Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
You may have heard about "burning Sea Water"?
Some related Links... http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/desalination/ http://nick2.wordpress.com/ http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.asp...85&bw=hi&cat=2 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ing-water.html http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...ng_Radio_Waves |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
|
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... You may have heard about "burning Sea Water"? Some related Links... Do you have any thoughts of your own? ...or do you just post links? I know that there are dissolved metals in sea water; can you think of any other connection to metalworking? Vaughn |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
Using RF waves to "Burn" water would be world changing IF the energy
output is greater than the energy input required to burn the water. It may defy belief but it sure looks like it is worth looking into. I hope it works because anything that can help reduce our need for foreign energy is a big plus. I have invested in a small company that is working on producing Hydrogen from waste water from sewage and various food processing plants using bacteria. They have ben successful on a small scale and have plans to build a large bio-reactor in 2008. You can see this in action at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS_jmMwy9D8 or go to NanoLogix.com for more information. Metal content: Maybe a Hydrogen metal cutting torch running off of your household toilet. Dennis |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
In article . com, TwoGuns wrote:
Using RF waves to "Burn" water would be world changing IF the energy output is greater than the energy input required to burn the water. And it won't be. That's impossible. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, TwoGuns wrote: Using RF waves to "Burn" water would be world changing IF the energy output is greater than the energy input required to burn the water. And it won't be. That's impossible. The input power budget would tell a lot. So far I've seen one reference - about 175 watts. Below is a quote from one of the discussions. Probably a good guess - for sure a good starting point. On June 28, 2007, Ted Green Theodore.A.Green {at} l-3com.com wrote: To get right to the point, I believe the Kanzius effect is caused by the polarization of the hydrogen molecules in the water. This polarization causes the two atoms of hydrogen to lose their 105 degree orientation to each other and de-stabilize the water molecule. The unstable water molecule comes apart easily then, combining hydrogen to hydrogen and oxygen to oxygen in a magnetic bond. Because the water molecules’ special property to hold sodium is lost, some sodium atoms must also be released to react violently with the water still present. This ignites hydrogen which recombines with the oxygen to keep the wick from being consumed. The unusual properties of the HHO gas, catalyzes the whole process to a very high efficiency. The other (IMHO) best guess (actual metal content, Vaughn) I have an updated post He http://nick2.wordpress.com/2007/09/1...st-rostum-roy/ On June 16, 2007, Charles Kilmer wrote (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/k...ect/message/29) to the kanzius effect discussion list: I wrote a blog on this topic. Some of the links go back to this discussion group. http://nick2.wordpress.com/2007/06/0...ter-into-fire/ Read through the blog carefully. What you should see is the secret sauce to the Kanzius effect. Its contained in one of kanzius patents and in an expired eu patent. What's happening is that the RF is imitating the radio frequency of some catalyst for water separations. My guess is that the catalyst frequency that's being imitated is platinum since that's the big expensive catalyst in hydrogen fuel cells. What's happening is that the salt water is fooled into believing there's a platinum catalyst in the water. The other thing that's happening is that the Na is getting really hot really fast. Na --like any metal in a microwave is a heatsink. The water is first destablized by the RF and then its broken apart by the superheated Na. Now consider if they could eliminate platinum from fuel cells altogether while using salt water as a storage and fuel for hydrogen -- suddenly hydrogen fuel cell cars would be dramatically cheaper. |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
"TwoGuns" wrote in message ups.com... Using RF waves to "Burn" water would be world changing IF the energy output is greater than the energy input required to burn the water. It may defy belief but it sure looks like it is worth looking into. I hope it works because anything that can help reduce our need for foreign energy is a big plus. I have invested in a small company that is working on producing Hydrogen from waste water from sewage and various food processing plants using bacteria. They have ben successful on a small scale and have plans to build a large bio-reactor in 2008. You can see this in action at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS_jmMwy9D8 or go to NanoLogix.com for more information. Metal content: Maybe a Hydrogen metal cutting torch running off of your household toilet. Have they published any technical literature on their technology? Anaerobic digestion has been used for decades to make methane from organic wastes and I'm wondering if they really have something innovative or are just riding what's left of the hydrogen bandwagon. Mike |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
