Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR | Equipment | |||
WA3MOJ crahses and Burns!!! | CB |