Posted on 09/09/2007 7:53:44 AM PDT by grundle
Er, I’d have thought you would be able to spot the sarcasm without the tag....
"Only because it IS a hoax. A variation on perpetual motion of the first kind."
WHAT? Are you saying my perpetual motion machine is a hoax? How dare you, sir! Have you never seen a 2 year old rug rat? They never sleep and the only way to keep them still for longer than 20 seconds is to hog-tie them.
;^D
I very much agree with your last point
Er, no I’m afraid I didn’t. Sorry about that. There’s too much vapor trail logic around here that sound just like your post for me to know. I did get a good laugh out of your explaining that to me though. Take care.
How long does yours take to heat a cup of water? 2 minutes is about right for mine.
One day someone will make a simple discovery that will turn what we think today on it’s head too.
I agree with you! The Royal Society said an incandescent light bulb was impossible, and everyone knows that a bumblebee's lift-to-weight and drag ratio shows it cannot fly.
Surely there will be discoveries that cause us to rethinks some basic assumptions.
It is just that this experiment is not it.
As I said in one of my earlier posts, 99.99% of the time you folks are going to be right. But you simply cannot definitively say that something doesn’t work until you have seen the device and made your own assessment.
At this point, you are making nothing more than an educated guess. And whether it’s an educated guess or not, it’s still a guess.
Thanks for the response.
“Guess I’d better stop using my microwave to heat water - I don’t want my kitchen to explode.”
Does anybody know what happens if you light a fire in your microwave and turn it on?
Let me be clear about something. I don’t think it works either. That being said, I’m not going to definitively say that it doesn’t or can’t.
Inductively coupled plasmas generated using RF signals are routinely used in vacuum deposition systems for creating semiconductor products of many types. None of them violates the basic laws of thermodynamics; that energy is neither created nor destroyed. (If nuclear processes are involved, then it is the total of energy and mass which is conserved.)
You must understand that there have been NO violations of this principle scientifically demonstrated during the century in which the principles have been understood. And this, despite chemical and nuclear processes being used in many tens of thousands of applications.
The amount of energy released when hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water is well understood. That same energy is released when the water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen. But there is no practical way to capture ALL of the energy during either chemical process. Since the idea is to "burn" the hydrogen by combining it with oxygen, the energy released CANNOT be greater than the energy which is initially used to separate the water molecule.
There is absolutely NOTHING remarkable contained in the posted article, with the possible exception that the authors have attempted to suggest that the energy balance might violate energy conservation. But you will note that there are no numbers to justify such a conclusion.
Furthermore, the article states:"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Dr. Roy said of salt water. "Seeing it burn gives me chills."
Suggesting that salt water is an "element" is nonsense incompatible with possessing a degree in chemistry. Also, assuming that hydrogen is being generated, there is nothing in burning it that would cause any scientist to have "chills".
Also, you should recognize that there is an agenda behind publishing articles like this. The agenda is to keep alive the notion that science is at the verge of a breakthrough that will permit a dramatic reduction in the use of fossil fuels and that mankind will then be able to reduce greenhouse gases and the world will be saved from catastrophic warming.
There is no such breakthrough expected. Adopting the reductions in use of fossil fuels being urged by the alarmists will destroy western economies.
The latest innovation in electrical propulsion is not using batteries at all. Capacitors are much more efficient, for quick charge, peak use, and optimal discharge for engines. The new capacitors also raise the range of electrical vehicles from about 75 miles to about 300 miles. The remaining technology questions are about durability.
Up until recently, battery technology was more advanced, but capacitors are passing them. This may end up with electrical “gas stations” being a bit like electrical substations, taking energy directly from high tension lines, and having a large capacitor themselves.
Electrical vehicles would be charged with a high-amp line, taking just enough time to avoid heat problems from the flow of current.
Ironically, while this would strongly boost demand on the energy grid, new capacitors might reduce residential and commercial use by making alternative energy more attractive.
Really? You set fire to salt water nd others have done this since the 1920’s? Wow! (Please note sarcasm)
You make my point perfectly. I did not ask for a lecture on the basic laws of thermodynamics but I got one anyway, just to shw everyone how smart we all are.
If you will note my previous posts, instead of jumping the gun to lecture me on thermdynamics, I never said that matter was created or destroyed; never said this was a free energy luch; just made the point (once again proven) that the re are many FR who love to show others how smart they are when ever a subject like this comes up.
There is a threshold frequency at which everything breaks apart much like Maria Callas hitting the high note which breaks the glass. If there is a resonant frequency which breaks apart the water molecule which changes the long understood energy threshold for electrolysis, then this discovery is important. The real question is, who will be first to utilize this knowledge with a product that people can use every day? Naysayers are the real kooks.
In the words of Eric Cartman, “Kewl!”
That statement summarizes the entire thing, just another stupid professor with his hand out for government grant money.
“Here’s the deal: I was an Economics major and not a brilliant chemist. From my understanding, RF waves are not the same as electricity. Correct me if I am wrong on that.
You can say it is the same theory but RF waves and electricity are not the same. Please show me (since this is such common knowledge) where someone has previously used this method to the same effect. Rememeber - not electricity but RF”
The issue is energy efficiency. Man-made radio frequency waves are generated by electricity. There are losses in the process of generating RF. In order for salt water process to be viable, the power output from the salt water device must exceed the total power used to generate the radio frequency, which includes some conversion losses. The coupling of the RF to the sea water will not be 100% efficient, so there will be some losses there as well.
Energy out versus energy in is the test for viability.
Perhaps he could do what Dr. Mahlon Loomis proposed in the late 1800’s, and harness atmospheric electricity as a free energy source. /s
Correction: There is no free lunch yet. Never say never...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.