|
Water burns!
Mike Kaliski wrote:
"Chuck" wrote in message ... Mike Kaliski wrote: Commercial microwave ovens have always worked on the principle of heating water by being tuned to the vibrational frequency of water molecules. Hmmm. The first resonant peak of the water molecule is around 1THz, while at the microwave operating frequency of 2.45GHz there are no resonances of the water molecule. The 2.45GHz frequency has no particular connection to the resonant frequencies of candidate food molecules. Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Chuck That would be why returns on 3 Cm marine radar are wiped out in heavy rain then. I can vouch for the fact that heavy rain and spray can result in 100% obscuration of ship radar targets. Aircraft also use radar to detect storms. The severity of the weather ahead is determined by analysis of the probable size of the water droplets in the cloud, which affects the level of the radar return. While water molecules may have an inherent resonance at 1 THz, it is generally accepted by the scientific community that microwave ovens work by exciting water molecules, amongst others, in food. I can't recall ever cooking anything in a microwave that wasn't wet or at least damp. Well I have tested some bits of plastic for suitability for use at RF, but that wasn't for eating - and the wife was out!!! I am happy to accept that there is no direct correlation between the resonant frequency of a water molecule at 1 THz and a microwave oven magnetron operating in the Ghz range. However, microwave ovens will heat even distilled water quite effectively and heating is defined as an increase in vibrational energy of molecules. So however the process actually works, some principle of resonance must exist to allow the excitation of the water molecules to occur. Either that, or microwave ovens actually work by heating the food with infra red radiation derived using waste heat from the magnetron and we have all been fooled. :-) Mike G0ULI You can look at the stuff in a microwave as a resistive load. What happens to a resistive load when you feed it RF? Or even DC, but putting in all the little DC probes so the burrito heats evenly is a pain in the butt. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
Tony Jaa wrote:
... Another video from youtube; this one is of a "magnetic motor." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffFSq...elated&search= I am afraid I have already formed an addiction to youtube! Regards, JS |
Water burns!
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 1 Jun, 11:51, John Smith I wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: ... We know that e = mc^2 All we need is a method for conversion of ordinary mass into energy. Cecil: Absolutely! However, I am much more interested in converting energy to matter. Be nice to have a little machine in the backyard converting sunlight into gold! NO, I am NOT talking about gardening marijuana. grin Regards, JS John DO do you think that Americans are not interested in experimenting any more because if anything new comes about that is usefull we can hire the engineers from India who have already done the research? Actually it seems that it has gone beyond that when you see the outcry against the Gaussian antenna or even boiling water. Do Americans really believe really believe that all is known and it is a waste of time to experiment? That if you are educated under the American system you have the ability to determine before hand what will work and what will not work? As an immigrant I was asked by the media the other day do I believe that immigrants that do the work that Americans wont do have a different aproach to life? I pointed him to read this newsgroup and make up his own mind , but I also did tell him to look up history to see how past Empires were lost, but I am not sure that he got my point Art and just how do you know who on this group was educated where?? maybe those of us educated under the 'American' system have enough common sense to recognize snake oil when we see it?? A question for you... when was the last time you saw some really new invention that wasn't eventually proven to be fraud or bad science announced first on a usenet news group??? or on a tv news show??? |
Water burns!
Dave wrote:
... and just how do you know who on this group was educated where?? maybe those of us educated under the 'American' system have enough common sense to recognize snake oil when we see it?? A question for you... when was the last time you saw some really new invention that wasn't eventually proven to be fraud or bad science announced first on a usenet news group??? or on a tv news show??? Did you use that same argument when quantum physics was first being discussed? If not, how did you know that "insane phenomenon" was real? Although we have already developed experimental quantum computers and we can exploit the phenomenon, we do not understand the underlying physics to any real degree ... JS |
Water burns!
