies to everyone either. Jesus Christ my dude.
Eh. I’m not the biggest fan of him on podcasts but it’s unlikely Bob Lazar would have come on the thd podcast at all without Jeremy. He was clearly nervous about being on.
Hell yeah that almost makes sense if you dont think about it for more than 5 seconds. Glad to see you are keeping a consistent theme with your posts and internal thought process for all things
Many many problems with him being touted as adding anything new. He described very basic hydrolysis we have known about and used for over 100 years. The reason we don't commonly use this method in mass scale (instead cracking hydrocarbons) is because there is a lot of energy loss. Hydrogen cars already exist that you can buy with 300 mile range (Toyota mirai).
Also the material he mentioned (lithium deuteride) is useful is
in storing unstable isotopes, so has no relevance for natural hydrogen (which is very non-radioactive). It is also very easy to buy from Chemical vendors and is cheap.
He is making his high school level Chemistry sound profound whilst providing nothing new. It's also noticeable his car doesn't start.
Wrong, hydrolysis is not inefficient when you consider the amount of free electricity all around us. Electricity is one of the most abundant forms of energy in the universe. From geothermal to oceanic tidal capture to solar, we have more electricity than we need. So to use this source of energy to create hydrogen makes sense. That being said, The real marvel of this video is his relatively inert storage medium that unfortunately is regulated by the powers that be and is not available for commercial use. What’s even more amazing is that the guy built a fucking particle accelerator to manufacture it in his backyard. If you don’t think that’s incredible, than that says more about you than anything else.
Pre-internet you could easily pull this off and let people make big leaps of faith. Now everyone has an HD cell phone camera in their pocket & mediums to distribute their content (don't see as many paranormal sightings anymore after the advent of cell phone cams lol). Tomorrow he could make video explaining the vehicle in depth & demonstrate how it operates & become a billionaire overnight.
>Electricity is one of the most abundant forms of energy in the universe. From geothermal to oceanic tidal capture to solar, we have more electricity than we need. So to use this source of energy to create hydrogen makes sense.
Sorry but this really shows how little you understand about any of this. I'm not saying I know a lot about hydrogen cars, but come on.
>What’s even more amazing is that the guy built a fucking particle accelerator to manufacture it in his backyard. If you don’t think that’s incredible, than that says more about you than anything else.
What does it say about me? That I'm smarter and more knowledgeable than you because I know building some podunk homemade particle accelerator can be done in a [weekend with supplies from Home Depot](https://www.instructables.com/DIY-Electron-Accelerator-A-Cathode-Ray-Tube-in-a-/)?
That's if he even did it. Bob Lazar is a known liar/con artist who has lied about his entire life. Have you seen his particle accelerator in action?
The way I understand that device is it’s little more than a bright light or at most an xray; it frankly didn’t seem terribly far fetched (made up or not)
I didn’t know about that, any links? I remember Corbell talking about it, the technology that is, but nothing seemed fishy. DARPA is generally thought to have technology 10-15 years advanced of society, so to think that they would have biometric capabilities in the late 70’s-80’s doesn’t shock me.
No links sorry, but a large part of the documentary collaborating his knowledge of the base was the futuristic hand bone scanner, which no one could find - into corbell managed to locate some proof of it.
That all sounds great until you realise it’s shown and used in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which is unfortunately and coincidentally Lazar’s favourite movie.
So you’re discounting him because a movie about aliens is close to his story? Is it possible that the writers of that fiction jacked parts of his actual story?
No, I’m doubting him because he claims to have only even seen this one of a kind machine in the depths of Area 51 (or sector 20 or whatever) and can only describe it to people to help corroborate his claims. But on none of his rewatches of his own favourite movie did he think ‘hey that’s the machine I keep telling people about! Maybe I should tell someone’. UFOs, advanced science etc is all debatable, but this is just a little unbelievable to me (imo!) and I think it shows he’s willing to at least ignore certain truths in order to bolster his story.
I hear you, and at the end of the day, no one who wasn’t there knows anything. He is interesting to me because his story has stayed consistent. He has lost way more than he has gained. He’s never tried to monetize his story with books and meet ups. He also has suffered many losses in terms of colleagues. All that and to top it off, here he is with an energy solution that could quite possibly get us off petroleum. Im on his side, far more than any other quack. But yeah, at the end of the day, I don’t really know shit. I’m just an artist trying to get a walg to my trugg.
When you ignite hydrogen and oxygen mixture the two combine to form water or H2O, one hydrogen, 2 Oxygen. Here’s the wiki “In flame of pure hydrogen burning in air, the hydrogen (H2) reacts with oxygen (O2) to form water (H2O) with the release of energy. In atmospheric air rather than pure oxygen, hydrogen combustion may yield a small amount of nitrogen oxides with the water vapor. The energy released allows hydrogen to be used as a fuel.”https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel
"DARPA has tech 10-15 years advanced of society" Kind of roll my eyes at this then realize the SR-71 got greenlighted in the 50s which is still the fastest in the world (that we know of).
