"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , cavelamb himself
wrote:

From what I saw in one of the demo videos, the flame - while very hot -
would not come anywhere near the 175 watts claimed for excitation power.

And that's the crux of the whole matter right there. It offers no
advantages,
beyond novelty, over conventional electrolysis (not "hydrolysis").

....whoops...

--
Ed Huntress

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

snip



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

I understand what you are saying and do not disagree.

OK, then you are chasing a perpetual-motion machine. You are accepting a
claim, or a possibility, that the laws of thermodynamics CAN be overturned.

And that's why I think somebody is having fun with somebody else here.


I have no idea yet about input power ves output.
And THAT is really all that matters.

But a lot of people said the same thing about Wally Mindo's Wheel.

Minto's wheel? I don't think so. That was a simple heat engine that didn't
violate anything, except that it seems to have dropped out of sight over the
past 30 years. g It put out less energy than you put in. I tried to build
one in the late '70s but I didn't have the tools at the time.


A small amount of heat energy as input could seem to make a great deal
of output power. More than the input heat. Much More.

Whoops. You misunderstand how it works. It worked on small *temperature*
differentials, like a low-temperature-differential Stirling, but the amount
of heat *energy* you put into it was considerable. Remember, solar
insolation, at low latitudes and high noon, is around 1 kW/m^2, or slightly
more. That wheel sucked up a lot of energy at 1 rpm.


But that wasn't the whole system.

http://amasci.com/freenrg/minto.html


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.


Yeah, I saw that.
And a lot worse...

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

I'm not about to claim any such nonsense, Rd.
And I do understand where you are coming from - no offense taken.

From what I saw in one of the demo videos, the flame - while very hot -
would not come anywhere near the 175 watts claimed for excitation power.

The thing that got my interest up is that this is something new in the way
of manipulating materials.

A (potential) new Paradigm, if you will.

Like when some weirdo first tried to bake his steel in ground up bone...

But, like I said before, time will tell...


Richard

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

Ed Huntress wrote:


snip


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

I understand what you are saying and do not disagree.


OK, then you are chasing a perpetual-motion machine. You are accepting a
claim, or a possibility, that the laws of thermodynamics CAN be overturned.


Ed, we are not comunicating well.

I do not see this as a power source.

It is ineresting as a possible new way at looking at material science.

A possible new approach to manipulating materials at the molecular
level.

THE POTENTIAL FOR DOING TO CHEMESTRY WHAT SOFTWARE HAS DONE TO MECHANICAL.

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

Ed Huntress wrote:


snip


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

I understand what you are saying and do not disagree.


OK, then you are chasing a perpetual-motion machine. You are accepting a
claim, or a possibility, that the laws of thermodynamics CAN be
overturned.


Ed, we are not comunicating well.

I do not see this as a power source.

It is ineresting as a possible new way at looking at material science.

A possible new approach to manipulating materials at the molecular
level.

OK. It's interesting. Whether it's useful is a big question.

--
Ed Huntress


THE POTENTIAL FOR DOING TO CHEMESTRY WHAT SOFTWARE HAS DONE TO MECHANICAL.

In article , cavelamb himself wrote:

Ed, we are not comunicating well.

I do not see this as a power source.

The big issue, though, is that many people in the news media *do*, through
their ignorance of basic science.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Ed Huntress wrote:


OK. It's interesting. Whether it's useful is a big question.

--


Agreed - and fully concur.

And, I'll let it go until we see some definitive research.


My respects,

Richard


"All revolutionary ideas ...pass through three stages, which may be
summed up by these three reactions:
(1) 'It's crazy, don't waste my time.'
(2) 'It's possible, but not worth doing.'
(3) 'I always said it was a good idea.' "

Arthur C. Clarke 1968

Ed Huntress wrote:
Remember, solar
insolation, at low latitudes and high noon, is around 1 kW/m^2, or slightly
more.

I have been in power conversion for 30 years.
I have been saying for years that if there is a kiloWatt per square
meter in sunshine, there is no, and never will be, an energy shortage.

The problem is the media is written by non science thinking left brain
reporters that don't understand capitalism either.

"Clark Magnuson" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Remember, solar
insolation, at low latitudes and high noon, is around 1 kW/m^2, or
slightly more.

I have been in power conversion for 30 years.
I have been saying for years that if there is a kiloWatt per square meter
in sunshine, there is no, and never will be, an energy shortage.

The problem is the media is written by non science thinking left brain
reporters that don't understand capitalism either.

I have to admit I'm not sure of what you're implying in the first paragraph
above. I think I know, but would you elaborate a little bit?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Clark Magnuson" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Remember, solar
insolation, at low latitudes and high noon, is around 1 kW/m^2, or
slightly more.
I have been in power conversion for 30 years.
I have been saying for years that if there is a kiloWatt per square meter
in sunshine, there is no, and never will be, an energy shortage.

The problem is the media is written by non science thinking left brain
reporters that don't understand capitalism either.

