Change red to yellow!
Donate Monthly
Abolish FReepathons
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 11/03/2011 4:05:36 PM PDT by PapaBear3625
Remarkably in our merriment at discovering how to make really big atom bombs and hydrogen bombs, and doing the STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE thing we overlooked the WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE.
BTW, irrespective of "theories" on whether or not these guys are firing a proton or neutron out of the slot it's only guaranteed to be a proton if we have STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE processes at work and sometimes you are going to get your fair share of gamma rays if you screw around with it all that much.
Otherwise, it can be something else ~ and there you have it.
The Patent Office believes "something else" to be fairy dust and unicorns ~ not that that stuff is bad ~ in this regime you must sometimes believe in them in public after all. On the other hand the PO isn't going to give you a patent on 'em.
Really, 'splaining the functions/possibilities of THE WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE in terms applicable to THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE may or may not be useful. It may be nothing more than flipping a switch on an up quark so that it becomes a down quark ~ or maybe something else is underway.
May be a mission yet for the now mothballed cyclotron in Chicago.
But your famed Nobel prize winner and homeopathic medicine expert has already declared it to be nuclear.
What customer. No one has seen a customer.
Proton...neutron...whatever it takes.
What do hydrogen ions have to do with STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE processes? I have a bottle of vinegar, lots of protons floating around free in there. Never generated much energy for me. Do I need a gamma ray detector?
And that development is exactly what all our trolls here wish to prevent.
The burning of hydrogen produces very little energy at all. It is the least exothermic oxydation reaction known that is not endothermic.
>> “Please show me the chemical reaction that would get several megawatt hours of energy from 1.5 grams of H2” <<
.
Gosh daddy, that’s the whole point!
It’s not a chemical reaction.
Go back to your texas mushroom farm.
I didn't call it a chemical reaction. Please take your post to Kevmo.
Uh, if it is exothermic it can't be endothermic ...
Here’s what I was referring to:
The FR Post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2800009/posts
Article linked to:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/10/30/noble-aspirations-are-not-enough/
Video Intereview referred to in artcile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II3NxxyxQ0I
My quick notes on the video portion concerning his experimental attempts re: F/P:
2:10
tried to reproduce the publication... have not been able to reproduce they effect they obtained
2:45
Read their patent application, their report…I tried, I have not been able to do anything anyway with that.
Precisely, and it is close to the line that divides exothermic and endothermic.
You might be starting to get it.
Absolutely. We knew the answers to all our energy needs 4000 years ago. No sense developing new-fangled devices that will shorten our lives with their deadly emanations ...
“Unlimited energy can mean unlimited global warming...”
IMHO..the elite have been anticipating this development....
Chilly this morning in Seattle.
Does Costco sell a cold fusion space heater?
Of course, many people claim I'm an “oxymoron.”
That's not how I read the numbers.
The heat of formation of water is about 242 kJ/mol and that of CO2 is about 394 kJ/mol.
The heat of formation of water is nowhere near endothermic.
Lastly, since the atomic weight of hydrogen is only one twelfth of that of carbon, the energy contribution per kilogram of hydrogen is about seven times as much as the energy per kilogram of carbon. Assuming one is burning natural gas (methane), CH4, then the hydrogen would be making a greater contribution to the energy released than the carbon.
I don't see how these numbers are consistent with "the burning of hydrogen produces very little energy at all". Burning longer hydrocarbon chains will shift the energy contribution of the hydrogen toward the ratio 242/(242+394) or about 40%.
I guess that's why they use liquid hydrogen in rocket boosters. On a per-weight basis, hydrogen has over three times the energy density of gasoline.
Well, it is either an elaborate and convincing hoax or there is something to it.
And if there is something to it, then our energy problems are solved until we run out of nickel.
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.