[Jolly- Joliver (OP)]

Again if that plant in America is using the natural gas produced to power the plant I'm not sure that is the case, but point taken. I'm still looking for the reference, I should have saved it when I saw it.

It makes no difference. You cannot expect to produce a fuel with a greater energy potential than the energy you put into making the fuel. The energy input might be a fossil energy source, or a renewable energy source like solar energy. Anybody that claims otherwise does not know what they are talking about, or they are trying to cheat other people out of a lot of money.

Scientists and engineers are not complete idiots. If there was a way to get something for nothing, they would have figured it out.

If you want to believe that Youtube is a credible source of scientific information, that's up to you, but I'd suggest you would do a lot better to bone up on thermodynamics as this would allow you to filter out a lot of the crackpot nonsense that's floating around on the Web.

I see you point.

But, the system I am referring to produces from Algae, Gas, Oil and Diesel, all at the same time, they then separate naturally- the oil sits at the bottom, the gas rises to the top and the diesel sits in the middle, their weights natural separate them, the factory in question then uses the gas produced to power the plant, possibly in addition to another gas energy source, yet that reality reduces the gas energy input.

The oil and diesel are the product produced, and the gas get used in production.

Yes, but if it works, it's converting solar energy into fuel. The algae collets the solar energy. There is nothing wrong with the system, but it's important to understand that the system is collecting solar energy rather than getting something for nothing.

I wasn't suggesting something for nothing.

To echo what Geezer said, no system can provide us with more energy than went into it.  Ever.

Oil does doesn't it? In that the energy we put in, to refining and drilling is less than what we get out. Other processes have of course assisted that, time and decomposition of matter etc, the difference being that we are gaining energy from a process we have played no part in.
But that is also part of the problem we have had it easy, and it's time to see that we need to produce a sustainable energy, fighting over that resource plus all the other things that go on because of it, does increase it's cost ultimately, and sadly those in charge of that resource fight to keep their position.

I do not know if it is true but apparently prohibition was introduced in America, because FORD of ford motor cars was using alcohol to run his engines, he struggled on during prohibition but eventually gave up using alcohol under pressure, A year later after ford converted to gas prohibition ended. Some claim that the only reason Prohibition came in was to stop Ford using Alcohol, it's also true that the Big oil company of the day I think it was standard oil(dont quote me) was broken up as a result apparently and become Exxon and mobile. which re-merged a few years back to become Exon-mobile.

I'm not sure how true that is, but it is certainly clear that Big oil does not want to let go of it's position, and sadly that decision by big oil just holds progress back.

  This is a non-negotiable law of physics, though lots of scam artists will sell you miracle products that claim otherwise.

Humans, however, can get more energy out of a system than they put into it, simply because things aside from humans can put energy into a system.  Algae is an example, where much of the energy is coming from the sun.  Fossil fuels are another, where the work was done by ancient plants and animals, and we get to use it without putting more in.  Solar panels are yet another, where the sun provides the energy, not humans or human-made fuels.  All of these actually give us less energy than originally went into the algae/dinosaurs/solar panels, but they're convenient for us humans to use, since we're just harvesting energy that something else has stored for us.

I agree completely thanks for the responce.

[JP]

To echo what Geezer said, no system can provide us with more energy than went into it.  Ever.

Oil does doesn't it? In that the energy we put in, to refining and drilling is less than what we get out. Other processes have of course assisted that, time and decomposition of matter etc, the difference being that we are gaining energy from a process we have played no part in.

No, it does not.  The energy that went into oil did so millions of years ago.  We get out less than went in at that time.  Your last sentence there is absolutely right, though.  We are gaining from energy that was put in millions of years ago.  It might seem a very subtle difference between accessing energy that was stored by processes we played no part in (oil, for example) and accessing energy that we actively worked to store somewhere (batteries, for example), but it's critically important to understand that difference if you want to talk about the science behind different forms of energy. 

[Jolly- Joliver (OP)]

To echo what Geezer said, no system can provide us with more energy than went into it.  Ever.

Oil does doesn't it? In that the energy we put in, to refining and drilling is less than what we get out. Other processes have of course assisted that, time and decomposition of matter etc, the difference being that we are gaining energy from a process we have played no part in.

No, it does not.  The energy that went into oil did so millions of years ago.  We get out less than went in at that time.  Your last sentence there is absolutely right, though.  We are gaining from energy that was put in millions of years ago.  It might seem a very subtle difference between accessing energy that was stored by processes we played no part in (oil, for example) and accessing energy that we actively worked to store somewhere (batteries, for example), but it's critically important to understand that difference if you want to talk about the science behind different forms of energy. 

looking at it in that manner, looking at all the energy that went into making the oil in the ground, and all the energy that goes into making other fuels are they not actually more equal?

