Jim Kelley wrote:
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



Mr Higgins is correct, it is scary what people will believe, even when
something obvious is mentioned, like "conservation of energy".

I'd like to know what possible "final chemical energy states" might
exist here. What miracles occurred to release more energy from the
hydrogen? Combining with chlorine? Maybe, but where did the energy to
free the chlorine come from? None of the combinations will release more
than it took to free the elements from the compounds.

I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, though.

tom
K0TAR

On Jun 5, 6:20 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
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

Mr Higgins is correct, it is scary what people will believe, even when
something obvious is mentioned, like "conservation of energy".

I'd like to know what possible "final chemical energy states" might
exist here. What miracles occurred to release more energy from the
hydrogen? Combining with chlorine? Maybe, but where did the energy to
free the chlorine come from? None of the combinations will release more
than it took to free the elements from the compounds.

I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, though.

tom
K0TAR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 5, 6:20 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
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

Mr Higgins is correct, it is scary what people will believe, even when
something obvious is mentioned, like "conservation of energy".

I'd like to know what possible "final chemical energy states" might
exist here. What miracles occurred to release more energy from the
hydrogen? Combining with chlorine? Maybe, but where did the energy to
free the chlorine come from? None of the combinations will release more
than it took to free the elements from the compounds.

I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, though.

tom
K0TAR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not sure what "miracle" you're inferring from my comments, Tom.
Every chemical reaction has both an initial, and a final energy
state.

For the benefit of those in the group who haven't taken a chemistry
class, there is apparently a need for me to declare an allegence
here. Obviously, water is not gasoline. The tiny flame in the movie
is not the energy equivalent of hundreds of watts of RF - except
perhaps to a second grader or a journalist.

My point is simply that for a given chemical mass, the difference
between energy input and energy output equates with the difference
between the initial chemical energy state and final chemical energy
state of the chemical reaction. This follows from conservation of
energy.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

...
is not the energy equivalent of hundreds of watts of RF - except
perhaps to a second grader or a journalist.
...

Great, you must have good eyes.

I can't tell what wattage is being used. Exactly RF power is being used?

JS

John Smith I wrote:

I can't tell what wattage is being used. Exactly RF power is being used?

If I told you I'd have to kill you. It's a black helicopter thing.
Alien technology. I'm sure you understand. ;-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:


John Smith I wrote:

I can't tell what wattage is being used. Exactly RF power is being used?

If I told you I'd have to kill you. It's a black helicopter thing.
Alien technology. I'm sure you understand. ;-)

ac6xg

I know one thing, a damn fool is claim to know something he does NOT!

JS

John Smith I wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:



John Smith I wrote:

I can't tell what wattage is being used. Exactly RF power is being
used?


If I told you I'd have to kill you. It's a black helicopter thing.
Alien technology. I'm sure you understand. ;-)

ac6xg


I know one thing, a damn fool is claim to know something he does NOT!

For someone who claims not to believe that more energy is output than
input, I believe ye doth protest too much.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

[chit]

Gesus!

Now you're a damn psychic! ROFLOL

JS

Jim Kelley wrote:

My posts say it all, I have an open mind to the hydrogen generation (I
don't think you can start a plasma arc with a butane lighter, but you
can ignite hydrogen, etc.)

Sodium ions would be introduced to the flame simply from the bursting of
the bubbles ... result, yellow flame.

The device does NOT have to be over-unity, nor even unity, to be of
major economic/energy/storage importance ...

The people here are so dense they just don't get it ...

etc., etc., etc. ...

JS

Jim Kelley wrote:
On Jun 5, 6:20 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
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
Mr Higgins is correct, it is scary what people will believe, even when
something obvious is mentioned, like "conservation of energy".

I'd like to know what possible "final chemical energy states" might
exist here. What miracles occurred to release more energy from the
hydrogen? Combining with chlorine? Maybe, but where did the energy to
free the chlorine come from? None of the combinations will release more
than it took to free the elements from the compounds.

I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, though.

tom
K0TAR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not sure what "miracle" you're inferring from my comments, Tom.
Every chemical reaction has both an initial, and a final energy
state.

For the benefit of those in the group who haven't taken a chemistry
class, there is apparently a need for me to declare an allegence
here. Obviously, water is not gasoline. The tiny flame in the movie
is not the energy equivalent of hundreds of watts of RF - except
perhaps to a second grader or a journalist.

My point is simply that for a given chemical mass, the difference
between energy input and energy output equates with the difference
between the initial chemical energy state and final chemical energy
state of the chemical reaction. This follows from conservation of
energy.

73, ac6xg



You and Art are going to get along famously.

I'm done with this nonsensical thread.

tom
K0TAR