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

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

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
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. :-)

Cecil:

You need another lifetime man! If you don't petition God yourself for
such, I will by proxy!

Exactly correct, and that is NOT the only time "laws" have been
rewritten, nor will it be the last ... one only has to realize the
quaint old phrase, "Laws were meant to be broken" to advance into the
dark and unknown ...

An open mind and willingness to look "under-the-rocks" which others
avoid is all that is necessary for advancement and discovery. The only
problem is, there are a H*LL of a lot of rocks with nothing under em'!

Keep on truckin'!

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
You need another lifetime man!

Reincarnation?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
You need another lifetime man!

Reincarnation?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Well, it is found in the "Dead Sea Scrolls", however, I believe an
ancient convention of bishops decided that reincarnation was too
complicated for the commoners and removed the/those book(s) from the
bible. (this was mentioned to me by an devote acquaintance, I can't
claim it to be valid)

Regards,
JS

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:13:22 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

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.

Unfortunately they are mixed in that ratio and there is no safe way to
store much comprised of that ratio. They need to be separated to be
stored safely. Hydrogen can be stored in a metal sponge (Metal
Hydride) which is quite efficient. Expensive, but efficient.

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.

The problem with piping it as a gas is transferring sufficient volume
and then it'd have to be liquefied at the receiving end. Another
problem is keeping it liquid. You really can't carry a lot as a gas
under pressure and it takes a lot to develop much energy/power as the
stuff is so low in BTU content.


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

I've been around a couple of H2/air explosions. H2 by itself does rise
rapidly, but it is so active physically it mixes with the air and the
rise is not nearly as fast although it does dissipate relatively
quick. OTOH you have to get rid of almost all of it before it is no
longer dangerous from an explosive point. The lower explosive limit
(LEL) is only 4% while the Upper Explosive Limit (UEL) is 96% meaning
if it's present it's probably within the explosive range.

Another problem with H2 is it doesn't take much flow to create a
substantial electrostatic charge resulting in a spark and ignition. In
both cases I'm familiar that was the cause of the explosion. In the
one case a worker was standing within a couple of feet of the large
container which was at low pressure. Just a couple inches of water
pressure above atmosphere. He was looking at it when it blew. You
could see the imprint of his goggles and shape of his face in the
Aluminum. He did survive, but it was a couple of days before he could
hear again. Pretty amazing as it basically blew him through the
equivalent of a wall. In the other case it blew a worker through the
"blow out panels" in a wall plus about 30 to 50 feet. He was back to
work the next day.

In both cases there was enough air movement that the bulk of the force
was within a few feet of the floor.

snip

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

[a lot of stuff]

Here is a link on the safety and desirability of hydrogen vs. gasoline:

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/facts/einsafety.pdf

Hydrogen can be separated from oxygen with a simple plastic membrane,
the pores in this membrane are engineered to a size which will allow
hydrogen atoms to pass freely while blocking the oxygen atoms. The
oxygen "byproduct" is a sale-able one.

The only REAL concern is efficiency ... and as I have pointed out, an
over-unity or even a unity condition is not necessary for this method
(if it stands up to close scrutiny) to be an economically feasible
venture ...

Hydrogen is probably here to stay, it is only how we will produce it
that is in question. Pollution alone is enough to make us take its'
path. While "evil" smoking is in decline and been so for some time,
lung cancer continues to rise at an alarming rate. A search of the web
will convince you that all respiratory diseases are on the rise. While
they have done wonderful things to make exhaust odorless and invisible,
we are still breathing great quantities of it 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, 4 weeks a month, 12 months a year, for our whole lives, with china
coming on line we are about to see real pollution rolling in on our west
coast, we then add our pollution to it and by the time it hits the east
coast--I pity the poor air breathers there ...

Monday, as you cruise to work, contemplate the river of vehicle exhaust
you are submerged in, the tens of
thousands/hundreds-of-thousands/millions/tens-of-millions/etc. of cubic
feet of toxic exhaust which is being spewed out before your path, for
miles and miles ahead ... you will begin to grasp the need and
importance of hydrogen ...

JS

In article ,
John Smith I wrote:

Hydrogen can be separated from oxygen with a simple plastic membrane,
the pores in this membrane are engineered to a size which will allow
hydrogen atoms to pass freely while blocking the oxygen atoms. The
oxygen "byproduct" is a sale-able one.

You need to go back to High School Chemistry Class and relearn all
you missed about Hydrogen Oxygen Bonding, and the Energy required
to break those specific Chemical Bonds. It isn't going to happen
in a simple Plastic Membrane, especially without some form of external
energy input. Where do you guys come up with this stuff???
Idiots R Us???

You wrote:

...
You need to go back to High School Chemistry Class and relearn all
you missed about Hydrogen Oxygen Bonding, and the Energy required
to break those specific Chemical Bonds. It isn't going to happen
in a simple Plastic Membrane, especially without some form of external
energy input. Where do you guys come up with this stuff???
Idiots R Us???

You need to learn how to focus and digest written material in a sane,
logical and meaningful way.

Hydrogen gas can be separated from oxygen gas with the plastic membrane,
as stated.

What? Did you sudden get thirsty and focus on water, idiot!

JS

"You" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Smith I wrote:

Hydrogen can be separated from oxygen with a simple plastic membrane,
the pores in this membrane are engineered to a size which will allow
hydrogen atoms to pass freely while blocking the oxygen atoms. The
oxygen "byproduct" is a sale-able one.

You need to go back to High School Chemistry Class and relearn all
you missed about Hydrogen Oxygen Bonding, and the Energy required
to break those specific Chemical Bonds. It isn't going to happen
in a simple Plastic Membrane, especially without some form of external
energy input. Where do you guys come up with this stuff???
Idiots R Us???

actually with what you quoted it is perfectly correct... in that quote he
isn't saying he's breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen, just
separating the atoms. a gaseous mixture of hydrogen and oxygen could be
separated this way.