"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

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

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 -

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

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

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

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

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

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