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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default Science - and the Media



Some fuel for the Global Warming fires...


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...t-passage.html
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,146
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 506
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 506
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,852
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,001
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,152
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why doesn't media do what it should do...? [email protected] UK diy 0 January 19th 07 01:29 PM
Is Ann Coulter the media? [email protected] Home Repair 1 July 4th 06 02:55 AM
Grit Media? Jake in Escondido Metalworking 16 May 22nd 05 02:57 AM
OT=Sea Changes in the Media Gunner Metalworking 47 November 20th 03 02:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"