On 1 Jun, 13:15, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 1 Jun, 11:51, John Smith I wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: ... We know that e = mc^2 All we need is a method for conversion of ordinary mass into energy. Cecil: Absolutely! However, I am much more interested in converting energy to matter. Be nice to have a little machine in the backyard converting sunlight into gold! NO, I am NOT talking about gardening marijuana. grin Regards, JS John DO do you think that Americans are not interested in experimenting any more because if anything new comes about that is usefull we can hire the engineers from India who have already done the research? Actually it seems that it has gone beyond that when you see the outcry against the Gaussian antenna or even boiling water. Do Americans really believe really believe that all is known and it is a waste of time to experiment? That if you are educated under the American system you have the ability to determine before hand what will work and what will not work? As an immigrant I was asked by the media the other day do I believe that immigrants that do the work that Americans wont do have a different aproach to life? I pointed him to read this newsgroup and make up his own mind , but I also did tell him to look up history to see how past Empires were lost, but I am not sure that he got my point Art and just how do you know who on this group was educated where?? maybe those of us educated under the 'American' system have enough common sense to recognize snake oil when we see it?? A question for you... when was the last time you saw some really new invention that wasn't eventually proven to be fraud or bad science announced first on a usenet news group??? or on a tv news show???- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - David, I pointed him to this newsgroup because I considered you and others with your level of education and aproach to life was typical of the average american. If he read thru the this particular thread for instance I would allow him to figure out for himself from the educational responses the level of education. As for fear of the new or experimentation I suspect he would be as baffled as I am tho I am sure he can recognise arrogance when he sees it. I pointed out to him what some of you see yourselfs as being the best of America, frankly I believe I did a diservice to the America of old, and immigration of the sciences from other countries is our only hope Check what Roy has to say with respect to the education of the masses, he considers himself to be of a higher level and more qualified than most that allows him to be a judge. Art |
Water burns!
"Chuck" wrote in message ... Mike Kaliski wrote: That would be why returns on 3 Cm marine radar are wiped out in heavy rain then. I can vouch for the fact that heavy rain and spray can result in 100% obscuration of ship radar targets. Aircraft also use radar to detect storms. The severity of the weather ahead is determined by analysis of the probable size of the water droplets in the cloud, which affects the level of the radar return. While water molecules may have an inherent resonance at 1 THz, it is generally accepted by the scientific community that microwave ovens work by exciting water molecules, amongst others, in food. I can't recall ever cooking anything in a microwave that wasn't wet or at least damp. Well I have tested some bits of plastic for suitability for use at RF, but that wasn't for eating - and the wife was out!!! I am happy to accept that there is no direct correlation between the resonant frequency of a water molecule at 1 THz and a microwave oven magnetron operating in the Ghz range. However, microwave ovens will heat even distilled water quite effectively and heating is defined as an increase in vibrational energy of molecules. So however the process actually works, some principle of resonance must exist to allow the excitation of the water molecules to occur. Either that, or microwave ovens actually work by heating the food with infra red radiation derived using waste heat from the magnetron and we have all been fooled. :-) Increased molecular motion certainly accompanies increased temperature, but depending on the water's salt content, the skin depth of water at microwave oven frequencies is 0.5cm to 4.7cm. So I guess it is an absorption phenomenon, rather than resonance. Or, infrared radiation from the maagnetron! ;-) This information, BTW, comes from Ron Schmitt's "Electromagnetics Explained". Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Chuck When I learned about radar it was common practice to break the waveguide and stick your hand over the transmitter end to see if you could feel any warmth! If your hand got hot, the magnetron was firing up okay. If you were of a nervous disposition, then a neon bulb was a sissy substitute for a hand. The marine radar sets on my first ship were all Korean War vintage with a 10 Cm set with a standard range of 96 miles - well over the horizon. The navigators claimed they could spot mountain tops at over 200 miles. The equipment was all valves and worked for an average of 3 days before each failure. Usually a 2 to 4 hour fault finding job each time. The most spectacular failure occured when the 10 Cm radar continued to work fautlessly through a severe storm before finally packing up when the sun came out. Eventually the waveguide running up the mast to the scanner was found to contain over 30 vertical feet of water! The scanner horn had been holed by a piece of railing torn off the bow in the storm. The metal railing had flown up 60 feet in the air before hitting the scanner horn and holing it. Clearing the water and patching the scanner horn with duct tape restored operation until we docked. I know that the 10 Cm radar appeared not to have any water heating effects because the water that poured out of the waveguide was freezing and the radar had been continuously switched to transmit until shortly before looking for the fault. So there is definitely something significant about the 3 Cm wavelengths used in microwave ovens and interaction with water molecules at that frequency. Mike G0ULI |
Water burns!
