Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

...
is not the energy equivalent of hundreds of watts of RF - except
perhaps to a second grader or a journalist.
...

Great, you must have good eyes.

I can't tell what wattage is being used. Exactly RF power is being used?

JS

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:

...
Now, John, in that context please find where I said the press claimed
the device was over unity.

You were claiming the news claimed it was over unity, I asked you where?

Here is your text:

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.

So, I ask you again, "Where did the press claim the device was over unity?"

Also, how might this device be the discovery of the century as you
suggest above? What is newly discovered here? What potential does it
hold that might qualify it for discovery of the century status? Please
try to be specific.

This has been more than over-explained in my previous posts ... if you
don't see how, open your eyes ...

JS

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:

[total BS]

Crack the valve on a tank of hydrogen for a sec or two, in the open.
Now attempt to light a match and ignite it, you can't, it is already
above your head.

Crack the value on a tank of propane and light the match, place the
match near the ground (propane is heavier than air) and WATCH OUT,
you're pants are on fire ...

JS

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:

I can't tell what wattage is being used. Exactly RF power is being used?

If I told you I'd have to kill you. It's a black helicopter thing.
Alien technology. I'm sure you understand. ;-)

ac6xg

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:


John Smith I wrote:

I can't tell what wattage is being used. Exactly RF power is being used?

If I told you I'd have to kill you. It's a black helicopter thing.
Alien technology. I'm sure you understand. ;-)

ac6xg

I know one thing, a damn fool is claim to know something he does NOT!

JS

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:



John Smith I wrote:

I can't tell what wattage is being used. Exactly RF power is being
used?


If I told you I'd have to kill you. It's a black helicopter thing.
Alien technology. I'm sure you understand. ;-)

ac6xg


I know one thing, a damn fool is claim to know something he does NOT!

For someone who claims not to believe that more energy is output than
input, I believe ye doth protest too much.

ac6xg

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

[chit]

Gesus!

Now you're a damn psychic! ROFLOL

JS

Water burns!
 

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

Water burns!
 

Tom Ring wrote:

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.

Wow, go away for a few days, and everyone is peein' in the pool!

Di-Hydrogen Oxide is, as the name suggests, "already burnt". Or call it
oxidized if you wish.

The gullible know just enough to make an almost intelligent assumption
- "Well Hydrogen is really flammable - Look at what happened to the
Hindenburg! - disregarding that what they were watching burn was the
incredibly flammable fabric coating, and because there is a good chance
that the red insensitive film emulsions of the day would have a hard
time seeing that hydrogen flame. But I digress.

And Oxygen! That stuff is pretty good at making things burn! By golly,
release those, and we have a world full of fuel for the family Escalade!
Fuel will be too cheap to meter!

But sorry sports fans, it did indeed oxidize, and a long time ago at
that. So well burnt that it does a fair job of putting out most fires.

Electrolyzing is after a fashion un-oxidizing it. That will almost
certainly take more energy than whatever is produced. I have to say
almost certainly because there is always the chance that a singularity
will pop up here in the newsgroup and start spitting out refrigerators.
But almost certainly not...

Pure water is hard to electrolyze, and adding chemicals like salt to
enhance the conductivity produces some nasty additional chemistry. Like
that Cl. Wonder what that will make with the H?


There are some dum idees in da world. This one qualifies.

I hate to disappoint you Tom, but you are *not* wrong. 8^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

In all the debate about what type of flame is burning, how much and what
type of power is being generated and how; the main point seems to have been
lost. This guy is primarily claiming that he has developed a cure for cancer
and not a limitless source of power - that's just an incidental by product.
He has a lot of expensive looking equipment that can generate focused
microwave radiation. It can produce enough power to dissassociate water
molecules and/or create plasma flames. He also appears to have access to
some buckminster fullerine C60/C70 particles judging by the colour of the
solution in one of the test tubes.