In article , cavelamb himself wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: In article . com, TwoGuns wrote: Using RF waves to "Burn" water would be world changing IF the energy output is greater than the energy input required to burn the water. And it won't be. That's impossible. The input power budget would tell a lot. So far I've seen one reference - about 175 watts. I'd suggest you do a little investigation into the energy required to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen, then calculate how many water molecules can be dissociated with 175 watts. Below is a quote from one of the discussions. Probably a good guess - for sure a good starting point. On June 28, 2007, Ted Green Theodore.A.Green {at} l-3com.com wrote: To get right to the point, I believe the Kanzius effect is caused by the polarization of the hydrogen molecules in the water. "Polarization of the hydrogen molecules in the water"??? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! The opinions of anyone who thinks that water contains "hydrogen molecules" should not be taken seriously. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
cavelamb himself wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: In article . com, TwoGuns wrote: Using RF waves to "Burn" water would be world changing IF the energy output is greater than the energy input required to burn the water. And it won't be. That's impossible. The input power budget would tell a lot. So far I've seen one reference - about 175 watts. According to the Law of thermodynamics: 1st law: You can't win. (You cannot create energy from nothing) Therefore the energy will never exceed what was there in the first place. 2nd law: You can't break even. (No energy transfer is 100% efficient, there will always be some loss) Therefore the energy produced will have to be less than the energy input. Now in this case water is a low energy state for hydrogen and oxygen. You add energy into the water and disassociate the hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen and oxygen are now at a higher energy state. Burning the hydrogen in oxygen releases that energy and recreates the water. You are back where you started, except that you have less energy to repeat the cycle, because there were losses in your energy transfers. |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
Todd Rich wrote:
According to the Law of thermodynamics: 1st law: You can't win. (You cannot create energy from nothing) Therefore the energy will never exceed what was there in the first place. 2nd law: You can't break even. (No energy transfer is 100% efficient, there will always be some loss) Therefore the energy produced will have to be less than the energy input. You've neglected the 3rd and 4th laws. (not that it changes anything....) Pete -- Pete Snell Department of Physics Royal Military College --------------------------------------------------------------------- For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. Richard Feynman.(1918-1988) Personal Observations on the Reliability of the (Space) Shuttle. |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
Pete Snell wrote:
Todd Rich wrote: According to the Law of thermodynamics: 1st law: You can't win. (You cannot create energy from nothing) Therefore the energy will never exceed what was there in the first place. 2nd law: You can't break even. (No energy transfer is 100% efficient, there will always be some loss) Therefore the energy produced will have to be less than the energy input. You've neglected the 3rd and 4th laws. (not that it changes anything....) Pete True, I was just trying to point out the most applicable ones. It has been a while, but the easy way to remember the first 3 a You can't win You can't break even You can't even get out of the game. |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
On Sep 19, 12:27 am, "Mike Henry" wrote:
