| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
|
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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 |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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". |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
"Gogarty" wrote in message ... In article s.com, llid says... Burn salt water instead . . . http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1 Wilbur Hubbard Hmmm. He's using radio frequencies to dissociate water into its elements, hydrogen and oxygen. What becomes of the sodiumn and chlorine ions? The salt just stays in the water and maybe makes it a little saltier. Not to mention the other elements and compounds found in sea water. The only thing that's burning here is the hydrogen, either recombining with the oxygen or after being piped away. And then there's the chlorine. Does it recombine with hydrogen instead of sodium and become HCl aka hydrochloric acid? The sodium chloride molecules aren't disassociated. Why should they be unless the RF breaks them up too but they're probably more stable. Most salts are very stable. We'll be buring diesel for quite some time, I'm afraid. 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 |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
On Sep 11, 1:56 pm, Gogarty wrote:
In article s.com, says... Burn salt water instead . . . http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1 Wilbur Hubbard Hmmm. He's using radio frequencies to dissociate water into its elements, hydrogen and oxygen. What becomes of the sodiumn and chlorine ions? Not to mention the other elements and compounds found in sea water. The only thing that's burning here is the hydrogen, either recombining with the oxygen or after being piped away. And then there's the chlorine. Does it recombine with hydrogen instead of sodium and become HCl aka hydrochloric acid? We'll be buring diesel for quite some time, I'm afraid. 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. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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 |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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 |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
Edgar wrote:
We never had the _right_ to bear arms like in the US constitution. Edgar, If I remember my High School history going back a few centuries, English Common Law gave you the "right" to keep and bear arms. Politicians relatively recently took that right away from you. A common misconception is that our Constitution grants us rights, but it was written in a vain effort to help protect the rights we already had - quite a lot of which was adopted from Common Law. And like your politicians, all of our's will do whatever it takes to take away our rights as evidenced by the very large number of attempts starting from the time the Constitution was ratified and since. But since we tend to be more stubborn than you it will take them only slightly longer. Don't know if you have the same problem over there, but here we have a gazillion judges, including members of the Supreme Court, that believe the function of the court is to cicumvent the lawmakers (who are criminal enough) by legislating from the bench to take our rights away. Red |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
Frogwatch wrote:
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. That makes sense, since the field strength drops off so fast as a function of distance. How about emitting RF thru a screen or flat plane emitter; maybe there is some promise a modulated fuel cell with water mist or vapor pushed thru a carefully controlled RF chamber, then re-converted almost immediately? If there is a net energy gain in the reaction, then it should be much better than any hydrogen fuel cell I've heard of.... Get it worked out, I'll draft a letter to the BP board, I'm a stockholder.... you can split the royalties with me. ;) Regards Doug King |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
"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...... |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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 |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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 |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
"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. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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! |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
"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. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
"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. Wilbur Hubbard |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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. |
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 |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
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...... |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... 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 You are right-that can produce a lot of heat... |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com... Wilbur, Duncan lacks the ability to think out of the box. Exactly why the Brit's gave up the right to bear arms. We never had the _right_ to bear arms like in the US constitution. After the security tightening all licensed holders of shotgun or other gun permits had to show real need to be allowed to keep them. Reputable gunshop businesses were forced to close and a couple of owners of them committed suicide as their livelihood was taken away without compensatioon. Many shotgun owners like myself voluntarily gave up our shotguns to the police for destruction because for the sake of the occasional vermin shoot we could not be arsed to cope with all the bureaucracy. But the criminals did not give up their guns and gun crime in UK has increased ever since. All this stems from a dreadful gun massacre in a school by a person against whom the police had been warned but had failed to act. They had the power but did not use it. Then the politicians got into the act because after such a tragedy politicians feel that they have to be seen to be doing something so they act to penalise the law abiding population and the criminals carry on and progress. Politicians are the same everywhere. Not my favourite kind of people. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "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 Fission is not unknown either... |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
But they'll be more complex & more
expensive than a diesel fuel system... and look how many people have problems with those ;) Expensive or not, the upside to them is reduction of emissions at the vehicle. Given economies of scale it's likely hydrogen systems won't have a price differential for long. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
A theory that Mythbusters seems to refute. It was a hydrogen fire.
Hydrogen goes "Whoooosh!" Oh of course, since it was on TV and all, that makes it accurate. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
Me wrote:
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...... How do you know the flames were yellow, when the pictures were all monochrome? Andy |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:31:37 -0400, Gogarty
wrote: 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!" You can dissolve aluminum in a solution of lye,sodium hydroxide, and generate hydrogen. A dry cleaning bag will lift about a quarter pound. You can attach a fuse, and send off the balloon, and when the hydrogen goes whoosh it will ignite the bag. No surprise there. Casady |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:28:07 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote this crap: Fission is not unknown either... Do you use worms, minnows, or flies? I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
Forget about expensive diesel fuel
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:05:15 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: 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. ot Not really. Mass disappears. And it only works with elements lighter than Iron. In time the universe will consist of pure iron, and if you want to call that more out than in so be it. It's not so far-fetched to believe if it can be done at an atomic level then why not at a molecular level. Yes it is so farfetched. Casady |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com