His (rather simplistic) hypothesis is that cancer cells are better supplied
with blood than other cells in the body (which is generally true). By
injecting metallic nano particles into the bloodstream, these particles will
be carried preferentially to cancer sites (which again is generally true for
the first few minutes after injection). His machine is then used to zap the
patient and all the nano particles will heat up to 65 degrees centigrade and
destroy the cancers (wishful thinking but true if it could be achieved)
leaving the rest of the body unharmed.

The principles are basically correct but the nano particles will not
differentially seek out tumour sites in the way he hopes. The time variables
and circulation patterns in different individuals are too great. What
happens if the cancer is interfering with general circulation as it often
does? Current research is aimed at finding compounds which will bind to
specific tumour sites using specifically engineered proteins. Once this has
been achieved, then metallic or other types of particles can be added to the
protiens and used to target tumours. Then any specifically tuned radiation
source could be used to heat the particles adhering to the tumours to kill
them - or to release a poisonous compound designed to kill only the tumour
cells.

Research in this area has been going on for years and is starting to signs
of considerable success. One problem is that if you suddenly succeed in
wiping out all tumour cells in the body in one hit, what will happen to all
the waste products created by the dead cells? The kidneys and liver will be
overwhelmed and the patient will expire from toxic shock. This is just one
step on the way to developing a cure and there will probably never be a cure
that involves just being zapped with microwave radiation for a couple of
minutes, The cancer has all gone, but the patient dies from the side effects
of the cure. The best option is to kill the tumours a bit at a time and
allow the patient to recover between treatments. Either that, or a new
'cure' will be needed to flush out all the poisonous compounds as a result
of the dead tumour cells rotting away inside the body.

As for sticking your hand in the path of a microwave beam, a one kilowatt CW
transmission only causes a sensation of skin warmth for a few seconds
exposure. Obviously other damage occurs at deeper levels in the body, where
there are fewer pain sensor cells. The demonstration looks spectacular, and
makes for a good news story but doesn't actually prove anything.

The idea of one man working alone in a home laboratory inventing what
multi-national research corporations with billion dollar budgets cannot is a
very appealing one. Unfortunately history shows that it is the well
financed, research labs that tend to succeed, not the one man band. Edison,
Marconi, and Bill Gates for example, were all pretty wealthy, connected and
had a good deal of support behind them before they succeeded in dominating
the world with their inventions. Even Tesla was doing alright for a while,
until Edison 'proved' that his way of doing things was better - the
advantage of having better financial support and that it was more practical
and cheaper to install a proven technology using copper wire. Copper wire
had been used for low power signalling applications for a long time before
it was used to distribute power.

If there is anything of scientific merit at all in this 'invention', one of
the multi-nationals will undoubtably have already been developing it and not
revealed the details due to patent law requirements.

Hopefully I am wrong and we will all see a universal cure for cancer rolled
out to hospitals in a couple of years time. Once cured, we will then be able
to go out and kill ourselves by driving too fast in our hydrogen powered
emission free cars.

Scientific progress works by building step by step on the work of others
that have gone before. That's the way the world has worked for at least the
last 6,000 years since the Babylonians, Greeks and early Arabic
civilisations developed the scientific method. Individuals may have a Eureka
moment, but it takes time for new theories to become accepted and its the
people with financial muscle that ultimately get to exploit new innovations
and make even more money.

Finally, if you look at the history on invention, you will find many
instances of new technology being invented almost simultaneously around the
world throughout the centuries. This points to a perhaps deeper underlying
principle that technology has to reach a certain stage before the next step
can be achieved. It may well be that a multiband 99% efficient HF antenna
can be built into the form of a six inch cube. However, that will probably
need room temperature superconductors to become available. Once that
happens, people will be 'inventing' these antennas all over the world.

Rant mode off

Mike G0ULI

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

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:
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.

Don't forget zero point energy. http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html.

More than half a century ago, I remember the conservation
of energy principle being modified to: "Energy cannot be
created or destroyed *by ordinary chemical means*" - right
after WWII. It took some time for the meaning of e = mc^2
to soak in. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Don't forget zero point energy. http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html.