Mike Kaliski wrote:
So there is definitely something significant about the 3 Cm wavelengths used in microwave ovens and interaction with water molecules at that frequency. From Wikipedia: "Cooking food with microwaves was discovered by Percy Spencer while building magnetrons for radar sets at Raytheon. He was working on an active radar set when he noticed a strange sensation, and saw that a peanut candy bar he had in his pocket started to melt. Water, fat, and other substances in the food absorb energy from the microwaves in a process called dielectric heating. Dipole rotation is the mechanism normally referred to as dielectric heating, and is most widely observable in the microwave oven where it operates most efficiently on liquid water, ..." I never realized that rotating my dipole was contributing to global warming. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
... I never realized that rotating my dipole was contributing to global warming. :-) I never rotate my dipole unless I am alone with the XYL. :-P JS |
Water burns!
On 1 Jun, 13:15, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 1 Jun, 11:51, John Smith I wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: ... We know that e = mc^2 All we need is a method for conversion of ordinary mass into energy. Cecil: Absolutely! However, I am much more interested in converting energy to matter. Be nice to have a little machine in the backyard converting sunlight into gold! NO, I am NOT talking about gardening marijuana. grin Regards, JS John DO do you think that Americans are not interested in experimenting any more because if anything new comes about that is usefull we can hire the engineers from India who have already done the research? Actually it seems that it has gone beyond that when you see the outcry against the Gaussian antenna or even boiling water. Do Americans really believe really believe that all is known and it is a waste of time to experiment? That if you are educated under the American system you have the ability to determine before hand what will work and what will not work? As an immigrant I was asked by the media the other day do I believe that immigrants that do the work that Americans wont do have a different aproach to life? I pointed him to read this newsgroup and make up his own mind , but I also did tell him to look up history to see how past Empires were lost, but I am not sure that he got my point Art and just how do you know who on this group was educated where?? Are you nuts? Americans stand out so heavily regardless of where in the World they are together with the alteration of English. When you go overseas it is americans who talk the loudest, why I don't know. They also believe that foreighners cannot understand English and make fools of themselves talking about the resident travelers. The movie The Quiet American was just an a abberation. I would say however that foreigners should really visit the Mid West before they form an opinion of America as the people are so gentlemanly here compared to the big cities and coastal areas. As far as getting an opinion on your educational level I am sure that reading your postings would give a accurate reflection of your education and your personal 'curtiousness' as I am sure that you are doing the best that you can every time you put pen to paper such that it really reflects you and what you really are.You are doing your best aren't you? Art maybe those of us educated under the 'American' system have enough common sense to recognize snake oil when we see it?? A question for you... when was the last time you saw some really new invention that wasn't eventually proven to be fraud or bad science announced first on a usenet news group??? or on a tv news show???- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Oh come on! People know on the net that all is known and there is nothing new, why should I argue with that aproach and who could I convince otherwise? Art |
Water burns!
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Mike Kaliski wrote: So there is definitely something significant about the 3 Cm wavelengths used in microwave ovens and interaction with water molecules at that frequency. From Wikipedia: "Cooking food with microwaves was discovered by Percy Spencer while building magnetrons for radar sets at Raytheon. He was working on an active radar set when he noticed a strange sensation, and saw that a peanut candy bar he had in his pocket started to melt. Water, fat, and other substances in the food absorb energy from the microwaves in a process called dielectric heating. Dipole rotation is the mechanism normally referred to as dielectric heating, and is most widely observable in the microwave oven where it operates most efficiently on liquid water, ..." I never realized that rotating my dipole was contributing to global warming. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil Thanks for that. I know that a company called Tappan started producing domestic microwave ovens as early as 1948 in the US. I have a rebranded model bought new in the UK in 1980 that's still going strong and in daily use. I had to open it up once when the lamp blew and took out an internal fuse. Inside the casing was a full circuit diagram with part numbers and full contact details for service. American engineering, built like a brick out house and it does what it says on the box. No turntable, just a glass shelf and power is either on or off. I have heard that some of the original 1948 models are still working and have no reason to disbelieve it. Now if only everything else could be built to last like this... Mike G0ULI |
Water burns!
