Have you seen this!?! Burning saltwater

[Jack]

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 at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/11/07, Jonathan Hutchins
> <hutchins at 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 at kclug.org
> > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Kclug mailing list
> Kclug at kclug.org
> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
>