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

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

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

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

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

Is a straight line through bent space still a
straight line? :-)

Hey, wait a minute, is that a straight answer? grin

Regards,
JS

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
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

Cecil

It was Richard Feynman who 'proved' that light always travels by the most
direct route (i.e. a straight line) between two objects. In doing that, he
also managed to 'prove' that light took every other possible route too and
by mutual interference between all the possible paths, arrived at the
shortest route. Light travels by the most direct route even through curved
space. Our perception that the light has been bent is apparently due to
deficiencies in the way we see the universe. At least that's what I think
the theory says. His proof is ingenious and somewhat counter intuitive. As
he won a Nobel prize for this sort of stuff, I'm not inclined to argue.

Mike G0ULI

Mike Kaliski wrote:
It was Richard Feynman who 'proved' that light always travels by the most
direct route (i.e. a straight line) between two objects.

The famous relativity experiment that allowed men to
"see" a star "hidden" by the sun is a good example.

My point was that man's imperfect "laws of physics"
are often violated and have to be revised or discarded
in favor of a new set of laws of physics. If the
scientific progress over the next 1000 years
equals that of the last 1000 years, most of what
we think we know now will no doubt be revised or
proved incorrect and discarded.

For instance:
The laws of physics based on non-empty space (ether)
were discarded only to be revived in different form
by the discovery that empty space is far from empty.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Mike Kaliski wrote:
It was Richard Feynman who 'proved' that light always travels by the
most
direct route (i.e. a straight line) between two objects.

The famous relativity experiment that allowed men to
"see" a star "hidden" by the sun is a good example.

My point was that man's imperfect "laws of physics"
are often violated and have to be revised or discarded
in favor of a new set of laws of physics. If the
scientific progress over the next 1000 years
equals that of the last 1000 years, most of what
we think we know now will no doubt be revised or
proved incorrect and discarded.

For instance:
The laws of physics based on non-empty space (ether)
were discarded only to be revived in different form
by the discovery that empty space is far from empty.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Indeed Cecil,

Even as a youngster, I was never happy with the concept of space vacuum
being completely devoid of anything. I first started studying radio and
electronics because I couldn't see how signals could propagate through
absolute nothingness. With the benefit of age and experience, I can accept
the concept that electromagnetic radiation is self sustaining, oscillating
between magnetic and electric field incarnations and complete in itself. But
there was always that nagging doubt that this was not the whole picture.

I don't really expect most of our current laws of physics will be overturned
in the next 1000 years. I think new phenomena that exist outside of our
normal everyday experience will be discovered and whole new areas of
research will open up operating in parallel to our current understanding.
Current quantum research seems to suggest that we are all ultimately made up
of a series of coherent waves, with no solidity whatsoever. It's just a kind
of electrostatic repulsion that stops us falling through the floor. Whatever
the truth of the matter, it has very little impact on our daily lives and it
still hurts like hell when I stub my toe on the table leg.

Cheers

Mike G0ULI

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Kaliski wrote:
It was Richard Feynman who 'proved' that light always travels by the most
direct route (i.e. a straight line) between two objects.

The famous relativity experiment that allowed men to
"see" a star "hidden" by the sun is a good example.

My point was that man's imperfect "laws of physics"
are often violated and have to be revised or discarded
in favor of a new set of laws of physics. If the
scientific progress over the next 1000 years
equals that of the last 1000 years, most of what
we think we know now will no doubt be revised or
proved incorrect and discarded.

Except that isn't true.

Any new physics must encompass and explain everything already proven.

As a simplistic example, relativistic physics doesn't make Newtonian
physics "wrong", discard it or revise it, Newton just becomes a subset,
a special case where if velocity is much, much smaller than c, the
effects of velocity can be ignored.

If some new discovery allows for travel faster than c, relativistic
physics as we now know it becomes a special case for velocity less
than c as it is already experimentally validated and must become
a subset of the new physics.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Mike Kaliski wrote:
It was Richard Feynman who 'proved' that light always travels by the most
direct route (i.e. a straight line) between two objects.

The famous relativity experiment that allowed men to
"see" a star "hidden" by the sun is a good example.

My point was that man's imperfect "laws of physics"
are often violated and have to be revised or discarded
in favor of a new set of laws of physics. If the
scientific progress over the next 1000 years
equals that of the last 1000 years, most of what
we think we know now will no doubt be revised or
proved incorrect and discarded.

For instance:
The laws of physics based on non-empty space (ether)
were discarded only to be revived in different form
by the discovery that empty space is far from empty.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

the problem isnt with believing space can be empty but believing that space
is nothing..