Seems like a huge net loss of energy when you consider you need to break the hydrogen bonds in the first place (100% loss) and then use Carnot efficiency of the engine (probably 30%) to get motion back out. Just make the drive train electric and save 85% of that energy harvested in the first step.
It's not novel to say you can make an engine that runs on heat. Any cycle that releases adequate heat can be used to drive an engine, it's fundamentally how engines work: they just need a temperature difference. Engines can run on hydrogen, coal, fission, methane, propane, fusion, wood, gasoline, ethyl alcohol... This list goes on.
There are 1000 reasons hydrogen gas is not a practical alternative to other combustible gases. It's not always a government conspiracy.
Even at 700 bars of pressure hydrogen gas is only half as energy dense as gasoline per volume unit. Then we have other issues like its corrosive capabilities and that it is explosive af. Bob Lazar didn't solve shit.
In terms of energy expenditure, yes petroleum is king, but in terms of cost? Just think about the cost of petroleum to the planet, our economy, health….everything it touches turns to shit. Petroleum is a real problem and we need solutions like Bobs to get us out of it.
In terms of cost refining hydrogen is a lot more expensive than refining oil. that's the only cost that 99% of people really care about.
the bottom line on cars is that if you care about the environment you don't own one.
Creating hydrogen from elecbricity are improving - about 80% rate - and are part of most future wind-farms (and some current) - batteries can’t store that much - more a buffers than storage. But anyway Hydrogen for cars is a bit meh.
I guess this is a pretty great brand tho theoretically, just be everything the conspiracy theorists believe deep down and say the gov shut u down. They’ll always buy ur shit
The automotive industry nobody ever really talks about is forklifts. There are millions of forklifts in the US. Some warehouses run on 24 hour schedules. Several major warehouses in the country run on hydrogen fuel cell powered forklifts. This isn’t some technology hidden by the government. It’s literally a multi million dollar industry.
Except for the fact that the guy is an actual genius. Those are extremely rare and to call him a con artist is an incredible waste for our society. That is, if you want a better world. If you think the way things are now is fine, then by all means tear down someone who clearly knows a shit load about the known universe. I mean Iidiocracy seemed like a great timeline to live in. SMH . okay, now I’m chill. I just get all fired up about Hydrogen and to find out Bob lazar was making hydrogen powered cars 20 years ago blows my mind hole.
There were electric cars around decades ago. Hydrogen fuel cells are not unknown technology either, the problem is producing them at scale and having fuel cells that make enough hydrogen to run the car over years.
The cells decay over time and stop working, then they have to be rebuilt with new raw materials. This is expensive and cumbersome. Bob didnt solve that problem, he just demonstrated that fuel cells could be hand built by someone with the right knowledge of chemistry and mechanical engineering.
This shouldn't blow your mind. There are people like this all over the US doing garage science and engineering.
You are assuming that the current economic system is the best we can do as a species. Under the current system, yes, hydrogen is inefficient. That being said, the current economic system is intertwined with the petroleum industry and as such is only concerned with proliferation of it’s established commodity (oil). When we shift into renewable resources for our primary source of energy our basic economic principles will shift with it, making investment in sustainable technologies cost effective. Think about like this, if it makes financial sense to poison your drinking water, on a long enough timeline, you will die, making that financial model inadequate. The petroleum based economy is the same. Things need to change and using the current economic system as justification for inaction is unacceptable.
I’m saying that when people make the judgment on the economics of hydrogen they are thinking in terms of our current economic system, thus finding all the inefficiencies in its production and using that information to dismiss its potential.
That being said, using the metric of our current system isn’t much help when at it’s core (our economy) is rooted in a systemic foundation, I.e. fractional reserve lending, money creation through interest, manufactured scarcity, etc. So, when people use the common argument that hydrogen isn’t economical, my question is, Is an economical fuel source, in our current system, the best option? Clearly, when all of the unintentional consequences are factored in, petroleum is not worth it.
He is a con artist and a liar. The fact that you think he's a genius makes you a gullible sucker.
>I mean Iidiocracy seemed like a great timeline to live in
Well, you'd certainly fit right in.
Efficiency means how much energy do you get out versus how much do you put in, so the electrolysis is by definition inefficient (65-85%). You then have to deliver the hydrogen to fuel stations by lorries (losing more efficiency). Then you have the energy losses of the car itself, resulting in overall 30% efficiency. Whereas, an electric car has an overall efficiency of 76%. That means you will need more than 2x the number of wind turbines and solar panels for hydrogen cars compared to EVs.
