Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 5 Jun, 11:29, Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:20:12 -0700, art wrote: 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 I guess I'm one of the "angry" one... because this is yet another case of bad science reported to a public that is incapable of telling good science from bad science and which in this case wasn't even offered the opportunity unless it was via knowledge gained from elsewhere. O.K. your complaint is noted. Should the press add a disclaimer of the veracity of the claims? Should one have a trial with the assumption that what is said is correct and not prematually presumed to be false? At what degree level would one have to be a legitamate judge? Should the Supreme Court be councilled before a statement is allowed to be made? Should the President council Congress before he faces the nation? Should not YOU council others before you make a statement aboyut others? Lewellyn made an allegtation about the poor state of education of other than himself should he be stoned to death? This a simple argument over something that was reported and YOU are angry. And you want your comments to be removed, but for why? Do you consider that they may not be valid or stand the test of time? This newsgroup allows you, an unknown to express his thinking as a term of free speech while you on the other hand want to stilt the free speech of others. Your highness, you are much to harsh on those that you judge. Hopefully your house is not made of glass. Art Yes, I think that when the press reports on a perpetual motion machine they're obligated (in a social contract sense vs a legal one) to point out that such things are really impossible. And when they report on a device claimed to burn water that represents a potential energy solution... then I think the times (energy shortages, high gas prices) demand more balance than was provided. The real point being that there was no "debate" in the original story. It was nothing more than a one sided "let's stir them up today" piece. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Higgins wrote:
... Please point out to me where the press ever claimed it was a "perpetual motion machine" (over unity.) I am afraid I missed anyone claiming that, except some here stating that it wasn't--and the rest of us already knew that--but then, those who are not to sharp keep going around yelling that--just as if someone is claiming it is, strange bunch. Who has the energy to point out to them that it appears a bit insane? Kind of like someone pointing out that the computer in front of 'em isn't a perpetual motion machine! DUH!!! As I have pointed out, and am getting tired of pointing out, this may be the discovery of the century--WITHOUT HAVING TO BE AN OVER UNITY DEVICE!!! IF, and that is a pretty big if, it is real when subjected to complete scrutiny. JS |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Higgins wrote:
... Now, John, in that context please find where I said the press claimed the device was over unity. You were claiming the news claimed it was over unity, I asked you where? Here is your text: Yes, I think that when the press reports on a perpetual motion machine they're obligated (in a social contract sense vs a legal one) to point out that such things are really impossible. So, I ask you again, "Where did the press claim the device was over unity?" Also, how might this device be the discovery of the century as you suggest above? What is newly discovered here? What potential does it hold that might qualify it for discovery of the century status? Please try to be specific. This has been more than over-explained in my previous posts ... if you don't see how, open your eyes ... JS |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Higgins wrote:
... You are a stupid ass who wishes to do character attacks and diversion to manipulate ... kiss off stupid ... I haven't the time for out-and-out idiots ... go to rram where you belong. PLONK! JS |
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 |