Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 5th 07, 04:20 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
art art is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,188
Default Water burns!

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   Report Post  
Old June 5th 07, 09:47 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
art art is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,188
Default Water burns!

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   Report Post  
Old June 6th 07, 02:06 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default Water burns!

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   Report Post  
Old June 6th 07, 08:26 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default Water burns!

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   Report Post  
Old June 7th 07, 01:34 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default Water burns!

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
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