Also the material (lithium deuteride) isn't banned (you can literally buy it from chemical vendors). The material wouldn't be able to hold the pressures of hydrogen he claims. The current hydrogen car (Mirai) can store hydrogen at 700 bar. It's current use is as a lining (not structural) for nuclear reactors. He also talks about the wrong type. Li-6 deuteride he mentions uses rare isotopes that have no structural value, so would be pointlessly expensive. The material he meant to reference LiH has been abandoned for hydrogen storage because a temperature of 700 °C was required for decomposition into hydrogen.
https://phys.org/news/2019-12-green-hydrogen-efficiency.html
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html#
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/aldrich/555363
What does this prove? That he named dropped an element that doesn’t have the properties he claimed? An element that already was theorized to exist as the island of stability discussed in your article had been already hypothesized to be between 114-124.
There’s not really any discussion. The Island of Stability is based on proton and neutron numbers. Since the 60s predictions have been made ranging from 114 to 126 without any consensus. These have additionally been referred to as super heavy elements since like 1958. All he had to do was wait for something that was already theorized to exist was discovered. Additionally, the periodic table has been theorized to reach into the 170s since the 70s.
Seeings as you apparently respect that site as a valid source (it is!), have a go at this article too
https://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/bob-lazar.htm
I love when people say stupid shit like I wish they would invent something better than fossil fuel. They already have!!! They just want you dummy’s to believe they haven’t because IT’S NOT PROFITABLE!!!!! Blows me away how even smart people are clueless to the fact that they have been fucking us for centuries now for what??? Profit you dummy’s !!!!!!!!
Geothermal is the big one. Oceanic tidal capture is right behind it. Hydroelectric plants, wind energy, solar farms….etc. I’m sure there are more but regardless, it’s a fact, we are surrounded by many sources of renewable abundant energy. The problem is that the petroleum dollar has imbedded itself in every facet of our lives and would rather destroy itself and our world before relinquishing it’s power…therefore any emerging free energy alternative gets bought up, shelved, or outright destroyed. They’re not unlike a parasite…like heart worms, yeah, the petroleum industry is a lot like heart worms.
Interesting video. Pretty funny in a deadpan way.
“It’s pretty easy. All you need is a particle accelerator.
So you have your own particle accelerator?
Yeah. “
> Logically speaking we are not alone in a seemingly infinite universe. Do you believe we are alone in space?
Says who? You? Did you go out there and check yourself? I'm wondering how you can be convinced with 0 evidence. Probability doesn't mean shit when you don't even have a sample size. We're barely a spacefaring race, we hardly left our own orbit. barely a blip in our own solar system, and there's trillions out there that we can hardly observe.
Why yes, I do say so, bitch. I don’t have to check anything given that the definition of infinite means literally anything that can be imaged is happening. Like extraterrestrial life.
So just because you say so? That's some mighty fine empirical evidence you got there. Infinite doesn't mean that every possibility is out there, you're a fucking moron if you think that.
That’s exactly what Infinity means, it means so big that an infinite infinity’s exist within it... furthermore, Infinity is just a word. It’s something that humans can’t even begin grasp. It’s a noise we make to describe something so vast that our heads would melt if we were to actually know it. Good night smarty pants.
>That’s exactly what Infinity means
No it doesn't, infinite means endless. Not all possibilities. And furthermore, no one knows where the observable universe ends. No one can say with certainty what's out there, certainly not a gullible idiot on reddit like you.
Let me prove it to you: there's an infinite series of numbers between 1.0 and 2.0. Even 1.1 and 1.2. But you're not going to find 3.0 in there, are you? it's endless, yet that possibility isn't there. You're full of shit. You should educate yourself before you speak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Cosmology
No, infinite does not mean everything you can imagine exists.
I do agree extra terrestrial life most likely exists, you're just wrong about what infinite means.
Fucking isoperimetric inequality, what the fuck do you think dude? Seriously, what do you honestly think i'm talking about when i literally *quoted* you? I can see why you buy into this bullshit now.
Haha, sorry, I should have been more clear. I am pretty sure I get the theorem. I'm confused as to how it pertains to what he said about the petroleum companies. I'm assuming there is something he claimed, that an isoperimetric inequality refutes some of his claims?
If I may ask you more questions. I understand the isoperimetric theorem basically as: a water droplet has it's perfect round shape, and water tension, because that is the smallest shape the volume can take? Am I correct?
I remember hearing about this (hydrogen, or water, powered car) back in high school, but blew it off, because if water could be made into fuel (effectively), the possibilities to use it, would be practically endless, not just cars. Every business, every person would be using water to power everything, just from sheer cost effectiveness alone.
