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