Have they published any technical literature on their technology? Anaerobic digestion has been used for decades to make methane from organic wastes and I'm wondering if they really have something innovative or are just riding what's left of the hydrogen bandwagon. Mike One of the things that gets me on the "hydrogen bandwagon" is the claim that they need to get research money to develop cheaper fuel cells. But if we DID have a good source of hydrogen, we don't need fuel cell cars. Adapting an engine to run on hydrogen is not that much harder than adapting it to run on NG or LP. It is very low octane, but exhaust gas recirculation (steam) takes care of that problem. |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 19, 12:27 am, "Mike Henry" wrote: Have they published any technical literature on their technology? Anaerobic digestion has been used for decades to make methane from organic wastes and I'm wondering if they really have something innovative or are just riding what's left of the hydrogen bandwagon. Mike One of the things that gets me on the "hydrogen bandwagon" is the claim that they need to get research money to develop cheaper fuel cells. But if we DID have a good source of hydrogen, we don't need fuel cell cars. Adapting an engine to run on hydrogen is not that much harder than adapting it to run on NG or LP. It is very low octane, but exhaust gas recirculation (steam) takes care of that problem. Ford and at least three other major manufacturers are showing hydrogen-powered IC-engined cars at the car shows now. Ford, particularly, sees it as the interim technology that will bridge the gap until fuel cells are ready. But IC engines are, at best, around 28% efficient. Fuel cells for cars are around 90% efficient. For stationary applications it's even higher. -- Ed Huntress |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
In article . com, Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
One of the things that gets me on the "hydrogen bandwagon" is the claim that they need to get research money to develop cheaper fuel cells. But if we DID have a good source of hydrogen, we don't need fuel cell cars. I disagree. A fuel cell liberates hydrogen on demand; the alternative to using fuel cells in a hydrogen-powered vehicle is to carry a tankful of hydrogen -- thus turning every car on the road into a rolling bomb. *Any* breach of that tank (in a collision, for example), combined with *any* source of ignition, will result in a devastating explosion. (Does the name "Hindenberg" ring a bell?) Adapting an engine to run on hydrogen is not that much harder than adapting it to run on NG or LP. It is very low octane, but exhaust gas recirculation (steam) takes care of that problem. It's the safety aspect that worries me. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article . com, Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote: One of the things that gets me on the "hydrogen bandwagon" is the claim that they need to get research money to develop cheaper fuel cells. But if we DID have a good source of hydrogen, we don't need fuel cell cars. I disagree. A fuel cell liberates hydrogen on demand; the alternative to using fuel cells in a hydrogen-powered vehicle is to carry a tankful of hydrogen -- thus turning every car on the road into a rolling bomb. How does it "liberate hydrogen on demand"? The hydrogen/fuel-cell car I saw at the New York Auto Show a couple of years ago had regular gas tanks full of hydrogen. There has been talk of using methane or even liquid fuels to supply the hydrogen, but efficiency and maintenance problems are said to go to pot when you do. Not having any experience with it I wouldn't know for sure. *Any* breach of that tank (in a collision, for example), combined with *any* source of ignition, will result in a devastating explosion. (Does the name "Hindenberg" ring a bell?) Hydrogen has a wide range of explosive mixtures with oxygen, but it also goes straight up when it's released. Some experts I've read on the subject say it's slightly less likely to cause a disaster than a tank full of gasoline. Do you have some data based on experience? I'm not claiming to know the answers to these questions, but I'd like to know what they are. -- Ed Huntress |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message .. . In article . com, Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote: One of the things that gets me on the "hydrogen bandwagon" is the claim that they need to get research money to develop cheaper fuel cells. But if we DID have a good source of hydrogen, we don't need fuel cell cars. I disagree. A fuel cell liberates hydrogen on demand; the alternative to using fuel cells in a hydrogen-powered vehicle is to carry a tankful of hydrogen -- thus turning every car on the road into a rolling bomb. How does it "liberate hydrogen on demand"? The hydrogen/fuel-cell car I saw at the New York Auto Show a couple of years ago had regular gas tanks full of hydrogen. There has been talk of using methane or even liquid fuels to supply the hydrogen, but efficiency and maintenance problems are said to go to pot when you do. Not having any experience with it I wouldn't know for sure. My understanding of the process is that a hydrogen fuel cell uses a chemical catalyst to release hydrogen gas from hydrogen-containing compounds -- it's not a tank of gaseous hydrogen. *Any* breach of that tank (in a collision, for example), combined with *any* source of ignition, will result in a devastating explosion. (Does the name "Hindenberg" ring a bell?) Hydrogen has a wide range of explosive mixtures with oxygen, but it also goes straight up when it's released. If it did that instantly, there might not be a problem... Some experts I've read on the subject say it's slightly less likely to cause a disaster than a tank full of gasoline. Do you have some data based on experience? I'm not claiming to know the answers to these questions, but I'd like to know what they are. I'm not an expert. But I have some understanding of the chemistry involved -- and I've seen the film of the Hindenberg. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