On 1 Jun, 13:25, John Smith I wrote:
Dave wrote: ... and just how do you know who on this group was educated where?? maybe those of us educated under the 'American' system have enough common sense to recognize snake oil when we see it?? A question for you... when was the last time you saw some really new invention that wasn't eventually proven to be fraud or bad science announced first on a usenet news group??? or on a tv news show??? Did you use that same argument when quantum physics was first being discussed? If not, how did you know that "insane phenomenon" was real? Although we have already developed experimental quantum computers and we can exploit the phenomenon, we do not understand the underlying physics to any real degree ... JS Hold on now John. He was one of the first to find out that american mathematics was given incorrect answers. He pointed that out when that MIT doctor gave the mathematics to prove that adding the unit of time to both sides of the equation ( Gaussian statics law) changed a conservative field to a non conservative field with respect to radiation. On top of that most of the experts on the net agree with him. To point out that american mathematics does not support those of Gauss and Maxwell is indeed a major achievement and has gained him mass support from the resident experts. All resist the idea that equilibrium exists. Art |
Water burns!
Mike, out in the workshop I still have the original Fridgidaire 'radar
oven' I bought in 1971, with my GM discount at the time... The magnetron was hammered on day and night by a herd of kids who are now middle aged... I can only estimate how many times that magnetron has had the filament cycled... Assume ten times a day probably low times 26 years = ~96,000 cycles!!! The pot metal latch on the door broke about 10 years back and it was relegated to shop use because some kid might fry his eyeballs if he doesn't understand he has to hold the door shut against the spring with one hand and hit the power switch with the other and the solenoid safety lock will then keep the door from springing open while the magnetron is on... The other reason is that it didn't match the decor of the granite and stainless steel kitchen in the retirement house... It still has power to spare and heats a cup of tea water in half the time of the expensive new microwave... denny - k8do |
Water burns!
Art, it may come as a total shock to you, but we do get 'your
point'... It is just that some of your points are more wishful thinking than anything else and some of us are from Missouri... It is only in your wishful thinking that todays american is lazy, unmotivated, and stupid, and only the immigrants are smart, and motivated, and hard working... America as a whole is a ferocious industrial giant who competes in the world market like an 800 pound gorilla... An aside discussion could be why do these smart, motivated, educated immigrants have to come to the USA to be successful in the first place? But, I'll let indulge in your own thoughts on that... No, I we do not believe that everything is known and there is nothing left to invent... Gravity is still a mystery... The mere presence of Dark matter totally refutes the Big Bang Theory... |
Water burns!
Dammit!!! I accidently bumped the mouse and the cursor was over the
'send' box and I was not ready to post my ramblings... Anyway, to continue... This plasma guy... His demonstration is interesting, but nothing else... Plasma production by RF is well known and understood not necessarily by me personally, but I can read... Plasma generators are used heavily in the silicon chip industry and numerous other industrial applications (coating glass, etc..) We have spacecraft using plasma thrusters also called ION engines in flight, with more planned for launch by various countries... As I commented before, notice the characteristic color of the flame, it is sodium ions being heated that an college chemistry 101 student will instantly identify on sight... A hydroxy flame is invisible... I use hydroxy torches and they are a pain because you can't see the flame and you have to wear special glasses to both visualize what is going on and to prevent UV eye damage... So, I am not belittling this person but I do not so far see anything new or unknown there... And like others on here, I am aware of the basics of physics and I do not see the potential for energy gain from his process... Perhaps on a spacecraft with abundant DC energy from solar cells it might be a handy source of open flame for other uses... denny / k8do |
Water burns!
Denny wrote:
... I am aware of the basics of physics and I do not see the potential for energy gain from his process... Perhaps on a spacecraft with abundant DC energy from solar cells it might be a handy source of open flame for other uses... denny / k8do Really? Well, how about a geothermal engine/generator set up near a volcano powering an rf generator and providing fuel for autos. Hawaii seems a suitable test ground ... JS |
Water burns!
