1) No Hope. You can't achieve 100% efficiency. It's the law. 2) Nothing, repeat nothing can be done to release more energy that is put into it. You may not recognize the source of that energy, which may be locked in potential energy waiting to be released by the combination of the right chemical or by EM energy. 3) Endothermic reactions still obey the law of conservation of energy. It merely refers to the final temperature of the byproduct. Some reactions absorb heat, others give off heat and still others do neither. 4) The idea that we shouldn't use hydrogen as fuel because it takes more energy to extract it than it will deliver is silly. The only way to get fuel that takes less energy to produce than it takes to make is to pump it out of the ground, and I'm not entirely certain even that is true. Do you think it costs less to produce batteries than it does to produce an energy equivalent of Hydrogen? You have the cost of manufacture, the cost of the containers, the assembly, the production of the acid, not to mention all the manual and mechanical labor to assemble and package, etc. All that said, this technique may be useful for extracting Hydrogen. It needs to be determined if it takes less energy to do this than other methods of extracting Hydrogen. --- Billy Crook <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote:
You can not get more energy out of a system than you put in to it. There are NO exceptions, Get over it. The best you can hope for is 100% efficiency, and that would still only be a hope.
On 9/11/07, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/11/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org> wrote:
The energy required for the RF input (that according to most of the articles "breaks down" the salt water) is the question - does it take more energy to provide that RF than the "flame" produces - or than can be recovered from the flame. (Remember, a flame in itself isn't a very useful source of energy, and there are considerable losses converting it to electricity or other useful forms.)
From what I've seen elsewhere it does take more energy to produce the RF than is released by the reaction. It seems to be basically super heating the water so that the hydrogen and oxygen split, then when the atoms leave the area being excited, they "burn" and come back together as water again, with a net loss of energy from waste heat.
Jon. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug