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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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 -

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