Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

Frogwatch wrote:
I've forgotten most of this stuff (it was in the mid-80s). Basically,
the ions cannot respond to the RF but the very light electrons can so
it is the eelctrons in the water doing the work and being heated. A
mist might work but I remember that the discharge was very close to
the electrodes and fell off rapidly as you got away from them. This
guy probably has electrodes very close together.

That makes sense, since the field strength drops off so fast as a
function of distance. How about emitting RF thru a screen or flat
plane emitter; maybe there is some promise a modulated fuel cell with
water mist or vapor pushed thru a carefully controlled RF chamber,
then re-converted almost immediately? If there is a net energy gain in
the reaction, then it should be much better than any hydrogen fuel
cell I've heard of.... Get it worked out, I'll draft a letter to the
BP board, I'm a stockholder.... you can split the royalties with me.
;)

Regards
Doug King

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in news:46e6d34c
:

Burn salt water instead . . .

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Wilbur Hubbard


People still buy diesel fuel?? How silly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOFbsaNeZps
Here is the video from BBC showing my current veggie oil fuel mix in my
totally unmodified 1973 Mercedes 220D and 1983 Mercedes 300TD Turbodiesel
wagon. Both cars have been running on this mix for some time, now, and
have been getting better mileage on used veggie oil than on $2.75/gallon
dino oil.

It's THAT simple.....except the problem of getting it down the docks!

Larry
--
Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium"
The ultimate dirty bomb......

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

wrote in message
ps.com...
without the Hindenburg-style eruption.


"Bill Kearney" wrote:
The dirigible burned so spectacularly not because of hydrogen, but
because
of the HIGHLY flammable paint they put on the FABRIC covering.

Are you saying that the hydrogen lift bags of the Hindenburg did not
erupt spectacularly into flame?

DSK


They did but the fabric was "doped" (nitrocellulose + aluminium powder) and
that was a very significant contribution

Keith

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

I don't think this is what he is doing. If that was the case it
wouldn't need to be salt water. Distilled fresh water would be
preferred. They also said that it burns at 300 degrees F. Hydrogen
burns at less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit. He isn't just separating
out oxygen and hydrogen and burning the hydrogen. Something else is
going on here.


Check your figures

Hydrogen burns way hotter than body temperature

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...
snip
Don't be so pessimistic. Producing RF takes very little energy. The system
could be the salvation of mankind. It could be an infinite supply of
almost free energy. If enough hydrogen is produced it can be burned to
produce plenty enough electricity to produce the RF. All it would take is
just a little surplus hydrogen energy and you could have extra
electricity. The perpetual motion machine we all fantasize about.

Wilbur Hubbard
What simplistic bull****! Getting more energy out than goes in?? This sums
up Wilma's level of understanding of the world. Don't bother to read any
further.

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

On 11 Sep, 18:42, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
Burn salt water instead . . .

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Wilbur Hubbard

We'll have none of that here. In this group, we obey the laws of
thermodynamics!

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

"Bill Kearney" wrote:
The dirigible burned so spectacularly not because of hydrogen, but
because
of the HIGHLY flammable paint they put on the FABRIC covering.

Are you saying that the hydrogen lift bags of the Hindenburg did not
erupt spectacularly into flame?

Oh they burned alright, but being wrapped in a highly flammable material
made the fire all that much worse. The disaster may well have been avoided
entirely had they not put that on the covering.

Hydrogen dissipates quite rapidly. That and the amount needed for most
vehicle applications presents nowhere near the risks of an airship with
flammable paint.

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

"Duncan Heenan" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...
snip
Don't be so pessimistic. Producing RF takes very little energy. The
system could be the salvation of mankind. It could be an infinite
supply of almost free energy. If enough hydrogen is produced it can
be burned to produce plenty enough electricity to produce the RF. All
it would take is just a little surplus hydrogen energy and you could
have extra electricity. The perpetual motion machine we all fantasize
about.

Wilbur Hubbard
What simplistic bull****! Getting more energy out than goes in?? This
sums up Wilma's level of understanding of the world. Don't bother to
read any further.


You never heard of nuclear fusion? That's more energy out than in. It's
not so far-fetched to believe if it can be done at an atomic level then
why not at a molecular level.

Wilbur Hubbard

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

"Duncan Heenan" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...
snip
Don't be so pessimistic. Producing RF takes very little energy. The
system could be the salvation of mankind. It could be an infinite
supply of almost free energy. If enough hydrogen is produced it can
be burned to produce plenty enough electricity to produce the RF. All
it would take is just a little surplus hydrogen energy and you could
have extra electricity. The perpetual motion machine we all fantasize
about.

Wilbur Hubbard
What simplistic bull****! Getting more energy out than goes in?? This
sums up Wilma's level of understanding of the world. Don't bother to
read any further.


You never heard of nuclear fusion? That's more energy out than in. It's
not so far-fetched to believe if it can be done at an atomic level then
why not at a molecular level.

Its clear why you were a English major.

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

"jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

"Duncan Heenan" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...
snip
Don't be so pessimistic. Producing RF takes very little energy. The
system could be the salvation of mankind. It could be an infinite
supply of almost free energy. If enough hydrogen is produced it can
be burned to produce plenty enough electricity to produce the RF.
All it would take is just a little surplus hydrogen energy and you
could have extra electricity. The perpetual motion machine we all
fantasize about.

Wilbur Hubbard
What simplistic bull****! Getting more energy out than goes in??
This sums up Wilma's level of understanding of the world. Don't
bother to read any further.


You never heard of nuclear fusion? That's more energy out than in.
It's not so far-fetched to believe if it can be done at an atomic
level then why not at a molecular level.

Its clear why you were a English major.

And, it's even more clear that your attempt to avoid addressing the
issue did not go unnoticed.

Why not at the molecular level? Just because, to date, it hasn't been
done does not validate the idea that it can never be done. If molecules
can be arranged in a more efficient form then energy can be obtained. If
the arrangement can be done in an energy efficient manner than there can
be energy gained at the expense of a more compact or stable molecule.
Same thing as in fusion but on a molecular level.

Wilbur Hubbard