I have to admit I'm not sure of what you're implying in the first paragraph
above. I think I know, but would you elaborate a little bit?

--
Ed Huntress


http://www.energyadvocate.com/allfuels.jpg
If the US annually consumes 100 exaJoules, and we have sunshine 1/3 the
time, then we would need some land:
Power = Energy/ time
P = 100 x 10^18 /[365 x 24 x 60 x 60] = 3 EE12 Watts
Area = Power needed [Power delivered/ unit area]
A = 3 EE12 Watts/[1kW/m^2] = 3 EE9 square meters
mile = 5,280 feet = 1625 meters
sq mile = 2.6EE6 sq meters
sq miles needed = 3 EE9/ 2.6 EE6 = 1100 sq miles
Sunshine only 1/3 the time...3300 sq miles
The US has 3.6EE6 square miles
We need .1% of our land to meet our energy needs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_e...nd_consumption
As a check, if an American uses 12 kW then they each need 36 sq meters.
300,000,000 Americans would then need 1EE10 sq meters.
This would be 100,000 meters on a side of the area.
At 1600 meters per mile, that would be 65 miles on a side = ... 4200 sq
miles

Close enough.

"Clark Magnuson" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Clark Magnuson" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Remember, solar
insolation, at low latitudes and high noon, is around 1 kW/m^2, or
slightly more.
I have been in power conversion for 30 years.
I have been saying for years that if there is a kiloWatt per square
meter in sunshine, there is no, and never will be, an energy shortage.

The problem is the media is written by non science thinking left brain
reporters that don't understand capitalism either.

I have to admit I'm not sure of what you're implying in the first
paragraph above. I think I know, but would you elaborate a little bit?

--
Ed Huntress
http://www.energyadvocate.com/allfuels.jpg
If the US annually consumes 100 exaJoules, and we have sunshine 1/3 the
time, then we would need some land:
Power = Energy/ time
P = 100 x 10^18 /[365 x 24 x 60 x 60] = 3 EE12 Watts
Area = Power needed [Power delivered/ unit area]
A = 3 EE12 Watts/[1kW/m^2] = 3 EE9 square meters
mile = 5,280 feet = 1625 meters
sq mile = 2.6EE6 sq meters
sq miles needed = 3 EE9/ 2.6 EE6 = 1100 sq miles
Sunshine only 1/3 the time...3300 sq miles
The US has 3.6EE6 square miles
We need .1% of our land to meet our energy needs.

Aha. That's what I thought you meant, but I wasn't sure.

Yes, we have plenty of sunshine. And we have some simple technologies for
using it replace significant portions of our energy useage, especially
residential hot water and space heating. There are huge gains that could be
made there and they don't have the ugly side effects of such alternatives as
corn ethanol, nor the marginal net energy production of PV.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_e...nd_consumption
As a check, if an American uses 12 kW then they each need 36 sq meters.
300,000,000 Americans would then need 1EE10 sq meters.
This would be 100,000 meters on a side of the area.
At 1600 meters per mile, that would be 65 miles on a side = ... 4200 sq
miles

Close enough.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:37:31 -0700, Clark Magnuson
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
Remember, solar
insolation, at low latitudes and high noon, is around 1 kW/m^2, or slightly
more.

I have been in power conversion for 30 years.
I have been saying for years that if there is a kiloWatt per square
meter in sunshine, there is no, and never will be, an energy shortage.

The problem is the media is written by non science thinking left brain
reporters that don't understand capitalism either.
========
Yes, but how do you collect royalties/taxes on sunshine?
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:20:57 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:


========
Yes, but how do you collect royalties/taxes on sunshine?
Unka' George [George McDuffee]


You sell time limited extraction licenses for the land to the highest bidder
with Government run auctions. Sunshine is a state regulated monopoly
controlled by the Weather service. Unlicensed extraction could cause untold
repercussions for the environment.

BEG


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 09:52:46 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

snip
====================
As long as we are discussing alternative energy sources, how
about geothermal.

Seems ideal for costal areas [where the majority of the US
population now lives] where the sea can be used as in infinite
heat sink, high [enough] temperature strata are relatively close
to the surface [at least in the tectonic active areas] and the
newer heat pipe technology using more dense vapors such as R-123
Freon result in higher turbine efficiency and the transfer of
only heat from the tectonic zone to the surface, i.e. no
pollution.

This is off the shelf stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/powerplants.html
http://geothermal.id.doe.gov/

As this is existing technology why are we continuing to construct
coal, NG and nuclear generating sites? No "piece of the action"
on geothermal heat?

Seems like a natural for Los Angeles. Municipal power company
drills on municipally owned land, uses municipally owned ocean
areas for the heat sink, constructs municipally owned geothermal
generator stations, and sells the power to the [local] citizens.
No rag heads in the loop and the money stays local [which may be
the problem]. Warm seawater may even be good for high value
aquiculture such as abalone.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.