[peppercorn]

looking at it in that manner, looking at all the energy that went into making the oil in the ground, and all the energy that goes into making other fuels are they not actually more equal?

In crude oil, nature has distilled an incredible dense energy-source for us.
Remember crude oil is millions of years of locked-up ancient sunshine that we are currently exploiting in next to no time, trying to make our own version at a much accelerated rate (there's no more solar energy available now than back then & a hell lot less time to harvest it!).

Plus, of course, it takes only around a couple of decades to empty an oil field! So to say the rate of consumption outstrips production is a rather underwhelming way of putting it!

Our efforts to develop bio-fuels have the potential to offer similar energy densities, but there are plenty of problems associated with making them on anything like a scale needed to offset the current fossil derivatives - Again, this is more or less down to timescale.

[CliffordK]

You could potentially make a water powered car....
As long as you also had lots of Calcium Carbide.   [8D]

[Bored chemist]

"I wasn't suggesting something for nothing."
Yes you were.
Specifically, you were suggesting a water powered car.

What you need to do is learn enough physics  be able to understand, at least broadly, what you are talking about.
Otherwise you will keep on making statements like that and, at best, look like an idiot.

[Jolly- Joliver (OP)]

"I wasn't suggesting something for nothing."
Yes you were.
Specifically, you were suggesting a water powered car.

What you need to do is learn enough physics  be able to understand, at least broadly, what you are talking about.
Otherwise you will keep on making statements like that and, at best, look like an idiot.

Hey you place a system in a car that uses something to take out hydrogen from water then use it as a sourse of power.
Most would say as they fill up with water "it's a water fueled car" So what ever, your assuming! That I am saying something I'm not! again you run ahead with the big brain you have, Sorry I am so dense in comparrison.

You'll have to excuse any harseness I have not slept for nearly two days now. Peace and love.

[Jolly- Joliver (OP)]

You could potentially make a water powered car....
As long as you also had lots of Calcium Carbide.   [8D]

What's carbide?

[peppercorn]

Hey you place a system in a car that uses something to take out hydrogen from water then use it as a sourse of power.
Most would say as they fill up with water "it's a water fueled car" So what ever, your assuming! That I am saying something I'm not! again you run ahead with the big brain you have, Sorry I am so dense in comparrison.

'Most' (or at least, many) people may say that - true!  That doesn't make it right!
In any case, even by your logic, a second 'fuel' would have to be added to crack the water on-board whilst driving - this could be electricity (from a battery) or a chemical to react with the water (as CliffordK was alluding to) - that would be used up with the water.
But for scientists, the water would correctly be thought of as a reactant not a fuel.

You could potentially make a water powered car....
As long as you also had lots of Calcium Carbide.   [8D]

What's carbide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbide#Production_of_acetylene
[Of course, Clifford would be the first to agree that it is still wrong to say the car is 'water-powered' in this way.]
If you read how a Carbide lamp (originally used in the earliest car headlight) can burn with a very hot flame it is easy to see how an engine could utilise this.

You'll have to excuse any harseness I have not slept for nearly two days now. Peace and love.

Hope you've managed to get some sleep now! And for the additional reason that what people here are trying to explain to you will have a much better chance of becoming clear []

[Jolly- Joliver (OP)]

Hey you place a system in a car that uses something to take out hydrogen from water then use it as a sourse of power.
Most would say as they fill up with water "it's a water fueled car" So what ever, your assuming! That I am saying something I'm not! again you run ahead with the big brain you have, Sorry I am so dense in comparrison.

'Most' (or at least, many) people may say that - true!  That doesn't make it right!
In any case, even by your logic, a second 'fuel' would have to be added to crack the water on-board whilst driving - this could be electricity (from a battery) or a chemical to react with the water (as CliffordK was alluding to) - that would be used up with the water.
But for scientists, the water would correctly be thought of as a reactant not a fuel.

Yeah I know part of the issue has been mis-communication.

You could potentially make a water powered car....
As long as you also had lots of Calcium Carbide.   [8D]

What's carbide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbide#Production_of_acetylene
[Of course, Clifford would be the first to agree that it is still wrong to say the car is 'water-powered' in this way.]
If you read how a Carbide lamp (originally used in the earliest car headlight) can burn with a very hot flame it is easy to see how an engine could utilise this.

You'll have to excuse any harseness I have not slept for nearly two days now. Peace and love.

Hope you've managed to get some sleep now! And for the additional reason that what people here are trying to explain to you will have a much better chance of becoming clear []

Yeah I colapsed and slept I do not know how many hours actually, daltons finally did me in []

Thanks for the reply.