"Doug Miller" wrote in message . net... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message . .. In article . com, Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote: One of the things that gets me on the "hydrogen bandwagon" is the claim that they need to get research money to develop cheaper fuel cells. But if we DID have a good source of hydrogen, we don't need fuel cell cars. I disagree. A fuel cell liberates hydrogen on demand; the alternative to using fuel cells in a hydrogen-powered vehicle is to carry a tankful of hydrogen -- thus turning every car on the road into a rolling bomb. How does it "liberate hydrogen on demand"? The hydrogen/fuel-cell car I saw at the New York Auto Show a couple of years ago had regular gas tanks full of hydrogen. There has been talk of using methane or even liquid fuels to supply the hydrogen, but efficiency and maintenance problems are said to go to pot when you do. Not having any experience with it I wouldn't know for sure. My understanding of the process is that a hydrogen fuel cell uses a chemical catalyst to release hydrogen gas from hydrogen-containing compounds -- it's not a tank of gaseous hydrogen. I think you're talking about hydride storage, which applies to storage for any kind of hydrogen-fueled power plant. It's a possibility for hydrogen-powered cars but the weight/volume problem is a big one. Of course, it's less of a problem with fuel-cell electrics than hydrogen-fuelled IC engines, because the former use a lot less hydrogen. But most of the technology is something I haven't studied. Hydrogen seems to present big storage and distribution problems, but some experts say they'll be overcome. I'll have to wait and see. -- Ed Huntress |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:
I think you're talking about hydride storage, which applies to storage for any kind of hydrogen-fueled power plant. It's a possibility for hydrogen-powered cars but the weight/volume problem is a big one. Of course, it's less of a problem with fuel-cell electrics than hydrogen-fuelled IC engines, because the former use a lot less hydrogen. But most of the technology is something I haven't studied. Hydrogen seems to present big storage and distribution problems, but some experts say they'll be overcome. I'll have to wait and see. I think the wave of the future is going to be in electric vehicles, using the emerging "ultra-capacitor" technology. Capacitors have three advantages over batteries for use in powering vehicles: they charge in seconds instead of hours, they're able to deliver power more rapidly when needed (e.g. accelerating from a dead stop, passing, or climbing hills), and the ultra-capacitor shows promise of attaining a much higher energy density (power to weight ratio) than is possible with any current battery technology. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
"Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: I think you're talking about hydride storage, which applies to storage for any kind of hydrogen-fueled power plant. It's a possibility for hydrogen-powered cars but the weight/volume problem is a big one. Of course, it's less of a problem with fuel-cell electrics than hydrogen-fuelled IC engines, because the former use a lot less hydrogen. But most of the technology is something I haven't studied. Hydrogen seems to present big storage and distribution problems, but some experts say they'll be overcome. I'll have to wait and see. I think the wave of the future is going to be in electric vehicles, using the emerging "ultra-capacitor" technology. Capacitors have three advantages over batteries for use in powering vehicles: they charge in seconds instead of hours, they're able to deliver power more rapidly when needed (e.g. accelerating from a dead stop, passing, or climbing hills), and the ultra-capacitor shows promise of attaining a much higher energy density (power to weight ratio) than is possible with any current battery technology. Well, I'm all for electrics, if storage turns out to be manageable. I've been fascinated by ultracapacitors but I haven't seen any indications that their energy density is approaching anything reasonable for use in a car -- except as high-amperage buffers for acceleration and climbing hills. Once again, too many technologies to follow, too little time. And too much politics and ideology in the whole thing. I'm expecting a massive rebirth of nuclear fission power when two things happen: the policies of the UN and others finally fail to protect the remaining vestiges of nonproliferation; and world leaders look around at the options and finally get real. It probably will happen after I'm gone. Whether we use some kind of gaseous or liquid fuel as the energy storage medium for vehicles depends on advantages in electricity storage and other technologies. Eventually, the energy *source* probably will be nuclear-generated electricity. Some experts now say the resource, with eventual use of breeder reactors (50 - 100 years from now) will last many hundreds of years. -- Ed Huntress |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media - and Politics -