More than half a century ago, I remember the conservation
of energy principle being modified to: "Energy cannot be
created or destroyed *by ordinary chemical means*" - right
after WWII. It took some time for the meaning of e = mc^2
to soak in. :-)

Cecil:

You need another lifetime man! If you don't petition God yourself for
such, I will by proxy!

Exactly correct, and that is NOT the only time "laws" have been
rewritten, nor will it be the last ... one only has to realize the
quaint old phrase, "Laws were meant to be broken" to advance into the
dark and unknown ...

An open mind and willingness to look "under-the-rocks" which others
avoid is all that is necessary for advancement and discovery. The only
problem is, there are a H*LL of a lot of rocks with nothing under em'!

Keep on truckin'!

Warmest regards,
JS

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:
You need another lifetime man!

Reincarnation?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

On 7 Jun, 22:01, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
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.

My O my. I know that America is a big Country but I never realised
that Communist ideals were lying secretly under some rocks waiting
for an opportunity to broadcast its ideals. When does America
start burning all books and pick up the refrain of the resident
couch experts? Does this reflect the ideals of the antenna experts
on this newsgroup? Obviously they are not having success when
it comes to suppression with respect to antennas
Art

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
You need another lifetime man!

Reincarnation?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Well, it is found in the "Dead Sea Scrolls", however, I believe an
ancient convention of bishops decided that reincarnation was too
complicated for the commoners and removed the/those book(s) from the
bible. (this was mentioned to me by an devote acquaintance, I can't
claim it to be valid)

Regards,
JS

Water burns!
 

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

...
Unfortunately very few viewers have either the education or experience
to make that determination. It's like computer literacy. Now days
...

Unfortunately, very few people have the where-with-all to determine what
others can or cannot determine and are unjustified it attempting to do
so ...

Yanno, you kinda look like one of 'em ... ahhh, perhaps it is just the
lighting ...

JS

Water burns!
 

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:13:22 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

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.

Unfortunately they are mixed in that ratio and there is no safe way to
store much comprised of that ratio. They need to be separated to be
stored safely. Hydrogen can be stored in a metal sponge (Metal
Hydride) which is quite efficient. Expensive, but efficient.

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.

The problem with piping it as a gas is transferring sufficient volume
and then it'd have to be liquefied at the receiving end. Another
problem is keeping it liquid. You really can't carry a lot as a gas
under pressure and it takes a lot to develop much energy/power as the
stuff is so low in BTU content.


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

I've been around a couple of H2/air explosions. H2 by itself does rise
rapidly, but it is so active physically it mixes with the air and the
rise is not nearly as fast although it does dissipate relatively
quick. OTOH you have to get rid of almost all of it before it is no
longer dangerous from an explosive point. The lower explosive limit
(LEL) is only 4% while the Upper Explosive Limit (UEL) is 96% meaning
if it's present it's probably within the explosive range.

Another problem with H2 is it doesn't take much flow to create a
substantial electrostatic charge resulting in a spark and ignition. In
both cases I'm familiar that was the cause of the explosion. In the
one case a worker was standing within a couple of feet of the large
container which was at low pressure. Just a couple inches of water
pressure above atmosphere. He was looking at it when it blew. You
could see the imprint of his goggles and shape of his face in the
Aluminum. He did survive, but it was a couple of days before he could
hear again. Pretty amazing as it basically blew him through the
equivalent of a wall. In the other case it blew a worker through the
"blow out panels" in a wall plus about 30 to 50 feet. He was back to
work the next day.

In both cases there was enough air movement that the bulk of the force
was within a few feet of the floor.

snip

Water burns!
 

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

[a lot of stuff]

Here is a link on the safety and desirability of hydrogen vs. gasoline:

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/facts/einsafety.pdf

Hydrogen can be separated from oxygen with a simple plastic membrane,
the pores in this membrane are engineered to a size which will allow
hydrogen atoms to pass freely while blocking the oxygen atoms. The
oxygen "byproduct" is a sale-able one.

