Posted on 09/09/2007 7:53:44 AM PDT by grundle
“I understand that people my dismiss me for being bitter, as I am still awaiting delivery of my “Water into Gasoline Pills” from J.C. Whitney that I ordered decades ago.”
It’s in the mail, along with your 80 mpg carburetor and that little vortex thingy that “atomizes” your fuel.
"It's true, it works," Dr. xxx said. "Everyone told me, 'xxx, don't be fooled. He put electrodes in there.' "
Oh No..He never heard of induction coupled plasma, or was not able to transfer the concept.
I am depressed and ashamed. I have faculty friends at Penn State, and have the highest regard for the place, as well as the Nittany Lions.
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.
I would like to see this come out in a scientific jounal as well and maybe we will.
Cynicism is not the same as critical thinking, of which I am more than capable of doing, thank you. But there seems to be quite a tendency at FR to show others just how brilliant and knowledgable one is on any given subject. I find it very interesting and a bit odd as well as a sign of deeper issues concerning one’s self-image.
That I why I contend that it is not about saving the planet from pollution, it is about controlling economies.
“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.”
I too am an Econ major (long time ago).
Just how do those RF waves get created? Could there be some electrical source doing that? Or, are those RF waves just coming from the sun or somewhere else “free”?
I’m hoping that someday someone figures out that if you drop some common metal into the solution, it will do the work for us. However, if such a thing exists, we’d see mass discharges of O2 and H2 whenever that stuff got wet in the wild.
Bottom line — no matter how you break apart those little atoms, it takes energy. And, it takes more energy to break them apart and to promote combustion than we get when they’re recombined.
They have a magnetic component as well as an electrical component. Where things begin to unravel is the condition where people forget that the conversion of electricity into RF is never 100% efficient, and the ability for RF to do actual work with a conductor is never 100% efficient. Thus, there are two stages of energy loss (expense) in addition to the amount of energy it takes to dissociate water by simply putting electrodes and DC into the water. And even simple electrolysis is a losing proposition in supplying hydrogen as "Fuel", starting with the fuel to generate the electricity and the associated inefficiencies, transmission losses, etc.
The only reason a microwave oven is faster in cooking is because a wavelength is chosen that resonates with the water dipole. It is not particularly more energy efficient than a hot plate, with a 100% efficient heating element. It just gets the energy in faster.
Thermodynamics reduces to "There is no free lunch". It's "slow and cheap" or "fast and expensive". a 700 Watt microwave, or a 200 Watt hot plate-Both do the job.
Guess I’d better stop using my microwave to heat water - I don’t want my kitchen to explode.
That was posted about two weeks ago. Aluminum/gallium amalgam produces hydrogen when dropped into water.
I bet the first thing a bean counter would say is "Let's go read Alcoa's electric meter and see how many kWH it takes to make a pound of aluminum".
(Sinking feeling)
“I have this discussion with the green crowd at work. They want electric cars and buses to end the strangle hold oil has on us. But when I ask them how will they produce all the electricity in the quantity needed they fall silent. There are a lot of interesting things on a small scale but when applied to large scale usage they fall apart.”
I believe the answer is nukes, nukes and more nukes!
“I bet the first thing a bean counter would say is ‘Let’s go read Alcoa’s electric meter and see how many kWH it takes to make a pound of aluminum’.”
Yup. We can’t burn up lot of energy in various forms just to produce some energy in a certain form.
Granted, the process of getting crude out to our fuel tanks in usable form takes energy too, and that process has been “refined” (pun intended) for the past 100 years to make it more efficient.
you will all eat your words when I unveil my new garbage powered flux capacitor !
wait... really ? dang
For those who want to believe that this is the magic that the article implies it is, go to the PESwiki website for some other magical (and some real, to a point) devices and processes. You’ll have a grand time I promise.
For those who want to believe that this is the magic that the article implies it is, go to the PESwiki website for some other magical (and some real, to a point) devices and processes. You’ll have a grand time I promise.
I think you’re probably right. I doubt this gives a net release of energy.
I figured it was probably bogus. But just in case, I wanted people to hear about it.
Yes, that’s the important question.
Guys,
I am not saying that it does not take electricity to create the RF waves or that this is a free energy lunch. What I was saying was that this is a very interesting discovery. And, yes, it is a discovery because no one has ever done this with radio waves before. The “discovery” is that you could use RF to achieve the result and that this was not something that we all learned in junior high school. Whether it translates into a wonderful new enegy source was not the point of my posts. The point was how quick some members of FR are to jump all over anything like this. It happens quite a bit and I find it to be a bit cynical in that you can’t just appreciate the joy of the discovery. Some would rather find the “bad” and, at the same time, show everyone just how smart they are.
This may not have been the intention of anyone today but that is the way it comes across.
This isn’t putting electricticy through sea water, it’s putting RF energy through sea water. May or may not be a real difference there. Worth checking out, just in case. Would also be worth tuning that RF emitter just to see if there is some specific frequency that is more effective than whatever he is using.
The whole point of science, as I understand it, is to find out, not deny it’s possible because it doesn’t fit what you already know.
I have yet to come to any (AND I MEAN ANY) energy thread on this forum that proposes a new concept, where the naysayers don’t completely destroy the thread.
EVERY SINGLE ENERGY CONCEPT WE UTILIZE TODAY, HAD NAYSAYERS TELLING EVERYONE IT WOULD NEVER WORK.
99.99% of the time they are right, but you know what, that one time when they’re wrong won’t get persued if they keep it up.
Let these things play out on their own. When it’s over, say, “That’s what I thought.” No big deal.
The claim is that they don’t want to see good money thrown away on a bad idea. But the truth is, any money that is spent on new ideas will get the same damned reaction out them, so what the hell does drive the real complaint anyway?
Do these folks all work for coal, oil and natural gas concerns, or are they just flat earthers afraid to see any new ideas tried. And don’t tell me everything has been tried before.
Hell, every new discovery proves that that idea hadn’t been tried before. But it is new, so naysayers naysay on...
Please, don’t you ever put an energy report on this forum again that isn’t already generating 1,000 gigawats in upstate New York! Do you understand????? /s
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.