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

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.

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".

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

That is an enormously complicated way to burn diesel.


Frogwatch wrote:
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.

Yeah, that was my question... also, how much power does it take to
generate the RF? Combustion of hydrogen is powerful but then hydrogen
is also a tricky fuel to handle... hence the interest in developing
"fuel cells" which essentially allow it to react at lower temps &
pressures, producing energy in usable form without the Hindenburg-
style eruption.


.... 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.

How about using an atomized mist into an RF chamber?

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".

Electric dissociation of hydrogen from water has been done since the
1700s. Certainly "nothing new"!!

Regards
Doug King

without the Hindenburg-style eruption.

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

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

On Sep 11, 10:23 pm, wrote:
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

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.

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

"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.

In article ,
Gogarty wrote:

In article ,
wkearney-99@hot-mail-com says...


without the Hindenburg-style eruption.

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

A theory that Mythbusters seems to refute. It was a hydrogen fire. Hydrogen
goes "Whoooosh!"

Bzzzt, Wrong answer, Would you like to try for what is behind
Curtain #3????

Hydrogen burns with an "Almost Invisible Flame" in the near UltraViolet
Region of the Color Spectrum. The Flames seen at the Hindenberg Disaster
were significantly "Yellow" in Spectrum, which shows that the majority
of the visibale flames were from other substances burning, like the
Aluminized Doped Fabric of the Outer Covering, and the Rubberized
GasBags, themselves.

Me who at least can read a ColoromMeter......