Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 4th 07, 10:11 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 287
Default 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.


  #2   Report Post  
Old June 4th 07, 11:21 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default 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
  #3   Report Post  
Old June 5th 07, 02:02 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 287
Default 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


  #4   Report Post  
Old June 5th 07, 02:42 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default 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
  #5   Report Post  
Old June 5th 07, 04:16 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default 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 -





  #6   Report Post  
Old June 6th 07, 02:20 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 230
Default 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
  #7   Report Post  
Old June 6th 07, 03:04 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default 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 -



  #8   Report Post  
Old June 6th 07, 03:40 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default 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


  #9   Report Post  
Old June 6th 07, 09:50 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 828
Default 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 -
  #10   Report Post  
Old June 5th 07, 07:45 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 666
Default 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



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR RLucch2098 Equipment 0 April 10th 04 03:02 PM
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR RLucch2098 Equipment 0 April 10th 04 03:02 PM
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR RLucch2098 Equipment 0 April 6th 04 04:57 PM
FA: "RADIO, A STUDY OF FIRST PRINCIPLES" 1928 E.E.BURNS-NR RLucch2098 Equipment 0 April 6th 04 04:57 PM
WA3MOJ crahses and Burns!!! Twistedhed CB 1 August 23rd 03 02:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017