Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

Frogwatch wrote:

On Sep 11, 5:02 pm, RW Salnick wrote:

Frank Boettcher brought forth on stone tablets:




On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:42:43 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

Burn salt water instead . . .

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

Wilbur Hubbard

Now if he could only figure out what to do with the cholrine gas that
I believe is also released.

Frank

Flame - Hydrogen gas - sea water + RF energy - electrical power -
generator - diesel

That is an enormously complicated way to burn diesel.


I did work similar to this in grad school. Basically, it uses
electricity to produce hydrogen but I am not sure it is any more
efficient than the normal electrolysis. The RF produces a high e
field producing discharges in the water surface thus making hydrogen.
We tried it to break up pollutants but the RF does not go very far
into the water so is sorta innefficient. What he REALLY needs is a
pulsed electrical discharge in the water because that produces a
volumetric effect rather than a surface effect. This requires either
a rotating spark gap or some fancy solid state HV, high current
switches. I'd say, "Not much new here".

I'm not gonna be real impressed until he uses that hydrogen to create
the electricity consumed in creating the RF field. THEN I'll be impressed!

DT

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

dt wrote in
:

I'm not gonna be real impressed until he uses that hydrogen to create
the electricity consumed in creating the RF field. THEN I'll be
impressed!

DT



The global search for perpetual motion goes on, unabated, a thousand years
later....

Larry
--

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...
dt wrote in
:

I'm not gonna be real impressed until he uses that hydrogen to create
the electricity consumed in creating the RF field. THEN I'll be
impressed!

DT



The global search for perpetual motion goes on, unabated, a thousand
years
later....

Larry
--

Sorry, Larry, but the scenario above is NOT perpetual motion any more
than nuclear fusion is perpetual motion. A complicated atom or molecule
has a higher energy state than a simpler one. If one derives energy from
reducing the complication of the atomic or molecular state such as in
fusing enriched uranium or burning coal one does not produce perpetual
motion. If one can reduce the state of salt water to something simpler
then the energy derived comes from a chemical reaction at the expense of
the molecules. No magic here and no perpetual motion.

Sometimes you sound rather perceptive but I fear said perception is
hindered by a dearth of common sense.

Wilbur Hubbard

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in news:46eb2b39
:

Sometimes you sound rather perceptive but I fear said perception is
hindered by a dearth of common sense.

Wilbur Hubbard



You must really learn what "sarcasm" is and how to identify it....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

"Because it is vocally oriented, sarcasm can be difficult to grasp in
written form and is easily misinterpreted."

Perhaps I should enter a sarcasm emoticon. Would that help you identify
it, once you've grasped its meaning?

Larry
--
I think Willie is related to L. Ron......(c;
Son? Nephew??

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

In article s.com,
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote:

If one derives energy from
reducing the complication of the atomic or molecular state such as in
fusing enriched uranium.......

Willey Boy, NOBODY "fuses" Uranium, enriched or not....Get you Facts
straight, before you spout off, to others, and MAYBE folks would
listen to what you have to say.....

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

"You" wrote in message
...
In article s.com,
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote:

If one derives energy from
reducing the complication of the atomic or molecular state such as in
fusing enriched uranium.......

Willey Boy, NOBODY "fuses" Uranium, enriched or not....Get you Facts
straight, before you spout off, to others, and MAYBE folks would
listen to what you have to say.....

Sorry, I used the wrong word. I meant fission, not fusion. Fusion would
be for hydrogen. What's the verb for fission anyway? Fise?

Wilbur Hubbard

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

Neal,
Send me an e-mail so I can put you in the address list.

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Neal,
Send me an e-mail so I can put you in the address list.


I'll see if I can get ahold of the old coot. His boat's right over
there in the anchorage. I'm sure he'll send you an e-mail address right
away.

Wilbur Hubbard

"A foolish man may be known by six things: Anger without cause, speech
without profit, change without progress, inquiry without object, putting
trust in a stranger, and mistaking foes for friends." - - Arabian
Proverb

Now, does that describe the current iteration of the Democrat Party or
what?













JML Sigs

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:17:37 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

Sorry, I used the wrong word. I meant fission, not fusion. Fusion would
be for hydrogen. What's the verb for fission anyway? Fise?

I am pretty sure the verb form would be ' fission '.
On the other hand, the verb form of fusion is ' fuse '. Go figure.

Casady

Forget about expensive diesel fuel
 

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:17:37 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

Sorry, I used the wrong word. I meant fission, not fusion. Fusion would
be for hydrogen. What's the verb for fission anyway? Fise?

I am pretty sure the verb form would be ' fission '.
On the other hand, the verb form of fusion is ' fuse '. Go figure.

I'd vote for to fissure or to split.

I also don't think the subject of this thread will work out to be a new
form of energy in the sense of found energy for our use.

-paul