On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:34:19 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

John Smith I wrote:

Change:

I pointed out that with engineers and physicists (No, I didn't examine
their degrees) it is worth a look, not a bunch of fools booing in the
isles ...

to:

I pointed out that with engineers and physicists accepting that hydrogen

is being generated (No, I didn't examine their degrees), it is worth a
Most of these things are physics and chemistry 111 and 112 that most
scienes students could argue.

I doubt any one is arguing that Hydrogen is generated, the problem is
it is a very inefficient process both from how much hydrogen is
generated compared to how much RF it takes to generate that Hydrogen.
Lots of power and little Hydrogen. Then you have the efficiency of the
RF generator which if efficient may develop about 75% of the input
power as RF. Just a plain old DC current is probably much more
efficient. Of course with the DC current it's easy to seperate the H2
and O2 which is a necessity. Using microwaves they come off mixed
which is not a good thing. Looks spectacular but not very useful.

For many years I worked in the semiconductor industry (over 26). I
believe NASA was the only larger user of liquid H2 than us. We had a
large tank farm of liquid H2 and the stuff was not the easiest stuff
to handle. It requires very low temperatures to maintain a liquid
state which means a *lot* of evaporation. You aren't going to make
much difference even increasing pressures. On top of that you get
liquid Oxygen condensing on pipe fittings and running off. Good
combination, liquid H2 AND O2. BTW that place is now the world's
largest producer of polycrystalline Silicon by a wide margin and is
starting a Billion dollar expansion program.

Trucking H2 is expensive and piping it much of any distance as a
liquid is out of the question.

Taken out of context it is true that a Hydrogen spill dissipates much
more quickly that a gasoline spill, BUT while it is dissipating it is
far more explosive. OTOH a given volume of H2 has far less energy/BTU
than gas. Put in perspetive both dynamite and TNT also have less
energy per unit volume than does gas. The problem is the speed of the
combustion front. In the end it's not quite true that a liquid H2
spill is safer than a gas spill.

look--and not be deterred by a bunch of fools booing in the isles ...

A look, yes, but you can't violate the rules of physics.

BTW for whoever was arguing Quantum physics Vs classical physics, they
coexist wuite nicely without contradiction.


JS