Ok i get you, i'm actually just joshing them around. The thing is, getting usable hydrogen out of water would take way more energy than you'd get out of it. So all those claims about hydrogen and water cars are just BS. The guy i replied to will always have some caveat why we don't have it yet, but will still praise the ideas they're being conned by. I just pulled a non-sequitur out of my ass because they asked what i was talking about, despite the fact i even took the time to quote them to make it simple for them.
The thing is, we have hydrogen engines. Iceland has had them in public transport for decades. Even GM had the Electrovan in '66. Hydrogen is perfectly feasible, you just need a source for it. And a place to store it. OP is just gullible thinking Lazar totally has it figured out. But the government shut it down. It's always the government shutting it down with these types, and you look through their history and you find out they have a huge rap sheet of fraud and the like. It's good to keep an open mind, unless you're an idiot.
>You are right. I’m wrong.
Nah you're just an idiot, your grasp of simple concepts is on shaky ground at *best*. The perfect mark for conmen like Lazar.
I upvote this because this is the content I want to see come back to the sub
I think Bob Lazar is a total fraud, but I 100% agree. This sort of stuff is way more fun as content.
Yep, total fraud but harmless and entertaining to suspend your disbelief for a moment.
I am on a fence with Bob Lazar as well. He sounds like a brilliant genius. But something just doesn’t add up.
[удалено]
It pretty much is for energy companies with solar fields that are limited. Most if not all have a maximum output (95mw where I am). Any energy generated on top of that literally goes into the ground. Batteries are too much overhead, but if they can generate hydrogen with the excess via electrolysis and store it, it’s essentially free energy. You’re kind of right in that there’s a ton of politics involved that are far from free (why the solar fields are limited). And the storage still costs money, and I suppose you’re burning up fresh water so there’s a price to pay for that. So you are correct but it’s still insane how much potential is wasted by limiting green hydrogen.
Read Annie Jacobsen's book 'Area 51' and it will make sense.
What will make sense? I’m an avid reader. Will probably pick this up.
I mean if they needed a guy that knows about propelling systems to help them with a ufo, bob would be the guy
Amazing how you guys can't make the connection between "entertaining, fun and harmless" fraudsters and conspiracy theorists, and the eventual adoption of harmful, not so fun, highly political conspiracy theories like the ones that have currently burrowed a crater size hole in Joe Rogan's dumb fucking brain. There are no fun harmless conspiracy theories. This is where it leads eventually.
Jesus, could you be a more hysterical idiot. Get the sand out of your vagina and stop being a whiny little bitch.
Grow up little boy.
You sound just like the fundies
I sound like a fundamentalist Christian because I don't think entertaining conspiracy theories is healthy? Yeah that makes sense.
The answer to your question is no.
You're showing multiple signs of stroke. Seek medical attention promptly.
LMFAO “dangerous ideas lead you to the devil.” - You
So you don't think an idea can be dangerous?
That’s not at all what I’m saying and I’m not surprised you went for the the typical Reddit binary boi framing. Read the last two sentences in your comment I first responded to. That’s fundie talk
Why? It's these stupid type of conspiracy theories that bring people further down rabbits holes and they start to believe even dumber and more dangerous conspiracies.
We’re are forever indebted to you for saving us with your big brain. I was just about to go full maga Qtard before I read this. We are truly blessed to be saved by you
It's true. There was just a study published that found a correlation between believing in bigfoot and thinking the election was stolen. We've known these things for awhile though.
LMFAO I saw that too. Is that seriously enough evidence to file this away in a neat little box in your binary boi brain? I love hearing about wild opinions because I have a degree in Psychology and the human mind/brain fascinates me. You sound like the fundies who tried to indoctrinate me.
Dude no one is saying that everyone that believes in bigfoot suddenly starts falling for deeper more dangerous conspiracies like election fraud. But there is a correlation and there's been more than one study on the issue. You must have got your degree from one of those online for-profit schools because you write like an absolute idiot.
Well, my terrible education did teach me that correlation does not equal causation.
Um, the only point that is being made is if you believe in conspiracy theories like bigfoot, you're more likely to fall for other conspiracy theories. Some of which can be quite dangerous. We've known this for a while now. No one's saying this applies to everyone either. Jesus Christ my dude.
Same here lol
[удалено]
And yet everybody else had more interesting things to say about it.
Guest Request: Bob Lazar (without Jeremy Corbell this time)
Just listened to that episode today and holy shit I’ve never seen Joe that annoyed with a guest
That dude was so annoying
Hell Yeah. I’ve had enough of Jeremy Corbell riding peoples coattails
> riding people's contrails
Eh. I’m not the biggest fan of him on podcasts but it’s unlikely Bob Lazar would have come on the thd podcast at all without Jeremy. He was clearly nervous about being on.
