"Reg" notbody@ffggl,mbk wrote in message
. ..

"You" wrote in message
...

I witness accounts..... duh.....

Is that the same as ewe witness accounts or are you an auditor ?


That was a sheepish response.

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
--

"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

"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??

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.....

"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

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

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

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Burn salt water instead . . .

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

Or, right, I met this guy down the pub, and he came up with this really
crazy idea. In stead of burning diesel in the engine to make by boat
go, right, I could stick these bits of cloth on top of the boat, and he
seems to tell me, my boat will just start going on its own. Blown by
the wind, or summat. I think he was pulling my leg.

Robin