Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:

...
Please explain your assessment of the major economic/energy/storage
importance of the device if it isn't over-unity or even unity. Please
take as many screens as you need to fully enlighten the dense ones
among us.

Geesh, no wonder you are always appearing to stumble about ...

1) Geothermal, river current, wave, solar, wind could be used to
generate automobile/home fuel in off peak hours. (or, for that matter,
just developed for the sole purpose of fuel)

2) The cost, replacement cost, maintaince of batteries would be eliminated.

3) There is no loss in transporting hydrogen via pipelines versus
electricity and powerline loss.

If you need more, you have no visualization skills at all ...

JS

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:

...

You are a stupid ass who wishes to do character attacks and diversion to
manipulate ...

kiss off stupid ... I haven't the time for out-and-out idiots ... go to
rram where you belong.

PLONK!


JS

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
On Jun 5, 6:20 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
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.
There's this nagging little thing called conservation of energy and
matter and getting more energy out of this particular system than you
put into it is a violation of the fundamental laws of physics and
chemistry.
True, but one must also consider the initial and final chemical energy
states in order to make a complete energy analysis. One can, for
example, obtain a great deal of energy from gasoline by expending a
small amount of ignition energy without violating conservation of
energy.
Thanks for the interesting induction coupled plasma discussion.
73, ac6xg
Mr Higgins is correct, it is scary what people will believe, even when
something obvious is mentioned, like "conservation of energy".

I'd like to know what possible "final chemical energy states" might
exist here. What miracles occurred to release more energy from the
hydrogen? Combining with chlorine? Maybe, but where did the energy to
free the chlorine come from? None of the combinations will release more
than it took to free the elements from the compounds.

I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, though.

tom
K0TAR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not sure what "miracle" you're inferring from my comments, Tom.
Every chemical reaction has both an initial, and a final energy
state.

For the benefit of those in the group who haven't taken a chemistry
class, there is apparently a need for me to declare an allegence
here. Obviously, water is not gasoline. The tiny flame in the movie
is not the energy equivalent of hundreds of watts of RF - except
perhaps to a second grader or a journalist.

My point is simply that for a given chemical mass, the difference
between energy input and energy output equates with the difference
between the initial chemical energy state and final chemical energy
state of the chemical reaction. This follows from conservation of
energy.

73, ac6xg



You and Art are going to get along famously.

I'm done with this nonsensical thread.

tom
K0TAR

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:43:57 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

My posts say it all, I have an open mind to the hydrogen generation (I
don't think you can start a plasma arc with a butane lighter, but you
can ignite hydrogen, etc.)

Sodium ions would be introduced to the flame simply from the bursting of
the bubbles ... result, yellow flame.

The device does NOT have to be over-unity, nor even unity, to be of
major economic/energy/storage importance ...

The people here are so dense they just don't get it ...

etc., etc., etc. ...

JS

Please explain your assessment of the major economic/energy/storage
importance of the device if it isn't over-unity or even unity. Please
take as many screens as you need to fully enlighten the dense ones
among us.


The conversion of energy from one form to another doesn't have to be
releasing more energy than is taken in, of course. Certainly we can
envision a scenario where a large yet immobile energy source such as a
power plant could be used to disassociate Water into it's component
parts in order to get a portable energy source. The loss is just part of
the price you have to pay to get it.

As for the transport and storage infrastructure, that is just a matter
of infrastructure, and just similar to today's in scope if not in detail.

In no way does this mean that I think it is a good idea. Nasty
byproducts and not really great production efficiency make it a likely
loser of a project.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:

Well as long as we're spouting facts here, please allow me to spout
one that adds equal value to the discussion... most human beings have
5 fingers on each hand. There ya go!

Now if you were to explain how some "final energy state" you might
have in mind makes this water burning device anything but a useless
hoax we might have something of substance to discuss.

It seems you have read something into my comments that I did not put
there.

Your comment on energy states was offered in the context of "true, but
one must also consider..." Where's the information that supports the
implications of that "but?"

Hydrogen as a combustable fuel is generally considered to have a net
loss from an energy budget standpoint. You had stated that 'you get
out what you put in'. I simply tried to observe that it isn't always
the case. In the case of hydrogen generation, you don't quite get
back what you put in, and in the case of gasoline you can get back
quite a bit more (owing to the fact that all you have to do is distill
it).

73, ac6xg

Water burns!
 

On 31 May 2007 08:58:09 -0700, art wrote:



I cringe at the idea of the news media filtering out the garbage!
It is for the viewer to determine what is garbage and what is not.

Unfortunately very few viewers have either the education or experience
to make that determination. It's like computer literacy. Now days
much of the population has computers, but only a very small percentage
is truly computer literate. As a grad assistant I taught the intro to
computer science. The level of knowledge in those students was scary
and that was at the university level.

Many a multimillionaire owes his fortune to what others have
considered garbage where others have deemed themselves as
educated enough to detrmine what is garbage and what is treasure.