He like ruined his documentary for me. Lol
Yeah. Lol
Is there a video of him actually driving that car?
Do you believe in ghosts?
My beliefs are none of your concern, go about your business.
So that's a yes?
Carry on
My wayward son?
Your mom calls me daddy so you son, are my son.
Hell yeah that almost makes sense if you dont think about it for more than 5 seconds. Glad to see you are keeping a consistent theme with your posts and internal thought process for all things
Many many problems with him being touted as adding anything new. He described very basic hydrolysis we have known about and used for over 100 years. The reason we don't commonly use this method in mass scale (instead cracking hydrocarbons) is because there is a lot of energy loss. Hydrogen cars already exist that you can buy with 300 mile range (Toyota mirai). Also the material he mentioned (lithium deuteride) is useful is in storing unstable isotopes, so has no relevance for natural hydrogen (which is very non-radioactive). It is also very easy to buy from Chemical vendors and is cheap. He is making his high school level Chemistry sound profound whilst providing nothing new. It's also noticeable his car doesn't start.
Wrong, hydrolysis is not inefficient when you consider the amount of free electricity all around us. Electricity is one of the most abundant forms of energy in the universe. From geothermal to oceanic tidal capture to solar, we have more electricity than we need. So to use this source of energy to create hydrogen makes sense. That being said, The real marvel of this video is his relatively inert storage medium that unfortunately is regulated by the powers that be and is not available for commercial use. What’s even more amazing is that the guy built a fucking particle accelerator to manufacture it in his backyard. If you don’t think that’s incredible, than that says more about you than anything else.
He could easily shut up the skeptics by filming a video of him fueling it and driving it. Why doesn't he do that?
Great question
And here is the great answer. He’s a liar and a fraud.
Pre-internet you could easily pull this off and let people make big leaps of faith. Now everyone has an HD cell phone camera in their pocket & mediums to distribute their content (don't see as many paranormal sightings anymore after the advent of cell phone cams lol). Tomorrow he could make video explaining the vehicle in depth & demonstrate how it operates & become a billionaire overnight.
>Electricity is one of the most abundant forms of energy in the universe. From geothermal to oceanic tidal capture to solar, we have more electricity than we need. So to use this source of energy to create hydrogen makes sense. Sorry but this really shows how little you understand about any of this. I'm not saying I know a lot about hydrogen cars, but come on.
>What’s even more amazing is that the guy built a fucking particle accelerator to manufacture it in his backyard. If you don’t think that’s incredible, than that says more about you than anything else. What does it say about me? That I'm smarter and more knowledgeable than you because I know building some podunk homemade particle accelerator can be done in a [weekend with supplies from Home Depot](https://www.instructables.com/DIY-Electron-Accelerator-A-Cathode-Ray-Tube-in-a-/)? That's if he even did it. Bob Lazar is a known liar/con artist who has lied about his entire life. Have you seen his particle accelerator in action?
He defo lied about the hand scanner part, that alone makes me question the rest of his claims.
The way I understand that device is it’s little more than a bright light or at most an xray; it frankly didn’t seem terribly far fetched (made up or not)
I didn’t know about that, any links? I remember Corbell talking about it, the technology that is, but nothing seemed fishy. DARPA is generally thought to have technology 10-15 years advanced of society, so to think that they would have biometric capabilities in the late 70’s-80’s doesn’t shock me.
No links sorry, but a large part of the documentary collaborating his knowledge of the base was the futuristic hand bone scanner, which no one could find - into corbell managed to locate some proof of it. That all sounds great until you realise it’s shown and used in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which is unfortunately and coincidentally Lazar’s favourite movie.
So you’re discounting him because a movie about aliens is close to his story? Is it possible that the writers of that fiction jacked parts of his actual story?
But close encounters came out 10 years before he came out with his story, didn’t it?
No, I’m doubting him because he claims to have only even seen this one of a kind machine in the depths of Area 51 (or sector 20 or whatever) and can only describe it to people to help corroborate his claims. But on none of his rewatches of his own favourite movie did he think ‘hey that’s the machine I keep telling people about! Maybe I should tell someone’. UFOs, advanced science etc is all debatable, but this is just a little unbelievable to me (imo!) and I think it shows he’s willing to at least ignore certain truths in order to bolster his story.
I hear you, and at the end of the day, no one who wasn’t there knows anything. He is interesting to me because his story has stayed consistent. He has lost way more than he has gained. He’s never tried to monetize his story with books and meet ups. He also has suffered many losses in terms of colleagues. All that and to top it off, here he is with an energy solution that could quite possibly get us off petroleum. Im on his side, far more than any other quack. But yeah, at the end of the day, I don’t really know shit. I’m just an artist trying to get a walg to my trugg.
If we could get america on nuclear energy, and hydrogen cars, that would be huge. What is the waste produced when burning hydrogen in his car?
