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