Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 5th 07, 05:21 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:

...
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
  #2   Report Post  
Old June 5th 07, 05:29 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default Water burns!

John Smith I wrote:

...


I should have pointed out, the most efficient device in the world is the
lowly transformer, the properly designed xfrmr is able to achieve 95-97%
efficiency in most situations ... although, due to material cost
factors, this is seldom seen.

JS
  #3   Report Post  
Old June 6th 07, 02:18 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:

...
If quantum physics leaves your belief system shattered, then I'd have
to say you don't understand quantum physics on even a superficial
level... or else you're exaggerating your reaction to it. The math
is a real bitch, but the generalized concepts are easily grasped by
those who understand classical physics. But that aside, the real
point is that quantum physics doesn't leave classical physics as a
broken law to be tossed aside. NASA will continue to use classical
physics to plot trajectories to the Moon or to Mars.
...


OMG! What was I thinking, particles that "wink in" and "wink out" are
total boring! ROFLOL!!!

...
Are you even for one instant suggesting that "burning" water for a net
release of useful energy might be true?
...


I pointed out that with engineers and physicists (No, I didn't examine
their degrees) it is worth a look, not a bunch of fools booing in the
isles ...

What gas are we talking about here that can be transported with no
loss? The current darling candidate is hydrogen... for which net
tank-based transportation costs are tremendous. REmember - or at
least realize - that "transportation" includes the cost to compress on
the sending end, expand and recompress on the receiving end, plus the
classical over the road costs. Then when you figure that the energy
density of gasoline is 9000 Wh/l (watt-hours per liter) and for
hydrogen compressed to 150 bar (2200 lb/sq. in.) is only 405 Wh/l you
can see that transportation costs are far higher per watt-hour
delivered.


You are stuck in your own world, blinded by your own thoughts ...
pipelines carrying hydrogen or hydrogen + oxygen would experience no
loss ...

...
not to mention the dangers of having a ready made super bomb on every
city corner - where a gas station used to be - just waiting for
terrorists to set it off.


Hydrogen is magnitudes safer than gasoline, kerosene, diesel, natural
gas, etc.--due to hydrogens "buoyancy", on escape to the environment, it
rapidly escapes upwards, the bulk of heat and energy is directed upwards
when burning also ...

So, you are one of the, "Yeah, I already knew that" crowd. Good, I
needed an example, such as you, to show the group ...

JS
  #4   Report Post  
Old June 6th 07, 02:34 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default Water burns!

John Smith I wrote:

Change:

I pointed out that with engineers and physicists (No, I didn't examine
their degrees) it is worth a look, not a bunch of fools booing in the
isles ...

to:

I pointed out that with engineers and physicists accepting that hydrogen
is being generated (No, I didn't examine their degrees), it is worth a
look--and not be deterred by a bunch of fools booing in the isles ...

JS

  #5   Report Post  
Old June 8th 07, 07:20 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 52
Default Water burns!

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:34:19 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

John Smith I wrote:

Change:

I pointed out that with engineers and physicists (No, I didn't examine
their degrees) it is worth a look, not a bunch of fools booing in the
isles ...

to:

I pointed out that with engineers and physicists accepting that hydrogen


is being generated (No, I didn't examine their degrees), it is worth a

Most of these things are physics and chemistry 111 and 112 that most
scienes students could argue.

I doubt any one is arguing that Hydrogen is generated, the problem is
it is a very inefficient process both from how much hydrogen is
generated compared to how much RF it takes to generate that Hydrogen.
Lots of power and little Hydrogen. Then you have the efficiency of the
RF generator which if efficient may develop about 75% of the input
power as RF. Just a plain old DC current is probably much more
efficient. Of course with the DC current it's easy to seperate the H2
and O2 which is a necessity. Using microwaves they come off mixed
which is not a good thing. Looks spectacular but not very useful.

For many years I worked in the semiconductor industry (over 26). I
believe NASA was the only larger user of liquid H2 than us. We had a
large tank farm of liquid H2 and the stuff was not the easiest stuff
to handle. It requires very low temperatures to maintain a liquid
state which means a *lot* of evaporation. You aren't going to make
much difference even increasing pressures. On top of that you get
liquid Oxygen condensing on pipe fittings and running off. Good
combination, liquid H2 AND O2. BTW that place is now the world's
largest producer of polycrystalline Silicon by a wide margin and is
starting a Billion dollar expansion program.

Trucking H2 is expensive and piping it much of any distance as a
liquid is out of the question.

Taken out of context it is true that a Hydrogen spill dissipates much
more quickly that a gasoline spill, BUT while it is dissipating it is
far more explosive. OTOH a given volume of H2 has far less energy/BTU
than gas. Put in perspetive both dynamite and TNT also have less
energy per unit volume than does gas. The problem is the speed of the
combustion front. In the end it's not quite true that a liquid H2
spill is safer than a gas spill.

look--and not be deterred by a bunch of fools booing in the isles ...