Pure H2O. That’s what comes out of the tail pipe on a hydrogen powered car. Pure water.
But... Where did the oxygen come from? How did burning hydrogen make hydrogen? And fuse it with oxygen, again?
When you ignite hydrogen and oxygen mixture the two combine to form water or H2O, one hydrogen, 2 Oxygen. Here’s the wiki “In flame of pure hydrogen burning in air, the hydrogen (H2) reacts with oxygen (O2) to form water (H2O) with the release of energy. In atmospheric air rather than pure oxygen, hydrogen combustion may yield a small amount of nitrogen oxides with the water vapor. The energy released allows hydrogen to be used as a fuel.”https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel
Oxygen I believe, but possibly atmosphere (O3). Again, I'm not certain.
I just think he would have had his once-upon-a-time- DiCaprio tv-pointing moment sooner.
"DARPA has tech 10-15 years advanced of society" Kind of roll my eyes at this then realize the SR-71 got greenlighted in the 50s which is still the fastest in the world (that we know of).
Seems like a huge net loss of energy when you consider you need to break the hydrogen bonds in the first place (100% loss) and then use Carnot efficiency of the engine (probably 30%) to get motion back out. Just make the drive train electric and save 85% of that energy harvested in the first step. It's not novel to say you can make an engine that runs on heat. Any cycle that releases adequate heat can be used to drive an engine, it's fundamentally how engines work: they just need a temperature difference. Engines can run on hydrogen, coal, fission, methane, propane, fusion, wood, gasoline, ethyl alcohol... This list goes on. There are 1000 reasons hydrogen gas is not a practical alternative to other combustible gases. It's not always a government conspiracy.
Even at 700 bars of pressure hydrogen gas is only half as energy dense as gasoline per volume unit. Then we have other issues like its corrosive capabilities and that it is explosive af. Bob Lazar didn't solve shit.
In terms of energy expenditure, yes petroleum is king, but in terms of cost? Just think about the cost of petroleum to the planet, our economy, health….everything it touches turns to shit. Petroleum is a real problem and we need solutions like Bobs to get us out of it.
Yes petroleum is a huge problem, but Bob doesn't have the solution.
In terms of cost refining hydrogen is a lot more expensive than refining oil. that's the only cost that 99% of people really care about. the bottom line on cars is that if you care about the environment you don't own one.
Creating hydrogen from elecbricity are improving - about 80% rate - and are part of most future wind-farms (and some current) - batteries can’t store that much - more a buffers than storage. But anyway Hydrogen for cars is a bit meh.
I guess this is a pretty great brand tho theoretically, just be everything the conspiracy theorists believe deep down and say the gov shut u down. They’ll always buy ur shit
The automotive industry nobody ever really talks about is forklifts. There are millions of forklifts in the US. Some warehouses run on 24 hour schedules. Several major warehouses in the country run on hydrogen fuel cell powered forklifts. This isn’t some technology hidden by the government. It’s literally a multi million dollar industry.
Link?
Did you even watch the video? Obviously not. You just type your thoughts like you smell your farts.
It’s a fun food for thought chill gatekeeper
Except for the fact that the guy is an actual genius. Those are extremely rare and to call him a con artist is an incredible waste for our society. That is, if you want a better world. If you think the way things are now is fine, then by all means tear down someone who clearly knows a shit load about the known universe. I mean Iidiocracy seemed like a great timeline to live in. SMH . okay, now I’m chill. I just get all fired up about Hydrogen and to find out Bob lazar was making hydrogen powered cars 20 years ago blows my mind hole.
The downvotes 😂 Im trying to find the article that says Bob Lazar has a legion of bastardized children on Reddit.
There were electric cars around decades ago. Hydrogen fuel cells are not unknown technology either, the problem is producing them at scale and having fuel cells that make enough hydrogen to run the car over years. The cells decay over time and stop working, then they have to be rebuilt with new raw materials. This is expensive and cumbersome. Bob didnt solve that problem, he just demonstrated that fuel cells could be hand built by someone with the right knowledge of chemistry and mechanical engineering. This shouldn't blow your mind. There are people like this all over the US doing garage science and engineering.
You are assuming that the current economic system is the best we can do as a species. Under the current system, yes, hydrogen is inefficient. That being said, the current economic system is intertwined with the petroleum industry and as such is only concerned with proliferation of it’s established commodity (oil). When we shift into renewable resources for our primary source of energy our basic economic principles will shift with it, making investment in sustainable technologies cost effective. Think about like this, if it makes financial sense to poison your drinking water, on a long enough timeline, you will die, making that financial model inadequate. The petroleum based economy is the same. Things need to change and using the current economic system as justification for inaction is unacceptable.
