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

"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

I would be very much encouraged if
just one person acknoweledged the Gaussian aproach but sadly
this newsgroup is for arguments and ridicule.
Art


I have not critiqued in any post I have made, your Gaussian approach -
not that I expect you have a grid on the wall and are keeping score -
your method of combining Gauss, time, and classic EMF theory is beyond
my mathematical abilities... Where is Dick Feynman when you need
him...

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear the cultural
reference will not be familiar to you and focus on burning water no,
not Jack Daniels...
I am willing to learn - so what in those photos and the captions do
you see is new physics? That is what is confusing me...

Plasma physics are well known again, I personally only know what I
read on the topic... However, in a previous lifetime I was
responsible for keeping a herd of 100KW RF induction heaters working,
so I have some understanding of what high intensity EMF can and cannot
do..
The fact that it does not work on pure water non conductive but has
to have a conductor a salt added to it is a flaming directional
arrow in the wilderness...
The fact that the flame color indicates sodium ions are being heated
above the wick is to me, as an old lab chemist, a futher indication as
to mechanism...

The real issue here is what use is this particular method of plasma
induction? Interesting - yes...
Useful - questionable
A new source of power - highly suspect...

denny / k8do

"Denny" wrote in message
ups.com...
I would be very much encouraged if
just one person acknoweledged the Gaussian aproach but sadly
this newsgroup is for arguments and ridicule.
Art


I have not critiqued in any post I have made, your Gaussian approach -
not that I expect you have a grid on the wall and are keeping score -
your method of combining Gauss, time, and classic EMF theory is beyond
my mathematical abilities... Where is Dick Feynman when you need
him...

Guass and time were already combined many years ago by Maxwell/ Heavyside.
If Art is saying they were wrong he hasnt said how. I havent seen any math
from
Art showing how he related time to Guass's theory, How it is different from
the established relationship
and how he can justify using NEC software which uses the established
relationships(not gassian}to verify the operation of his antennas.
Art needs to give us reason to see what he sees and he hasnt.

Jimmie

On 5 Jun, 04:30, Denny wrote:
I would be very much encouraged if

just one person acknoweledged the Gaussian aproach but sadly
this newsgroup is for arguments and ridicule.
Art

I have not critiqued in any post I have made, your Gaussian approach -
not that I expect you have a grid on the wall and are keeping score -
your method of combining Gauss, time, and classic EMF theory is beyond
my mathematical abilities... Where is Dick Feynman when you need
him...

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear the cultural
reference will not be familiar to you and focus on burning water no,
not Jack Daniels...
I am willing to learn - so what in those photos and the captions do
you see is new physics? That is what is confusing me...

Plasma physics are well known again, I personally only know what I
read on the topic... However, in a previous lifetime I was
responsible for keeping a herd of 100KW RF induction heaters working,
so I have some understanding of what high intensity EMF can and cannot
do..
The fact that it does not work on pure water non conductive but has
to have a conductor a salt added to it is a flaming directional
arrow in the wilderness...
The fact that the flame color indicates sodium ions are being heated
above the wick is to me, as an old lab chemist, a futher indication as
to mechanism...

The real issue here is what use is this particular method of plasma
induction? Interesting - yes...
Useful - questionable
A new source of power - highly suspect...

denny / k8do

Well said
Art

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 -

On 5 Jun, 07:24, Jim Higgins wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:42:00 -0700, John Smith I





wrote:
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

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.

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.

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 -

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

On 5 Jun, 05:39, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"Denny" wrote in message

ups.com...I would be very much encouraged if
just one person acknoweledged the Gaussian aproach but sadly
this newsgroup is for arguments and ridicule.
Art

snip...



Guass and time were already combined many years ago by Maxwell/ Heavyside.
If Art is saying they were wrong he hasnt said how.

As you say........ "IF".........
Art has not said that.




I havent seen any math
from
Art showing how he related time to Guass's theory, How it is different from
the established relationship
and how he can justify using NEC software which uses the established
relationships(not gassian}to verify the operation of his antennas.
Art needs to give us reason to see what he sees and he hasnt.

Jimmie

Jim Higgins wrote:

...
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.
...

At no time did I ever think it was over unity. The law of conservation
of energy is just another law awaiting to be "broken", i.e. a new "law"
found which acts to the contrary ... after experiencing the insanity of
quantum physics, it leaves ones belief system shattered!

The real exciting part, if true, is it can be utilized to greatly lessen
our dependence on fossil fuels, remove the necessity of storage
batteries (a storage tank for gas has a much greater life expectancy and
is magnitudes cheaper in the long run than batteries, plus, the gas can
be transported with NO loss, electricity can't) and can be used in
conjunction with off peak usage of power to store energy. (and,
especially wind, solar, wave, geothermal, river current generation, etc.)

I have often wondered why geothermal resources, such as volcanoes in
Hawaii were not utilized, through electrolysis, to generate
hydrogen/oxygen to remove Hawaii's dependence on oil and stop polluting
paradise!

At 80% efficiency, or possibly less, I would imagine the process would
become economically important. With the proper use of catalysts
(platinum? palladium? Manganese Dioxide? etc.) it might even be feasible
to approach 90+ efficiency. (Manganese Dioxide weakens the
hydrogen/oxygen bond, if in doubt--drop a bit of Manganese Dioxide in a
bit of hydrogen peroxide and watch the oxygen release! And, platinum is
contained in every catalytic converter on every auto)

I am just giving the benefit of the doubt at this point, as (supposed)
engineers, physicists and others are claiming this is new ... and, when
you have John Kanzius called before congress to provide details and
congressman English wanting to allot funds to its development, and is
drafting such a bill, I am assuming there is at least a grain of truth
in it all ... but then, it is easy to shake my belief in the charlatan
congressmen we have today ...

JS


JS