"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

snip

Doesn't look that way,

Having read a lot of the "news" and discussions about this,
and watched several of teh video reports,
it looks like something interesting is happening here.

175 watts on the demo set up.

But no info about frequency.
If it's truly a molecular resonance thing then

1) the power level might make sense.

2) the right frequency may be even more impressive
(unless it's already at the correst frequency)

All in all, it does look like something fun going on here.

Richard


I think it's them, having fun with you. g

Richard, if they've re-invented the laws of thermodynamics, it will be
very big news indeed.

--
Ed Huntress

No way we can know that for sure at this time, Ed.

If you believe that the system produces more energy than you put into it,
then yes, you are re-inventing the laws of thermodynamics.

Here are the things that struck me in following a couple of your links.
First, the National Geographic article incorrectly says that hydrolysis of
water is inefficient, or something like that. It isn't true. Actual
commercial processes have efficiencies ranging up to 90%. These are
processes that are currently in use.

Second, you said something about cheaper fuel-cell electric cars. I can't
see how. You still would have to carry around the energy to power the RF
generator. Why not just burn the fuel directly to power the car?

Third, the article in NG says that the efficiency of the RF-powered water
cracking system hasn't been determined. So where is all the speculation
coming from? Somebody at NG *must* have studied enough physics to recognize
what the limits are, and probably (or should) know that existing processes
are already pretty damned close to the limits as it is. Again, cracking
water into hydrogen can be *very* efficient, using good, existing
technology.

Finally, I think you'll find that the cost of the platinum electrodes in a
conventional hydrolysis rig is a small cost of the total system, and
declines to almost nothing vs. energy consumed over time.


All I'm saying is that it does indeed looks like something interesting
is going down here.

Oh, it's interesting all right. So is cold fusion. And that one has been on
simmer for a couple of decades now. d8-)


Skepticism I appreciate, as long as it is scientific skepticism.

Well, it is. The question is where you think the efficiencies would come
from in this technology. It would be competing with technologies that are
already very efficient. It doesn't seem to offer anything special, which
probably is the source of the rather strong caution expressed by the other
scientists asked to comment.


I do NOT think there are any laws of thermodynamics being broken here.

Only if you're trying to get more energy out of the system than you put in,
which is a big no-no. And if you aren't, then the technology, while
interesting, seems to have little to offer.

--
Ed Huntress