A look, yes, but you can't violate the rules of physics.

BTW for whoever was arguing Quantum physics Vs classical physics, they
coexist wuite nicely without contradiction.


JS



  #6   Report Post  
Old June 8th 07, 01:46 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,521
Default Water burns!

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
A look, yes, but you can't violate the rules of physics.


A couple of centuries ago, one of those "rules of physics"
was that light always travels in a straight line. Do you
think that "rule of physics" has been violated? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
  #7   Report Post  
Old June 11th 07, 03:08 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 230
Default Water burns!

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roger (K8RI) wrote:
A look, yes, but you can't violate the rules of physics.


A couple of centuries ago, one of those "rules of physics"
was that light always travels in a straight line. Do you
think that "rule of physics" has been violated? :-)


No violation Cecil, space bends, not light.

tom
K0TAR
  #8   Report Post  
Old June 11th 07, 03:32 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,521
Default Water burns!

Tom Ring wrote:
No violation Cecil, space bends, not light.


Is a straight line through bent space still a
straight line? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
  #9   Report Post  
Old June 8th 07, 02:13 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default Water burns!

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

...
I doubt any one is arguing that Hydrogen is generated, the problem is
it is a very inefficient process both from how much hydrogen is
generated compared to how much RF it takes to generate that Hydrogen.
...


The most efficient solar cells are about 20% efficient, efficiency is in
the eye of the beholder. With an, almost, never ending supply of
sunlight--they suddenly begin to make sense ... a two fold increase in
efficiency would change everything, yet still be only 40% efficient.

The replacement of batteries with storage tanks is an economic advantage
of hydrogen over electric ... and an IMPORTANT one, well, until better
and more efficient batteries come along.

...
... Using microwaves they come off mixed
which is not a good thing. Looks spectacular but not very useful.


They come off in exactly the necessary ratio to burn at 100% efficiency.
Now, a way make lemonade from that "lemon" is only necessary ...

...
Trucking H2 is expensive and piping it much of any distance as a
liquid is out of the question.


Yeah, I'd pipe it as a gas ... allowing its' own pressure to "pump" it.


Taken out of context it is true that a Hydrogen spill dissipates much
more quickly that a gasoline spill, BUT while it is dissipating it is
far more explosive. OTOH a given volume of H2 has far less energy/BTU
than gas. Put in perspetive both dynamite and TNT also have less
energy per unit volume than does gas. The problem is the speed of the
combustion front. In the end it's not quite true that a liquid H2
spill is safer than a gas spill.


Depending on the speed of release/"moment of ignition", the bulk of the
hydrogen burn/explosion is going to be well above your head ... hydrogen
is impossible to keep at ground level in the wild and escapes RAPIDLY to
the far upper atmosphere!

A look, yes, but you can't violate the rules of physics.


A violation of the law of conservation of energy may be highly possible,
or it may not, only idiots would say "never" at this date. Only a fool
would bypass this without a very hard look ...

Violations of the conservation of energy may be highly possible!

For example, a "gravity engine" could be possible if we only knew of a
way to "shield" things from gravity with little cost in energy. Already
with esoteric shielding materials we can, seemingly, "lighten" the pull
of gravity on objects--but only by nano-units. If possible to work out,
a "gravity engine" would be possible.

Another example, a "magnet motor" would be great (the poles of magnets
are just as real as the poles of electro-magnets which spin in our
electric motors--difference--magnets require no power to generate their
poles) and the problem, at least on the surface is a simple one, set up
a "sustained imbalance" such as the poles are always being pulled/pushed
at the proper times to result in continuous motion where more power is
realized from the motor than is applied in maintaining the imbalance,
your magnetic fields are being generated for "free" ...


BTW for whoever was arguing Quantum physics Vs classical physics, they
coexist wuite nicely without contradiction.


As I have pointed out, although we can exploit some of the properties of
quantum physics at this date, we are far from a complete understanding
of the quantum phenomenon and underlying physics--yes, we do have
theories. Is it real?; yes ... well, unless another underlying
phenomenon is really causing it, and we will discover this at a later
date ... but for now, we can use it--to some degree.

But, for the
I-am-a-genius-and-know-it-all-idiots-and-cheating-on-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-is-impossible,
they can go back to screaming, "IMPOSSIBLE!" At least for a while ...

Warmest regards,
JS
  #10   Report Post  
Old June 8th 07, 02:37 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,521
Default Water burns!

John Smith I wrote:
For example, a "gravity engine" could be possible if we only knew of a
way to "shield" things from gravity with little cost in energy.


Don't forget zero point energy. http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html.

More than half a century ago, I remember the conservation
of energy principle being modified to: "Energy cannot be
created or destroyed *by ordinary chemical means*" - right
after WWII. It took some time for the meaning of e = mc^2
to soak in. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


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