There's one thing we can count on, for sure, no question, no doubt:
Whatever magical catalyst is found, whatever wonderful principle is
discovered, whatever bonds are broken. . .

It will require more energy to turn the water into hydrogen and oxygen
than you'll get back when the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined. By any
method -- burning, in a fuel cell, whatever.

You can take that to the bank. Anyone claiming otherwise is ignorant,
delusional, a charlatan, or some combination of those. Anyone believing
it is sadly lacking in the most basic of science education.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Mike Kaliski wrote:
"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
art wrote:

Look at Edisons' invention, the light bulb.

It makes a much better heater than a light source (only a few percent of
the energy consumed is given off as usable light!)

Besides, perhaps next they will find out that the rf power can be
reduced a hundrend-fold if the proper catalyst is used. Perhaps
attacking the hydrogen/oxygen bond on multi-levels will finally be found
to be feasible ...

I have never seen in any book ANY speculation that rf could break
hydrogen/oxygen bonds--only that microwaves could boil water! That in
itself seems a major break through that the brain dead have glossed over
in their claim of "it won't work!" Besides all that, it appears to me
that the bond is being broken well below the boiling point of the salt
water--seems like sodium chloride is already working as some sort of
catalyst--let's all hope a magnitudes better catalyst is found!

JS

John

Commercial microwave ovens have always worked on the principle of heating
water by being tuned to the vibrational frequency of water molecules. It
seems obvious that if sufficiently focused, the microwave energy would cause
spontaneous decomposition of the water molecules into their constituent
oxygen and hydrogen molecules. The addition of sodium chloride, or any salt,
to the water can act as a catalyst by causing energy to become more tightly
focused or by 'tuning' the molecules to become more susceptable to the
microwave frequency(ies) involved. Sugared drinks heat more quickly than
plain water in a microwave oven. While this may reduce the energy input
requirements, there is no possibility of recovering a greater amount of
energy than was input to initiate the reaction. This sounds like another
version of the cold fusion debate, albeit not so cold.

There is no magic here. A kilowatt of energy focused into an area of less
than a tenth of a cubic millimetre will instantaneously disassociate
virtually any substance known to science.

A commercial fusion reactor is currently being built in France. It will cost
billions of dollars to complete, but when it becomes operational there will
be a surplus of energy generated. That is our future and the future of
energy production. A jar full of salty water will never power the average
home or car unless it is surrounding several pounds of Plutonium. :-)

Mike G0ULI

Roy Lewallen wrote:

...

I'd say there were two possibilities the

1) It ain't happened yet--so it never will.

2) It ain't happened yet--because we don't yet know enough.

Frankly, I think those coming up with new ideas will subscribe to the
second ...

I do know that manganese dioxide can act as a catalyst in different
situations as to seem "magical." (i.e. over come bonds at lower energy
levels.)

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
2) It ain't happened yet--because we don't yet know enough.

Frankly, I think those coming up with new ideas will subscribe to the
second ...

We know that e = mc^2 All we need is a method
for conversion of ordinary mass into energy.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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 Smith I wrote:
Be nice to have a little machine in the backyard converting sunlight
into gold!

m = e/c^2 That would take a heck of a lot of sunlight.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Be nice to have a little machine in the backyard converting sunlight
into gold!

m = e/c^2 That would take a heck of a lot of sunlight.

Cecil:

OK. I suspect you correct.

I'll consider the marijuana. ;-)

Regards,
JS

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

art wrote:

...

Art:

Well, your point is well taken here.

Correct. They want the news media to filter all for them, thus
relieving them of exercising mental muscle for themselves.

They rely on denying anything new is coming along until it already is
developed and accepted; then they claim they knew it all along.

You'd think them embarrassed over the above; but then, you'd be mistaken.

However, the gaussian antenna escapes me ... at least for the present
time. But, I don't want the news to filter you! GRIN

Regards,
JS

"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???

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