Vaughn Simon wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... You may have heard about "burning Sea Water"? Some related Links... Do you have any thoughts of your own? ...or do you just post links? I know that there are dissolved metals in sea water; can you think of any other connection to metalworking? Vaughn Sorry Vaughn. You are, of course, quite right. Nobody comes to the freak show unless the barker stands outside the tent and taunts them in. There have been megabytes of BS in this group about global warming. My politician sez science yours sez junk, did so, did not. They said it on TV, for Pete Sake! Who is a person to believe? This is from National Geographic. You know them. Yellow magazine that brought you all those topless native girls when you were growing up? So, what we have here is satellite imagery of the North West Passage - the Arctic route from Europe to China - open - for the first time since satellites started watching in 1979. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...t-passage.html For real. |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media - and Politics -
On Sep 19, 3:39 pm, cavelamb himself wrote:
... So, what we have here is satellite imagery of the North West Passage - the Arctic route from Europe to China - open - for the first time since satellites started watching in 1979. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...northwest-pass... For real. It was open in 1906 when Amundsen traversed it and the Franklin expedition passed through the northernmost part in the 1840's. The rumor of an open passage goes way back to 1497. Why did the Franklin crew bury their first dead in such difficult frozen, rocky ground? Or was it clear and dry then? jw |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 19, 12:27 am, "Mike Henry" wrote: Have they published any technical literature on their technology? Anaerobic digestion has been used for decades to make methane from organic wastes and I'm wondering if they really have something innovative or are just riding what's left of the hydrogen bandwagon. Mike One of the things that gets me on the "hydrogen bandwagon" is the claim that they need to get research money to develop cheaper fuel cells. But if we DID have a good source of hydrogen, we don't need fuel cell cars. Adapting an engine to run on hydrogen is not that much harder than adapting it to run on NG or LP. It is very low octane, but exhaust gas recirculation (steam) takes care of that problem. I don't really follow the subject, but ISTR that one of the problems with using hydrogen as a vehicle fuel is on-board storage. Google turns up some data suggesting that H2 has 3x the btu/lb of gasoline but I suspect that each lb of H2 takes a lot more volume than a lb of gasoline. That could be wrong - maybe someone else will pop up with a more in-depth analysis. Mike |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
Ed Huntress wrote:
But IC engines are, at best, around 28% efficient. Fuel cells for cars are around 90% efficient. For stationary applications it's even higher. Ed Huntress That is for the fuel cell. Then you have to get the electricity to the wheels in some fashion. At what "overall" eficiency? ...lew... |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
Doug Miller wrote:
I think the wave of the future is going to be in electric vehicles, using the emerging "ultra-capacitor" technology. Capacitors have three advantages over batteries for use in powering vehicles: they charge in seconds instead of hours, they're able to deliver power more rapidly when needed (e.g. accelerating from a dead stop, passing, or climbing hills), and the ultra-capacitor shows promise of attaining a much higher energy density (power to weight ratio) than is possible with any current battery technology. I don't know anything about these "ultra-capacitors" BUT I have had lots of experience with various electrolytics and if the construction is suitable for high energy output and a failure, such as a major penetration were to occur there would be a VERY LARGE release of energy. :-) ...lew... |
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
"lew hartswick" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: But IC engines are, at best, around 28% efficient. Fuel cells for cars are around 90% efficient. For stationary applications it's even higher. Ed Huntress That is for the fuel cell. Then you have to get the electricity to the wheels in some fashion. At what "overall" eficiency? ...lew... Electric motors of that size also run around 90% efficient. After that, the electric drives have far less driveline complexity and thus much lower friction losses. Overall efficiency, from energy capacity of fuel to drive at the wheels, supposedly is something like 4 - 6 times better with all-electric systems of good design. -- Ed Huntress |
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