On 4 Jun, 06:20, Denny wrote:
Art, it may come as a total shock to you, but we do get 'your point'... It is just that some of your points are more wishful thinking than anything else and some of us are from Missouri... snip We do get" your point" Could you explain in more detail, some here will not agree with you? You may get more static than you think if you are opposing the experts ! I warn you that it takes guts to go against the experts and I don't think you are up to it. ............... Smart people are comming to this country because companies are enticing themwith money. They paid all my expences as well as the rest of the family while Americans were looking for work with a $50,000 college loan to repay. The company I worked for laid off over a hundred engineers of leaving only seven of us left. With manufacturing gone overseas they are going to have a hard time getting a position ....................... I live in a insurance town and we have a company that specialising in bringing into the community software engineers in from India for different businesses. We have more than enough here already that we have a full blown cricket league ! I will leave it to others to explain that. ....................... If you do not believe every thing is known what accounts for the resistance to the new with respect to antennas? They have even got to the point of resisting mathematics. Some get angry because they want me to answer their questions over and over again without reading prior postings just so they can dig a knife in. I would be very much encouraged if just one person acknoweledged the Gaussian aproach but sadly this newsgroup is for arguments and ridicule. Art |
Water burns!
On 4 Jun, 06:37, Denny wrote:
Dammit!!! I accidently bumped the mouse and the cursor was over the 'send' box and I was not ready to post my ramblings... Anyway, to continue... This plasma guy... His demonstration is interesting, but nothing else... snip So we should snipe at the media for printing it instead of censoring it! Art denny / k8do |
Water burns!
Tony Jaa wrote:
Water burns! Man looking for cancer cure hopes to solve energy crisis ... This video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lud1qceKqyQ shows John Kanzius sticking his hand into the field/path of the RF from the machine--I doubt if that is a microwave freq. I can't seem to find a link on the man which states the freq(s) he is using ... Regards, JS |
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
Tony Jaa wrote: Water burns! Man looking for cancer cure hopes to solve energy crisis ... This video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lud1qceKqyQ shows John Kanzius sticking his hand into the field/path of the RF from the machine--I doubt if that is a microwave freq. I can't seem to find a link on the man which states the freq(s) he is using ... Regards, JS http://youtube.com/watch?v=CwughofIC...elated&search= http://youtube.com/watch?v=P9LhJ0AqI...elated&search= A couple more links, including one where a congressman is getting involved and advocating federal funding for development of this mans discovery ... Regards, JS |
Water burns!
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... John Smith I wrote: Tony Jaa wrote: Water burns! Man looking for cancer cure hopes to solve energy crisis ... This video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lud1qceKqyQ shows John Kanzius sticking his hand into the field/path of the RF from the machine--I doubt if that is a microwave freq. I can't seem to find a link on the man which states the freq(s) he is using ... Regards, JS http://youtube.com/watch?v=CwughofIC...elated&search= http://youtube.com/watch?v=P9LhJ0AqI...elated&search= A couple more links, including one where a congressman is getting involved and advocating federal funding for development of this mans discovery ... Regards, JS It doesnt take much to tell that the flame is a plasma arc, not hydrogen as claimed. A neon sign transformer would probably be much more efficent. |
Water burns!
Jimmie D wrote:
... It doesnt take much to tell that the flame is a plasma arc, not hydrogen as claimed. A neon sign transformer would probably be much more efficent. The whole point of the paper towel is to prove it is not a plasma arc, which would burn the paper towel ... View it again ... JS |
Water burns!
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... Jimmie D wrote: ... It doesnt take much to tell that the flame is a plasma arc, not hydrogen as claimed. A neon sign transformer would probably be much more efficent. The whole point of the paper towel is to prove it is not a plasma arc, which would burn the paper towel ... View it again ... JS Maybe not if it is wet with salt water. If that were hydrogen you wouldnt even see the flame. There are no bubbles of gas in the tube. Ive seen plasma flame very similar to this when playing with an old microwave. While zapping old disk I have seen plasma flames that look exacltly like thiose rise up from the disk, hey maybe thats a new form of energy too. Jimmie |
Water burns!
Jimmie D wrote:
... Sodium Chloride (salt) contains sodium (DUH! Huh?), well guess what, sodium ions impart a yellow color to the flame and make it visible. Hydrogen is lighter than air (the hindenburg! Duh, again!) this makes the gas being emitted very anxious to head towards the ceiling. This also is causing heat to be convected upwards RAPIDLY! Result, paper towel is unburned. If it were a plasma arc, the paper towel would be one electrode. Ever see electrodes made of metal melt in a plasma arc? Carbon electrodes burn away? Nuff said ... Regards, JS |
Water burns!
