"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