|
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 |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
On Sep 12, 8:05 am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Duncan Heenan" wrote in message ... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message tanews.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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Wilbur, Duncan lacks the ability to think out of the box. Exactly why the Brit's gave up the right to bear arms. Which do you think would be more important to mankind. Curing cancer or unlimited fuel? This guy could do both. Joe |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
Are you saying that the hydrogen lift bags of the Hindenburg did not
erupt spectacularly into flame? "Bill Kearney" wrote: 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. IIRC you're right in that the skin caught fire first... most likely theory is that it was sabotage. However the hydrogen lift cells burned very quickly, faster than the skin.... which is why the film/photos show a burst of flame from the nose while much of the skin was still intact. Hydrogen dissipates quite rapidly. That and the amount needed for most vehicle applications presents nowhere near the risks of an airship with flammable paint. Depends on who you're talking to. There are a lot of difficulties handling hydrogen as an industrial gas; certainly hydrogen fuel systems can be made tight & safe. But they'll be more complex & more expensive than a diesel fuel system... and look how many people have problems with those ;) Regards Doug King |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
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. jeff wrote: Its clear why you were a English major. I love it.... "Nuclear fusion at a molecular level" Funniest thing I've seen in a while. DSK |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:18:23 +0100, "Richard"
wrote: 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 Hot enough to melt aluminum oxide[as in saphire] and is actually used for that. casady |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"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. Avoid addressing? It isn't my job to "address the issue." It is the job of the scientist involved to propose a source for the energy required to release the hydrogen from its bond with oxygen. On the surface of it, the energy comes from the RF, so there is no magic source. Although the burning has been verified, there has been little disclosed about the energy efficiency. However, Kanzius has already admitted (contrary to an early statement) that the efficiency is really less than one so this is very unlikely to be useful as an "energy source." 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. Yes, its called chemistry. And while it was considered magic 500 years ago, its fairly well understood nowadays, and the Supreme Court even allows it to be taught in public schools. It is possible that Kanzius has discovered a new phenomenon that could lead to interesting applications. In that context, this could be really big news. But he did not solve the world's energy problem. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
On Sep 12, 12:18 am, "Richard" wrote:
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 sorry typo I meant 1000 degrees F. It's technically 932 degrees F. He said he got 3000 degrees F out of it. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:24:05 -0400, jeff wrote:
It is possible that Kanzius has discovered a new phenomenon that could lead to interesting applications. In that context, this could be really big news. But he did not solve the world's energy problem. Remember "cold fusion?" Platinum prices took off like a rocket. The rocket soon crashed. --Vic |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
wrote in message
oups.com... Wilbur Hubbard wrote: 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. jeff wrote: Its clear why you were a English major. I love it.... "Nuclear fusion at a molecular level" Funniest thing I've seen in a while. DSK Hey, there's nuclear fusion on a much larger scale than molecular... family bonding for example, something of which Neal has no clew. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
"bobrayner" wrote in message
ups.com... 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! Yeah, entropy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com