I would be very much encouraged if
just one person acknoweledged the Gaussian aproach but sadly this newsgroup is for arguments and ridicule. Art I have not critiqued in any post I have made, your Gaussian approach - not that I expect you have a grid on the wall and are keeping score - your method of combining Gauss, time, and classic EMF theory is beyond my mathematical abilities... Where is Dick Feynman when you need him... Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear the cultural reference will not be familiar to you and focus on burning water no, not Jack Daniels... I am willing to learn - so what in those photos and the captions do you see is new physics? That is what is confusing me... Plasma physics are well known again, I personally only know what I read on the topic... However, in a previous lifetime I was responsible for keeping a herd of 100KW RF induction heaters working, so I have some understanding of what high intensity EMF can and cannot do.. The fact that it does not work on pure water non conductive but has to have a conductor a salt added to it is a flaming directional arrow in the wilderness... The fact that the flame color indicates sodium ions are being heated above the wick is to me, as an old lab chemist, a futher indication as to mechanism... The real issue here is what use is this particular method of plasma induction? Interesting - yes... Useful - questionable A new source of power - highly suspect... denny / k8do |
Water burns!
"Denny" wrote in message ups.com... I would be very much encouraged if just one person acknoweledged the Gaussian aproach but sadly this newsgroup is for arguments and ridicule. Art I have not critiqued in any post I have made, your Gaussian approach - not that I expect you have a grid on the wall and are keeping score - your method of combining Gauss, time, and classic EMF theory is beyond my mathematical abilities... Where is Dick Feynman when you need him... Guass and time were already combined many years ago by Maxwell/ Heavyside. If Art is saying they were wrong he hasnt said how. I havent seen any math from Art showing how he related time to Guass's theory, How it is different from the established relationship and how he can justify using NEC software which uses the established relationships(not gassian}to verify the operation of his antennas. Art needs to give us reason to see what he sees and he hasnt. Jimmie |
Water burns!
On 5 Jun, 04:30, Denny wrote:
I would be very much encouraged if just one person acknoweledged the Gaussian aproach but sadly this newsgroup is for arguments and ridicule. Art I have not critiqued in any post I have made, your Gaussian approach - not that I expect you have a grid on the wall and are keeping score - your method of combining Gauss, time, and classic EMF theory is beyond my mathematical abilities... Where is Dick Feynman when you need him... Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear the cultural reference will not be familiar to you and focus on burning water no, not Jack Daniels... I am willing to learn - so what in those photos and the captions do you see is new physics? That is what is confusing me... Plasma physics are well known again, I personally only know what I read on the topic... However, in a previous lifetime I was responsible for keeping a herd of 100KW RF induction heaters working, so I have some understanding of what high intensity EMF can and cannot do.. The fact that it does not work on pure water non conductive but has to have a conductor a salt added to it is a flaming directional arrow in the wilderness... The fact that the flame color indicates sodium ions are being heated above the wick is to me, as an old lab chemist, a futher indication as to mechanism... The real issue here is what use is this particular method of plasma induction? Interesting - yes... Useful - questionable A new source of power - highly suspect... denny / k8do Well said Art |
Water burns!
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 What's really happening is that electrons are being excited to higher energy levels by application of an intense RF field and upon "falling back" to their original state release the difference in energy between the higher and lower states. It's not "burning" in the classic sense of the term. Here's a decent explanation of how induction coupled plasma is used in analytical chemistry.http://www.cee.vt.edu/ewr/environmen...r/icp/icp.html This invention will never withstand strict scientific review because it will be trivial to demonstrate that it doesn't produce more power than is input in the form of RF. No net excess power produced means no new power source. It's almost frightening that hams would consider the claims for this thing to be valid. Not that I expect hams to be competent in every scientific discipline, but there are some basic fundamentals applicable to how the universe operates...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Water burns!
