Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:16:34 -0000, Jim Kelley
wrote:


On Jun 5, 7:24 am, Jim Higgins wrote:


It's induction coupled plasma, not arc discharge plasma.

But let's explore the claim that the water is "burning." If water
burns, what are the reactants and what are the reaction products?

If it's hydrogen that's burning, then it was derived from the water by
applying enough energy to split the water molecule... and if this is
really the case then you've input as much energy in the form of RF as
you get back by burning the (allegedly) produced hydrogen.

Not necessarily. It could be more, less, or the same depending on the
precise nature of the reaction.


OK... so would you mind explaining one or more variations on "precise
nature" that would make for a meaningful difference in energy?

Here's the thing. You stated that "you've input as much energy in the
form of RF as you get back by burning the (allegedly) produced
hydrogen." I'm merely pointing out that there is nothing about the
physics and chemistry here which makes that guarantee. As I went on
to say, a complete energy analysis requires that the initial and final
energy states must also be considered. If the final energy state is
higher than the initial state, then more energy will be input than
released in the reaction. If the final energy state is lower than the
initial energy state then more energy is released than is input.
Total energy is certainly conserved in any case.

I'm sure you can see my point here. It's far from controversial.

73, ac6xg