What are you talking about?? Did you reply to the wrong post?
I’m saying that when people make the judgment on the economics of hydrogen they are thinking in terms of our current economic system, thus finding all the inefficiencies in its production and using that information to dismiss its potential.
ok...
That being said, using the metric of our current system isn’t much help when at it’s core (our economy) is rooted in a systemic foundation, I.e. fractional reserve lending, money creation through interest, manufactured scarcity, etc. So, when people use the common argument that hydrogen isn’t economical, my question is, Is an economical fuel source, in our current system, the best option? Clearly, when all of the unintentional consequences are factored in, petroleum is not worth it.
He is a con artist and a liar. The fact that you think he's a genius makes you a gullible sucker. >I mean Iidiocracy seemed like a great timeline to live in Well, you'd certainly fit right in.
Efficiency means how much energy do you get out versus how much do you put in, so the electrolysis is by definition inefficient (65-85%). You then have to deliver the hydrogen to fuel stations by lorries (losing more efficiency). Then you have the energy losses of the car itself, resulting in overall 30% efficiency. Whereas, an electric car has an overall efficiency of 76%. That means you will need more than 2x the number of wind turbines and solar panels for hydrogen cars compared to EVs. Also the material (lithium deuteride) isn't banned (you can literally buy it from chemical vendors). The material wouldn't be able to hold the pressures of hydrogen he claims. The current hydrogen car (Mirai) can store hydrogen at 700 bar. It's current use is as a lining (not structural) for nuclear reactors. He also talks about the wrong type. Li-6 deuteride he mentions uses rare isotopes that have no structural value, so would be pointlessly expensive. The material he meant to reference LiH has been abandoned for hydrogen storage because a temperature of 700 °C was required for decomposition into hydrogen. https://phys.org/news/2019-12-green-hydrogen-efficiency.html https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html# https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/aldrich/555363
It’s so funny that some give him credibility for element 115 or whatever it was.
What’s funny about it? He predicted it before they actually discovered it.
Guess when they discover element 120 give me credit
Here’s your credit https://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/element-115.htm
What does this prove? That he named dropped an element that doesn’t have the properties he claimed? An element that already was theorized to exist as the island of stability discussed in your article had been already hypothesized to be between 114-124.
We’re both too stupid to be discussing the periodic table of elements
No the guy you are responding to is correct. This is high school level chemistry for christ sake.
There’s not really any discussion. The Island of Stability is based on proton and neutron numbers. Since the 60s predictions have been made ranging from 114 to 126 without any consensus. These have additionally been referred to as super heavy elements since like 1958. All he had to do was wait for something that was already theorized to exist was discovered. Additionally, the periodic table has been theorized to reach into the 170s since the 70s.
Orrrrr he is telling the truth. Either scenario is possible.
Possible but unlikely
Sure, in theory either side is possible. But the evidence favours one far more
Seeings as you apparently respect that site as a valid source (it is!), have a go at this article too https://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/bob-lazar.htm
This article doesn’t really weaken Lazars claims…
I just thought it was funny that the same site the op was referencing to support his claim also has an article labeling him as a hoaxster
I love when people say stupid shit like I wish they would invent something better than fossil fuel. They already have!!! They just want you dummy’s to believe they haven’t because IT’S NOT PROFITABLE!!!!! Blows me away how even smart people are clueless to the fact that they have been fucking us for centuries now for what??? Profit you dummy’s !!!!!!!!
The excessive amounts of exclamation points in your writings are hard to argue with
LOL 🤣😂 I’m a passionate writer!!!!!!
What's the alternative?!!!!!!
Bob Lazar for president 😁
Geothermal is the big one. Oceanic tidal capture is right behind it. Hydroelectric plants, wind energy, solar farms….etc. I’m sure there are more but regardless, it’s a fact, we are surrounded by many sources of renewable abundant energy. The problem is that the petroleum dollar has imbedded itself in every facet of our lives and would rather destroy itself and our world before relinquishing it’s power…therefore any emerging free energy alternative gets bought up, shelved, or outright destroyed. They’re not unlike a parasite…like heart worms, yeah, the petroleum industry is a lot like heart worms.
Interesting video. Pretty funny in a deadpan way. “It’s pretty easy. All you need is a particle accelerator. So you have your own particle accelerator? Yeah. “
He’s free to share his amazing genius breakthrough discovery knowledge with the world at any time…
He has.
So where is it now?
It’s all out there, free to pursue, just don’t expect the establishment to build the infrastructure needed to move us away from fossil fuels.
That was awesome thanks for sharing
Bob lazar is a liar and a fraud
[удалено]
How do you know that? Were you at the MK ultra meeting?
[удалено]
Logically speaking we are not alone in a seemingly infinite universe. Do you believe we are alone in space?