The only REAL concern is efficiency ... and as I have pointed out, an
over-unity or even a unity condition is not necessary for this method
(if it stands up to close scrutiny) to be an economically feasible
venture ...

Hydrogen is probably here to stay, it is only how we will produce it
that is in question. Pollution alone is enough to make us take its'
path. While "evil" smoking is in decline and been so for some time,
lung cancer continues to rise at an alarming rate. A search of the web
will convince you that all respiratory diseases are on the rise. While
they have done wonderful things to make exhaust odorless and invisible,
we are still breathing great quantities of it 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, 4 weeks a month, 12 months a year, for our whole lives, with china
coming on line we are about to see real pollution rolling in on our west
coast, we then add our pollution to it and by the time it hits the east
coast--I pity the poor air breathers there ...

Monday, as you cruise to work, contemplate the river of vehicle exhaust
you are submerged in, the tens of
thousands/hundreds-of-thousands/millions/tens-of-millions/etc. of cubic
feet of toxic exhaust which is being spewed out before your path, for
miles and miles ahead ... you will begin to grasp the need and
importance of hydrogen ...

JS

Water burns!
 

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:13:22 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

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.

Unfortunately they are mixed in that ratio and there is no safe way to
store much comprised of that ratio. They need to be separated to be
stored safely. Hydrogen can be stored in a metal sponge (Metal
Hydride) which is quite efficient. Expensive, but efficient.

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.

The problem with piping it as a gas is transferring sufficient volume
and then it'd have to be liquefied at the receiving end. Another
problem is keeping it liquid. You really can't carry a lot as a gas
under pressure and it takes a lot to develop much energy/power as the
stuff is so low in BTU content.


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

I've been around a couple of H2/air explosions. H2 by itself does rise
rapidly, but it is so active physically it mixes with the air and the
rise is not nearly as fast although it does dissipate relatively
quick. OTOH you have to get rid of almost all of it before it is no
longer dangerous from an explosive point. The lower explosive limit
(LEL) is only 4% while the Upper Explosive Limit (UEL) is 96% meaning
if it's present it's probably within the explosive range.

Another problem with H2 is it doesn't take much flow to create a
substantial electrostatic charge resulting in a spark and ignition. In
both cases I'm familiar that was the cause of the explosion. In the
one case a worker was standing within a couple of feet of the large
container which was at low pressure. Just a couple inches of water
pressure above atmosphere. He was looking at it when it blew. You
could see the imprint of his goggles and shape of his face in the
Aluminum. He did survive, but it was a couple of days before he could
hear again. Pretty amazing as it basically blew him through the
equivalent of a wall. In the other case it blew a worker through the
"blow out panels" in a wall plus about 30 to 50 feet. He was back to
work the next day.

In both cases there was enough air movement that the bulk of the force
was within a few feet of the floor.

snip


When I was a teenager a truck caarying H2 came into town and the driver
decided to eat at a local restaraunt. Unknown to him his tank had a leak. I
saw the heat disortion above the flame and called the fire department. When
they got there they started chewing my butt because it want on fire, then
one of the firemen walked into the flame.

Jimmie

Water burns!
 

Jimmie D wrote:

[stuff removed]
When I was a teenager a truck caarying H2 came into town and the driver
decided to eat at a local restaraunt. Unknown to him his tank had a leak. I
saw the heat disortion above the flame and called the fire department. When
they got there they started chewing my butt because it want on fire, then
one of the firemen walked into the flame.

Jimmie



Hmmm, aliens having a hot-dog roast, or just stupid firemen, possibly an
urban myth?

JS

Water burns!
 

In article ,
John Smith I wrote:

Hydrogen can be separated from oxygen with a simple plastic membrane,
the pores in this membrane are engineered to a size which will allow
hydrogen atoms to pass freely while blocking the oxygen atoms. The
oxygen "byproduct" is a sale-able one.