On 5 Jun, 07:24, Jim Higgins wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:42:00 -0700, John Smith I wrote: Jimmie D wrote: ... Sodium Chloride (salt) contains sodium (DUH! Huh?), well guess what, sodium ions impart a yellow color to the flame and make it visible. Hydrogen is lighter than air (the hindenburg! Duh, again!) this makes the gas being emitted very anxious to head towards the ceiling. This also is causing heat to be convected upwards RAPIDLY! Result, paper towel is unburned. If it were a plasma arc, the paper towel would be one electrode. Ever see electrodes made of metal melt in a plasma arc? Carbon electrodes burn away? Nuff said ... Regards, JS 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. 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. What's really happening is that electrons are being excited to higher energy levels by application of an intense RF field and upon "falling back" to their original state release the difference in energy between the higher and lower states. It's not "burning" in the classic sense of the term. Here's a decent explanation of how induction coupled plasma is used in analytical chemistry.http://www.cee.vt.edu/ewr/environmen...r/icp/icp.html This invention will never withstand strict scientific review because it will be trivial to demonstrate that it doesn't produce more power than is input in the form of RF. No net excess power produced means no new power source. It's almost frightening that hams would consider the claims for this thing to be valid. Not that I expect hams to be competent in every scientific discipline, but there are some basic fundamentals applicable to how the universe operates...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The question is not what he is striving for is a valid quest. The question is should the press or media decide on it's validity and possibly consider the censoring of the story. Some people on this newsgroup are angry because the story has been given publicity that they feel is undeserved and harmfull to the minds of some readers. They want to squash the idea by ridicule or censorship since in their judgement it propulgates falsities about science. If the minority in science who wish to decide what is and what is not harmfull or fruitfull to the community then the study of science itself is not required and neither is debate. Art |
Water burns!
On 5 Jun, 05:39, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"Denny" wrote in message ups.com...I would be very much encouraged if just one person acknoweledged the Gaussian aproach but sadly this newsgroup is for arguments and ridicule. Art snip... Guass and time were already combined many years ago by Maxwell/ Heavyside. If Art is saying they were wrong he hasnt said how. As you say........ "IF"......... Art has not said that. I havent seen any math from Art showing how he related time to Guass's theory, How it is different from the established relationship and how he can justify using NEC software which uses the established relationships(not gassian}to verify the operation of his antennas. Art needs to give us reason to see what he sees and he hasnt. Jimmie |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
... This invention will never withstand strict scientific review because it will be trivial to demonstrate that it doesn't produce more power than is input in the form of RF. No net excess power produced means no new power source. ... At no time did I ever think it was over unity. The law of conservation of energy is just another law awaiting to be "broken", i.e. a new "law" found which acts to the contrary ... after experiencing the insanity of quantum physics, it leaves ones belief system shattered! The real exciting part, if true, is it can be utilized to greatly lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, remove the necessity of storage batteries (a storage tank for gas has a much greater life expectancy and is magnitudes cheaper in the long run than batteries, plus, the gas can be transported with NO loss, electricity can't) and can be used in conjunction with off peak usage of power to store energy. (and, especially wind, solar, wave, geothermal, river current generation, etc.) I have often wondered why geothermal resources, such as volcanoes in Hawaii were not utilized, through electrolysis, to generate hydrogen/oxygen to remove Hawaii's dependence on oil and stop polluting paradise! At 80% efficiency, or possibly less, I would imagine the process would become economically important. With the proper use of catalysts (platinum? palladium? Manganese Dioxide? etc.) it might even be feasible to approach 90+ efficiency. (Manganese Dioxide weakens the hydrogen/oxygen bond, if in doubt--drop a bit of Manganese Dioxide in a bit of hydrogen peroxide and watch the oxygen release! And, platinum is contained in every catalytic converter on every auto) I am just giving the benefit of the doubt at this point, as (supposed) engineers, physicists and others are claiming this is new ... and, when you have John Kanzius called before congress to provide details and congressman English wanting to allot funds to its development, and is drafting such a bill, I am assuming there is at least a grain of truth in it all ... but then, it is easy to shake my belief in the charlatan congressmen we have today ... JS JS |
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
... I should have pointed out, the most efficient device in the world is the lowly transformer, the properly designed xfrmr is able to achieve 95-97% efficiency in most situations ... although, due to material cost factors, this is seldom seen. JS |
Water burns!
