Burning Salt Water for Fuel

[Vivid]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 Vivid, all you're doing is attempting to imply that resonance alone can defeat conservation of energy law. Simply, it's impossible. Sorry.

Okay, I will put it this way. I theorize that:

The burning of the hydrogen does not actually use the energy being put into the salt water by the radio frequency. All the frequency does is make the energy in the hydrogen accessible. It simply loosens up the particles so that they can be burned.

I re-iterate: the energy generated comes from the burning particles, not the radio frequency.

Here is a metaphor:

Say theres a big pocket of natural gas underneath the earth. You want to set that on fire and use it as a fuel. So you get out a construction machine used for digging, that runs off of natural gas. The machine digs out a hole, so the natural gas can escape and be set on fire. The machine only uses a very small fraction of the energy you will get from burning that natural gas. In this case, you have put in very little energy, and gotten much energy back.

This is because the machine is not contributing energy into a system of energy transformation. It is merely excavating that potential energy. Therefore, the machine is not part of the equation. You cannot tie the output of energy from the burning of natural gas to the input of energy from that machine.

You might as well calculate the caloric energy it takes you to turn the ignition switch in the hypothetical hydro car, and claim that the car cant possibly run because the amount of energy it takes to turn the switch is so small that the amount of energy you are supposed to get back is impossible - it would be equally relevant.

Do you see now why my explanation DOES mean that the law of conservation has been circumvented? Perhaps you should re-read it.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: Vivid The burning of the hydrogen does not actually use the energy being put into the salt water by the radio frequency. All the frequency does is make the energy in the hydrogen accessible. It simply loosens up the particles so that they can be burned.

Exactly right on both accounts.


What I'm telling you is that the maximal theoretical energy you could gain from burning the hydrogen is less than the amount of energy needed to "loosen up the particles so they can be burned".

The machine only uses a very small fraction of the energy you will get from burning that natural gas.

Correct.


The maximal amount of energy you can get out of burning the natural gas is less than the amount of energy that was needed to create the gas.


Since the gas was created naturally, however, the it didn't cost us anything.


An analogy for that to the RF saltwater would be if we could get the radio waves from outer space and didn't have to generate them. That way, the "loosening up" of the saltwater wouldn't cost us anything.


But in any and all cases, conservation is maintained.

[ZNFYRH]

MachineCode

Look again at what you just said.

"The machine only uses a very small fraction of the energy you will get from burning that natural gas."

And then you replied, "Correct."

If the machine only uses a fraction of the energy produced, then the energy produced is more than enough to run the machine.

That's what you just said, "Correct" to... and it's also precisely a "violation" of that which you are claiming is inviolable.

[MachineCode0110]

It is more than enough to run the machine.

Indeed, we already run most of our machines on the energy created by burning fossil fuels.


What I'm continuing to say is that fossil fuels were created at no cost to us.


But conservation is still maintained. The amount of energy needed to create those fossil fuels will always be more than the energy created by burning them.

[Vivid]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 The amount of energy needed to create those fossil fuels will always be more than the energy created by burning them.

Okay, but by shooting a radio frequency at some water, you aren't "creating" fuels. You are separating particles that were already created by nature in such a way that allows them to burn.

We refine crude oil to "create" gasoline, but that doesn't cost more energy than it provides.

I put some mulberries I picked in a strainer and I rinsed them off. This filtered out the mulberries from the little bugs and leaves and dried flower parts that were stuck to them. Then I ate them. I doubt that took more energy than I got from the mulberries.

So I want to light a barbecue. I toss on some coals, I stick in some newspaper, I squirt a bit of lighter fluid in. Can this mixture of paper, coal and lighter fluid be considered a fuel I created? Surely, I will get more energy out than I have put in.

Or, heck, if it always costs more energy to create energy than you can get out of it, then why don't farmers die of starvation?

I think we need to clearly define what this law means by "creation". I say the radio frequency technique is not creating a fuel, because its not "making it from scratch" it is merely separating particles that were already available. This seems to me to be something that should be classified more similarly to the way we would classify a refinement of a fuel. Classifying it as a creation of a fuel, at least by the definition used in this law, seems a little flawed.

I think that this law, like all laws, only defines what happens in very specific circumstances. If you want to make your point, you'll have to clearly define those circumstances and explain why this hydrogen example fits those circumstances.

[ZNFYRH]

Vivid

Welcome to Volconvo.

Good distinction. We're converting, not creating.

You could have kept it a lot simpler, too.

How many calories does it take to chew, swallow, digest, and expel the waste from, a single candy bar?

If that number is less than the number of calories it gives you, then that's precisely what we're talking about... releasing the potential energy that already exists in something.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: Vivid You are separating particles that were already created by nature in such a way that allows them to burn.

The energy required to separate the particles that were already created by nature in such a way that allows them to burn will always be greater than the maximum theoretical energy you can harvest from burning them.

You must create the radio waves before shooting them. Creating them costs energy.

We refine crude oil to "create" gasoline, but that doesn't cost more energy than it provides.

The harvesting, transportation, and refining of crude oil does not cost more than the energy gained by burning it. You are correct here.


The original input energy that was used to create the fossil fuel millions of years ago, on the other hand, is greater. Simply, that energy came from the sun, millions of years ago, at no cost to us.

I doubt that took more energy than I got from the mulberries.

Correct again.

The input energy used to make the mulberries came from the sun at no cost to you.

Surely, I will get more energy out than I have put in.

Surely, you won't.

The input energy used to create the paper, fluid, and coals, again all from the sun, is greater than the max energy you could ever harvest from burning them.

if it always costs more energy to create energy than you can get out of it, then why don't farmers die of starvation?

The input energy farmers use to grow crops comes from the sun at no cost to them.

[carwaterguide]

Have you ever heard of HHO fuel that has got to be the best way to save on gas prices.?

[RickSp]

Ok, we have a story from the WorldNetDaily - that alone says alot about its quality, about a man who may have both cured cancer and solved our energy crisis.

I am glad that they mention in passing that skeptics have pointed out that the claims appear to violate basic physics.

[Thanatos]

You can split water into hydrogen and oxygen but when it burns you get water once again. Products are the same as reactants, no energy is gained, energy to make the radio waves is lost, end of story. He's invented a machine for turning electricity into heat and attention in a very indirect fashion.

[sweethe]

Quote by: carwaterguide You can truly get better mileage .....CarWaterGuide

Hi guys, I recently visited your site.I'm doing a Chemistry project and was wondering if HHO is a viable source of energy? Does it waste more energy than it uses?
Thanks.

[sonoman]

I can only say the guy's a genius and should be backed. I only wish his anti-cancer system was more developed. He's on to something with these radio frequencies energizing targeted particles.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: sweethe Hi guys, I recently visited your site.I'm doing a Chemistry project and was wondering if HHO is a viable source of energy? Does it waste more energy than it uses? Thanks.

It's a fun chemistry project. Put a jar upside down in a pan full of water and run electrodes under the jar. Turn it on. Mixed hydrogen and oxygen will accumulate; you should see fizzing. I doubt you have any old transformers i.e. from model railroads lying around but they work well.

Be warned that after a while the hydrogen and oxygen may spontaneously combine and if they don't you can help them along with a very long match. Use a small jar unless you want to demonstrate it's potential as rocket fuel or if you just like serious bodily harm.