Burn salt water instead . . .

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

Wilbur Hubbard

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.

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

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
--

"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......

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!