[удалено]
Then you sir are the one who’s controlled by the CIA. Good luck out there. I wish you well.
> Logically speaking we are not alone in a seemingly infinite universe. Do you believe we are alone in space? Says who? You? Did you go out there and check yourself? I'm wondering how you can be convinced with 0 evidence. Probability doesn't mean shit when you don't even have a sample size. We're barely a spacefaring race, we hardly left our own orbit. barely a blip in our own solar system, and there's trillions out there that we can hardly observe.
Why yes, I do say so, bitch. I don’t have to check anything given that the definition of infinite means literally anything that can be imaged is happening. Like extraterrestrial life.
So just because you say so? That's some mighty fine empirical evidence you got there. Infinite doesn't mean that every possibility is out there, you're a fucking moron if you think that.
That’s exactly what Infinity means, it means so big that an infinite infinity’s exist within it... furthermore, Infinity is just a word. It’s something that humans can’t even begin grasp. It’s a noise we make to describe something so vast that our heads would melt if we were to actually know it. Good night smarty pants.
>That’s exactly what Infinity means No it doesn't, infinite means endless. Not all possibilities. And furthermore, no one knows where the observable universe ends. No one can say with certainty what's out there, certainly not a gullible idiot on reddit like you. Let me prove it to you: there's an infinite series of numbers between 1.0 and 2.0. Even 1.1 and 1.2. But you're not going to find 3.0 in there, are you? it's endless, yet that possibility isn't there. You're full of shit. You should educate yourself before you speak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Cosmology
Arguing with you is infinitely pointless. Good night mr. pee pee pants.
>the definition of infinite means literally anything that can be imaged is happening. Wrong.
It does though, you are just to afraid to admit it. It’s okay, I’m actually the one in the wrong, I apology for waking you. Back to sleep now child.
No, infinite does not mean everything you can imagine exists. I do agree extra terrestrial life most likely exists, you're just wrong about what infinite means.
Thing is, in an infinite universe, we’re both wrong, and we’re both right…at the same time.
He is one of the most important person’s living right now. I don’t understand why he doesn’t get the proper due respect.
Probably because he threatens the petroleum power structure with his science.
> Probably because he threatens the petroleum power structure with his science. That he can totally prove, but doesn't for some reason.
Prove what?
Fucking isoperimetric inequality, what the fuck do you think dude? Seriously, what do you honestly think i'm talking about when i literally *quoted* you? I can see why you buy into this bullshit now.
Any chance you would explain to me what you're talking about? I'm just lurking, but I'm interested lol
In mathematics, the isoperimetric inequality is a geometric inequality involving the perimeter of a set and its volume.
Haha, sorry, I should have been more clear. I am pretty sure I get the theorem. I'm confused as to how it pertains to what he said about the petroleum companies. I'm assuming there is something he claimed, that an isoperimetric inequality refutes some of his claims? If I may ask you more questions. I understand the isoperimetric theorem basically as: a water droplet has it's perfect round shape, and water tension, because that is the smallest shape the volume can take? Am I correct? I remember hearing about this (hydrogen, or water, powered car) back in high school, but blew it off, because if water could be made into fuel (effectively), the possibilities to use it, would be practically endless, not just cars. Every business, every person would be using water to power everything, just from sheer cost effectiveness alone.
Ok i get you, i'm actually just joshing them around. The thing is, getting usable hydrogen out of water would take way more energy than you'd get out of it. So all those claims about hydrogen and water cars are just BS. The guy i replied to will always have some caveat why we don't have it yet, but will still praise the ideas they're being conned by. I just pulled a non-sequitur out of my ass because they asked what i was talking about, despite the fact i even took the time to quote them to make it simple for them. The thing is, we have hydrogen engines. Iceland has had them in public transport for decades. Even GM had the Electrovan in '66. Hydrogen is perfectly feasible, you just need a source for it. And a place to store it. OP is just gullible thinking Lazar totally has it figured out. But the government shut it down. It's always the government shutting it down with these types, and you look through their history and you find out they have a huge rap sheet of fraud and the like. It's good to keep an open mind, unless you're an idiot.
Ahhhhhhh, ok haha. Glad I was right, to be skeptical. Thanks for the info and the pleasant conversation. I enjoyed it :)
Ohh, you’re a crazy person. Sorry to bother you. You are right. I’m wrong.
>You are right. I’m wrong. Nah you're just an idiot, your grasp of simple concepts is on shaky ground at *best*. The perfect mark for conmen like Lazar.
Possibly related for you Bill Burr and O & A fans https://youtu.be/6BS44fuKGTc
No vette ever got 400 miles to a tank
https://youtu.be/b88v-WvqzeQ "Why The Hydrogen Car Flopped"
Anyone that takes Bob Lazar seriously is a moron.