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 |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote: On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:45:42 -0700, Jim Kelley wrote: 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 I guess I don't see your point. Whan I say energy I mean *all* energy, including any energy possibly stored as heat because the final products might remain hotter than the orginal products. If you have a point that overrides that trivial case I just used to guess at what you're talking about, then you need to explain it in more detail... not because I'm stupid, but because you're simply not presenting your case unless you do; you're just hand waving. If there is something specific in my comments above that you don't understand, please let me know what it is and I'll be happy to elaborate for you. 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
On 5 Jun, 11:29, Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:20:12 -0700, art wrote: The question is not what he is striving for is a valid quest. The question is should the press or media decide on it's validity and possibly consider the censoring of the story. Some people on this newsgroup are angry because the story has been given publicity that they feel is undeserved and harmfull to the minds of some readers. They want to squash the idea by ridicule or censorship since in their judgement it propulgates falsities about science. If the minority in science who wish to decide what is and what is not harmfull or fruitfull to the community then the study of science itself is not required and neither is debate. Art I guess I'm one of the "angry" one... because this is yet another case of bad science reported to a public that is incapable of telling good science from bad science and which in this case wasn't even offered the opportunity unless it was via knowledge gained from elsewhere. O.K. your complaint is noted. Should the press add a disclaimer of the veracity of the claims? Should one have a trial with the assumption that what is said is correct and not prematually presumed to be false? At what degree level would one have to be a legitamate judge? Should the Supreme Court be councilled before a statement is allowed to be made? Should the President council Congress before he faces the nation? Should not YOU council others before you make a statement aboyut others? Lewellyn made an allegtation about the poor state of education of other than himself should he be stoned to death? This a simple argument over something that was reported and YOU are angry. And you want your comments to be removed, but for why? Do you consider that they may not be valid or stand the test of time? This newsgroup allows you, an unknown to express his thinking as a term of free speech while you on the other hand want to stilt the free speech of others. Your highness, you are much to harsh on those that you judge. Hopefully your house is not made of glass. Art Yes, I think that when the press reports on a perpetual motion machine they're obligated (in a social contract sense vs a legal one) to point out that such things are really impossible. And when they report on a device claimed to burn water that represents a potential energy solution... then I think the times (energy shortages, high gas prices) demand more balance than was provided. The real point being that there was no "debate" in the original story. It was nothing more than a one sided "let's stir them up today" piece. |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
... Please point out to me where the press ever claimed it was a "perpetual motion machine" (over unity.) I am afraid I missed anyone claiming that, except some here stating that it wasn't--and the rest of us already knew that--but then, those who are not to sharp keep going around yelling that--just as if someone is claiming it is, strange bunch. Who has the energy to point out to them that it appears a bit insane? Kind of like someone pointing out that the computer in front of 'em isn't a perpetual motion machine! DUH!!! As I have pointed out, and am getting tired of pointing out, this may be the discovery of the century--WITHOUT HAVING TO BE AN OVER UNITY DEVICE!!! IF, and that is a pretty big if, it is real when subjected to complete scrutiny. JS |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
... If quantum physics leaves your belief system shattered, then I'd have to say you don't understand quantum physics on even a superficial level... or else you're exaggerating your reaction to it. The math is a real bitch, but the generalized concepts are easily grasped by those who understand classical physics. But that aside, the real point is that quantum physics doesn't leave classical physics as a broken law to be tossed aside. NASA will continue to use classical physics to plot trajectories to the Moon or to Mars. ... OMG! What was I thinking, particles that "wink in" and "wink out" are total boring! ROFLOL!!! ... Are you even for one instant suggesting that "burning" water for a net release of useful energy might be true? ... 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 ... What gas are we talking about here that can be transported with no loss? The current darling candidate is hydrogen... for which net tank-based transportation costs are tremendous. REmember - or at least realize - that "transportation" includes the cost to compress on the sending end, expand and recompress on the receiving end, plus the classical over the road costs. Then when you figure that the energy density of gasoline is 9000 Wh/l (watt-hours per liter) and for hydrogen compressed to 150 bar (2200 lb/sq. in.) is only 405 Wh/l you can see that transportation costs are far higher per watt-hour delivered. You are stuck in your own world, blinded by your own thoughts ... pipelines carrying hydrogen or hydrogen + oxygen would experience no loss ... ... not to mention the dangers of having a ready made super bomb on every city corner - where a gas station used to be - just waiting for terrorists to set it off. Hydrogen is magnitudes safer than gasoline, kerosene, diesel, natural gas, etc.--due to hydrogens "buoyancy", on escape to the environment, it rapidly escapes upwards, the bulk of heat and energy is directed upwards when burning also ... So, you are one of the, "Yeah, I already knew that" crowd. Good, I needed an example, such as you, to show the group ... JS |
Water burns!
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 |
Water burns!
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 look--and not be deterred by a bunch of fools booing in the isles ... JS |
Water burns!
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 - |
Water burns!
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com