Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
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 |