You need to go back to High School Chemistry Class and relearn all
you missed about Hydrogen Oxygen Bonding, and the Energy required
to break those specific Chemical Bonds. It isn't going to happen
in a simple Plastic Membrane, especially without some form of external
energy input. Where do you guys come up with this stuff???
Idiots R Us???

Water burns!
 

You wrote:

...
You need to go back to High School Chemistry Class and relearn all
you missed about Hydrogen Oxygen Bonding, and the Energy required
to break those specific Chemical Bonds. It isn't going to happen
in a simple Plastic Membrane, especially without some form of external
energy input. Where do you guys come up with this stuff???
Idiots R Us???

You need to learn how to focus and digest written material in a sane,
logical and meaningful way.

Hydrogen gas can be separated from oxygen gas with the plastic membrane,
as stated.

What? Did you sudden get thirsty and focus on water, idiot!

JS

Water burns!
 

"You" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Smith I wrote:

Hydrogen can be separated from oxygen with a simple plastic membrane,
the pores in this membrane are engineered to a size which will allow
hydrogen atoms to pass freely while blocking the oxygen atoms. The
oxygen "byproduct" is a sale-able one.

You need to go back to High School Chemistry Class and relearn all
you missed about Hydrogen Oxygen Bonding, and the Energy required
to break those specific Chemical Bonds. It isn't going to happen
in a simple Plastic Membrane, especially without some form of external
energy input. Where do you guys come up with this stuff???
Idiots R Us???

actually with what you quoted it is perfectly correct... in that quote he
isn't saying he's breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen, just
separating the atoms. a gaseous mixture of hydrogen and oxygen could be
separated this way.

Water burns!
 

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 07:54:16 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

Jimmie D wrote:

[stuff removed]
When I was a teenager a truck caarying H2 came into town and the driver
decided to eat at a local restaraunt. Unknown to him his tank had a leak. I
saw the heat disortion above the flame and called the fire department. When
they got there they started chewing my butt because it want on fire, then
one of the firemen walked into the flame.

Jimmie



Hmmm, aliens having a hot-dog roast, or just stupid firemen, possibly an
urban myth?

Typically the Hydrogen flame is quite difficult to see unless
contaminants make it visible. It's a very pale blue that is almost
invisible.

JS

Water burns!
 

Dave wrote:

...
actually with what you quoted it is perfectly correct... in that quote he
...

Yeah, it is always wise to pay attention to the previous post, that the
post in question is responding too ... that way you will appear as an
idiot less frequently ... you live, you learn ...

JS

Water burns!
 

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

...
Typically the Hydrogen flame is quite difficult to see unless
contaminants make it visible. It's a very pale blue that is almost
invisible.
JS

Absolutely, a real danger to those with no sensitivity to heat ...

JS

Water burns!
 

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 07:54:16 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

Jimmie D wrote:

[stuff removed]
When I was a teenager a truck caarying H2 came into town and the driver
decided to eat at a local restaraunt. Unknown to him his tank had a
leak. I
saw the heat disortion above the flame and called the fire department.
When
they got there they started chewing my butt because it want on fire,
then
one of the firemen walked into the flame.

Jimmie



Hmmm, aliens having a hot-dog roast, or just stupid firemen, possibly an
urban myth?

Typically the Hydrogen flame is quite difficult to see unless
contaminants make it visible. It's a very pale blue that is almost
invisible.

JS

Definately not an urban myth and the firmen wernt stupid. They just didnt
know much about fighting fires especially something like this. Just your
typical small town volunteer fire department of the 60s. 40s vintage fire
truck, no special clothing or protective equipment. Siren goes off, drive to
the one red light in town and wait to see which way the firetruck goes.


Jimmie

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
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? :-)

No violation Cecil, space bends, not light.

tom
K0TAR

Water burns!
 

Tom Ring wrote:
No violation Cecil, space bends, not light.

Is a straight line through bent space still a
straight line? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Ring wrote:
No violation Cecil, space bends, not light.

Is a straight line through bent space still a
straight line? :-)

Hey, wait a minute, is that a straight answer? grin

Regards,
JS