"lew hartswick" wrote in message ... Doug Miller wrote: I think the wave of the future is going to be in electric vehicles, using the emerging "ultra-capacitor" technology. Capacitors have three advantages over batteries for use in powering vehicles: they charge in seconds instead of hours, they're able to deliver power more rapidly when needed (e.g. accelerating from a dead stop, passing, or climbing hills), and the ultra-capacitor shows promise of attaining a much higher energy density (power to weight ratio) than is possible with any current battery technology. I don't know anything about these "ultra-capacitors" BUT I have had lots of experience with various electrolytics and if the construction is suitable for high energy output and a failure, such as a major penetration were to occur there would be a VERY LARGE release of energy. :-) ...lew... The voltage is extremely low, however. It's often less than 2 volts per cap. That's how they get such enormous capacity; the plate gap is infinitesimal. -- Ed Huntress |
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
Then there is the generation of Hydrogen or whatever the fuel cell is
based upon. It costs money to generate the source material and storage and sales... Not all that easy nor cheap. If you generate H2 via solar cell there is some help - but the impact on the earth is there. Nothing is free. Martin Martin H. Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal. NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/ lew hartswick wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: But IC engines are, at best, around 28% efficient. Fuel cells for cars are around 90% efficient. For stationary applications it's even higher. Ed Huntress That is for the fuel cell. Then you have to get the electricity to the wheels in some fashion. At what "overall" eficiency? ...lew... ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
On Sep 19, 12:27 am, "Mike Henry" wrote:
"TwoGuns" wrote in message ups.com... Using RF waves to "Burn" water would be world changing IF the energy output is greater than the energy input required to burn the water. It may defy belief but it sure looks like it is worth looking into. I hope it works because anything that can help reduce our need for foreign energy is a big plus. I have invested in a small company that is working on producing Hydrogen from waste water from sewage and various food processing plants using bacteria. They have ben successful on a small scale and have plans to build a large bio-reactor in 2008. You can see this in action at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS_jmMwy9D8 or go to NanoLogix.com for more information. Metal content: Maybe a Hydrogen metal cutting torch running off of your household toilet. Have they published any technical literature on their technology? Anaerobic digestion has been used for decades to make methane from organic wastes and I'm wondering if they really have something innovative or are just riding what's left of the hydrogen bandwagon. Mike- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes Mike they have published some articles. Go to NanoLogix.net and browse through their news releases. It is in there. Dennis |
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
I couldn't tell ya how many times I've seen the film of the Hindenberg
airship, and I've never once heard it described as an explosion.. it burned, and the airfield and the town were still there after the fire was put out. No mushroom cloud, no deafening boom.. you could hear the reporter describing the devastating umm, fire. A science/aeronautics show on PBS indicated that the most recent research had proved that the fabric skin burned the way it did, because the formula of the paint was essentially.. Thermite. Iron oxide, aluminum powder and the flammable binder of resins that made up the paint. The researcher was well experienced and well educated in what he was analyzing, and he had an actual sample of the ship's fabric. I'd prefer not to be trapped in a burning vehicle, but hydrogen fueled vehicles probably won't be designed with 1930's technology. Or Ford's Pinto design, for that matter. Other than that, I don't know much about the present technology. WB .......... metalworking projects www.kwagmire.com/metal_proj.html "Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article . com, Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote: One of the things that gets me on the "hydrogen bandwagon" is the claim that they need to get research money to develop cheaper fuel cells. But if we DID have a good source of hydrogen, we don't need fuel cell cars. I disagree. A fuel cell liberates hydrogen on demand; the alternative to using fuel cells in a hydrogen-powered vehicle is to carry a tankful of hydrogen -- thus turning every car on the road into a rolling bomb. *Any* breach of that tank (in a collision, for example), combined with *any* source of ignition, will result in a devastating explosion. (Does the name "Hindenberg" ring a bell?) Adapting an engine to run on hydrogen is not that much harder than adapting it to run on NG or LP. It is very low octane, but exhaust gas recirculation (steam) takes care of that problem. It's the safety aspect that worries me. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