However they were working from sound scientific or business
principles, not something that violates the laws of physics.

Look at the good side of this picture instead of piling on ridicule.
Here we have is a human being who is fighting for something new
and beneficial to all with all the energy and education that he
has within him so that he can hold on to life. The life he has
is enjoyable because he believes he is on the brink of success,
where his life is still usefull instead of lying on a hospital bed.
For a human to be brought from sadness into happiness is a
wonderfull thing that typifies the human race and encouragement
is what a human needs instead of derision to enjoy a life that
has been given him. It is not sad to see a life ending in enjoyment
but it is sad to pile on derision on how a human carries on the
fight for life even in the light of a meagre education.

What is more sad it when some one is encouraged to go on a "fool's
errand" and gives the "man on the street" false hope, so in the end
instead of one disappointed person, thousands have their false hopes
dashed.

Realistically tinkerers, engineers, and scientists alike all know
their individual searches may end up in failure and accept that as a
fact of life.

If he was my grandpa I would encourage him until the end and be
very proud of him and not use my education to discourage him.
Actually the news media should use that story for those people
who are interested in what is good in life as well as those

Although this approach sounds charitable to create false hopes in the
person doing the research and those who believe in it is very cruel.

To encourage research, experimentation, and to push the envelope is
good, but to give false hope even in the name of charity is not.
I would far rather work under the sense of what I do has he odds
against it rather than a false grandiose hope that would or could
leave me and worse yet those who believed in me with dashed hopes.

To point out the failings in a piece of research is not derision, as
long as it is done in a respectful manner. It is in fact an attempt to
help the individual rather than to encourage them to pursue "junk
science".

Mankind has been looking for perpetual motion since we had enough
brain power to envision such a fallacy. Most any engineer can show the
weakness behind this idea and prove them. Yet there are those who
believe we can violate the laws of physics/nature with impunity and
there are those who encourage it. There are many things far more
practical and rewarding for the individual and society as a whole that
are much more likely to succeed. Those are the things we should
encourage.
who only have derision for the efforts of others.
Regards
Art

Water burns!
 

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

Water burns!
 

Yup, that dinosaur dung has quite kick...

denny

and in the case of gasoline you can get back
quite a bit more (owing to the fact that all you have to do is distill
it).

73, ac6xg

Water burns!
 

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
A look, yes, but you can't violate the rules of physics.

A couple of centuries ago, one of those "rules of physics"
was that light always travels in a straight line. Do you
think that "rule of physics" has been violated? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

...
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.
...

The most efficient solar cells are about 20% efficient, efficiency is in
the eye of the beholder. With an, almost, never ending supply of
sunlight--they suddenly begin to make sense ... a two fold increase in
efficiency would change everything, yet still be only 40% efficient.

The replacement of batteries with storage tanks is an economic advantage
of hydrogen over electric ... and an IMPORTANT one, well, until better
and more efficient batteries come along.

...
... Using microwaves they come off mixed
which is not a good thing. Looks spectacular but not very useful.

They come off in exactly the necessary ratio to burn at 100% efficiency.
Now, a way make lemonade from that "lemon" is only necessary ...

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

Yeah, I'd pipe it as a gas ... allowing its' own pressure to "pump" it.


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.

Depending on the speed of release/"moment of ignition", the bulk of the
hydrogen burn/explosion is going to be well above your head ... hydrogen
is impossible to keep at ground level in the wild and escapes RAPIDLY to
the far upper atmosphere!

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

A violation of the law of conservation of energy may be highly possible,
or it may not, only idiots would say "never" at this date. Only a fool
would bypass this without a very hard look ...

Violations of the conservation of energy may be highly possible!

For example, a "gravity engine" could be possible if we only knew of a
way to "shield" things from gravity with little cost in energy. Already
with esoteric shielding materials we can, seemingly, "lighten" the pull
of gravity on objects--but only by nano-units. If possible to work out,
a "gravity engine" would be possible.

Another example, a "magnet motor" would be great (the poles of magnets
are just as real as the poles of electro-magnets which spin in our
electric motors--difference--magnets require no power to generate their
poles) and the problem, at least on the surface is a simple one, set up
a "sustained imbalance" such as the poles are always being pulled/pushed
at the proper times to result in continuous motion where more power is
realized from the motor than is applied in maintaining the imbalance,
your magnetic fields are being generated for "free" ...


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

As I have pointed out, although we can exploit some of the properties of
quantum physics at this date, we are far from a complete understanding
of the quantum phenomenon and underlying physics--yes, we do have
theories. Is it real?; yes ... well, unless another underlying
phenomenon is really causing it, and we will discover this at a later
date ... but for now, we can use it--to some degree.

But, for the
I-am-a-genius-and-know-it-all-idiots-and-cheating-on-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-is-impossible,
they can go back to screaming, "IMPOSSIBLE!" At least for a while ...

Warmest regards,
JS