In article , "Wild_Bill" wrote:
I couldn't tell ya how many times I've seen the film of the Hindenberg airship, and I've never once heard it described as an explosion.. it burned, and the airfield and the town were still there after the fire was put out. No mushroom cloud, no deafening boom.. you could hear the reporter describing the devastating umm, fire. Mighta had something to do with the hydrogen being inside a fabric skin, as opposed to a steel tank, don'tcha suppose? By way of illustration, consider that when gunpowder tightly wrapped in paper (i.e. a firecracker) is ignited, it goes "bang!" -- but when a match is touched to even a much larger quantity of gunpowder simply in a loose pile on the ground, it just goes "whoof". -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#31
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
Todd Rich wrote:
True, I was just trying to point out the most applicable ones. It has been a while, but the easy way to remember the first 3 a You can't win You can't break even You can't even get out of the game. And the 4th: The ratio of Horse's Asses to Horses is always much greater than 1 :-) Pete -- Pete Snell Department of Physics Royal Military College --------------------------------------------------------------------- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. - George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
#32
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:34:29 -0400, Wild_Bill wrote:
I couldn't tell ya how many times I've seen the film of the Hindenberg airship, and I've never once heard it described as an explosion.. it burned, and the airfield and the town were still there after the fire was put out. No mushroom cloud, no deafening boom.. you could hear the reporter describing the devastating umm, fire. Mythbusters got some pretty exciting results trying to reproduce the event. A science/aeronautics show on PBS indicated that the most recent research had proved that the fabric skin burned the way it did, because the formula of the paint was essentially.. Thermite. Iron oxide, aluminum powder and the flammable binder of resins that made up the paint. The researcher was well experienced and well educated in what he was analyzing, and he had an actual sample of the ship's fabric. Interesting. I wonder if that was before, or after, mythbusters did it. Same conclusions. |
#33
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
Journalists mostly cannot understand science.
The part of the brain that intuitively roots out perpetual motion hoaxes is just not there. Look at the crazy crap going on with them believing in global warming and light rail. It is enough to destroy society. cavelamb himself wrote: You may have heard about "burning Sea Water"? Some related Links... http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/desalination/ "This could be a possible breakthrough, depending on how much energy it takes to separate the hydrogen from the water compared to how much hydrogen can be extracted." http://nick2.wordpress.com/ "There have been a flurry of new articles this week on John Kanzius RF device for burning sal****er. None suggest, that the process creates more energy than it consumes." http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.asp...85&bw=hi&cat=2 "Sal****er as the ultimate clean fuel source" http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ing-water.html This one got it right, and then threw in some BS "though practical applications of the technology remain uncertain and it's unlikely to be a source of cheap energy." "Water can also be split into hydrogen using electricity, in a process known as hydrolysis. But this is inefficient and requires large amounts of power. So researchers would like to find ways to isolate hydrogen with minimal energy and no fossil fuels, Kammen said. (Related: "New Process Could Help Make Hydrogen Fuel Affordable" [August 27, 2004].) " http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...ng_Radio_Waves "They subsequently quietly reported that they surpassed 100% efficiency, which would mean that the system is somehow harnessing environmental energy such as from the zero point or some other yet-to-be discovered phenomenon." |
#34
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:36:17 -0700, Clark Magnuson
wrote: Journalists mostly cannot understand science. The part of the brain that intuitively roots out perpetual motion hoaxes is just not there. Look at the crazy crap going on with them believing in global warming and light rail. It is enough to destroy society. cavelamb himself wrote: You may have heard about "burning Sea Water"? Some related Links... http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/desalination/ "This could be a possible breakthrough, depending on how much energy it takes to separate the hydrogen from the water compared to how much hydrogen can be extracted." http://nick2.wordpress.com/ "There have been a flurry of new articles this week on John Kanzius RF device for burning sal****er. None suggest, that the process creates more energy than it consumes." http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.asp...85&bw=hi&cat=2 "Sal****er as the ultimate clean fuel source" http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ing-water.html This one got it right, and then threw in some BS "though practical applications of the technology remain uncertain and it's unlikely to be a source of cheap energy." "Water can also be split into hydrogen using electricity, in a process known as hydrolysis. But this is inefficient and requires large amounts of power. So researchers would like to find ways to isolate hydrogen with minimal energy and no fossil fuels, Kammen said. (Related: "New Process Could Help Make Hydrogen Fuel Affordable" [August 27, 2004].) " http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...ng_Radio_Waves "They subsequently quietly reported that they surpassed 100% efficiency, which would mean that the system is somehow harnessing environmental energy such as from the zero point or some other yet-to-be discovered phenomenon." ======== Cold Fusion anyone? 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. |
#35
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:36:17 -0700, Clark Magnuson wrote: Journalists mostly cannot understand science. The part of the brain that intuitively roots out perpetual motion hoaxes is just not there. Look at the crazy crap going on with them believing in global warming and light rail. It is enough to destroy society. cavelamb himself wrote: You may have heard about "burning Sea Water"? Some related Links... http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/desalination/ "This could be a possible breakthrough, depending on how much energy it takes to separate the hydrogen from the water compared to how much hydrogen can be extracted." http://nick2.wordpress.com/ "There have been a flurry of new articles this week on John Kanzius RF device for burning sal****er. None suggest, that the process creates more energy than it consumes." http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.asp...85&bw=hi&cat=2 "Sal****er as the ultimate clean fuel source" http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ing-water.html This one got it right, and then threw in some BS "though practical applications of the technology remain uncertain and it's unlikely to be a source of cheap energy." "Water can also be split into hydrogen using electricity, in a process known as hydrolysis. But this is inefficient and requires large amounts of power. So researchers would like to find ways to isolate hydrogen with minimal energy and no fossil fuels, Kammen said. (Related: "New Process Could Help Make Hydrogen Fuel Affordable" [August 27, 2004].) " http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...ng_Radio_Waves "They subsequently quietly reported that they surpassed 100% efficiency, which would mean that the system is somehow harnessing environmental energy such as from the zero point or some other yet-to-be discovered phenomenon." ======== Cold Fusion anyone? 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 |
#36
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
"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 |
#37
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
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. All I'm saying is that it does indeed looks like something interesting is going down here. Skepticism I appreciate, as long as it is scientific skepticism. It's simply too simple of an experiment to set up. Anyone with a couple hundred watt RF source and a bottle of salt water can try it for themselves. And they are. That's what tripped up Fleischmann and Pons (Cold fusion gag). Nobody else could recreate the experiment and get similar results. And the fact that the amount of heat they thought they detected was down several decimal places. This setup exhibits a real live hydrogen flame - from salt water. Just because there is an RF source near. I do NOT think there are any laws of thermodynamics being broken here. But maybe a novel twist. Time will tell. Richard |
#38
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
"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 |
#39
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
Ed Huntress wrote:
"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. I understand what you are saying and do not disagree. 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. 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. 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 |
#40
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Science - and the Media
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"). The thing that got my interest up is that this is something new in the way of manipulating materials. Interesting, yes. Useful, on the other hand... -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why doesn't media do what it should do...? | UK diy | |||
Is Ann Coulter the media? | Home Repair | |||
Grit Media? | Metalworking | |||
OT=Sea Changes in the Media | Metalworking |