Author Topic: Ch 3 News (ABC): Energy crisis solution and cancer cure - found??? Ha. thoughts?  (Read 11348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline watsisname

Re: Ch 3 News (ABC): Energy crisis solution and cancer cure - found??? Ha. thoughts?
Aye, and I prematurely flew off the handle before more carefully reading the rest of your post, so apologies for that.  We're happy to try explaining better if it's not coming through clearly the first time.
In my world of sleepers, everything will be erased.
I'll be your religion, your only endless ideal.
Slowly we crawl in the dark.
Swallowed by the seductive night.

  

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Ch 3 News (ABC): Energy crisis solution and cancer cure - found??? Ha. thoughts?
The important lesson I need you to acknowledge is that you cannot avoid the production of water in combustion, because it is the production of water that allows energy release.

Hmm, so, (I got the rest of it, BTW, including no fission involved, forgot that, d'oh!) the amount of water produced then is not enough to extinguish the fire?  Wait, Why does water put out fire?  It cools it down... I'm guessing the amount of energy required to change water from liquid to gas state decreases the energy of the reaction causing the fire enough to put it out, and, perhaps in addition, smothers the fire a bit by reducing the oxygen available (oxygen can't get through the liquid when the liquid is covering the object burning, and, the gaseous water displaces oxygen).

So, is the reason the water doesn't put out this reaction perhaps the fact that the gaseous water vapor is already at a high temperature due to the reaction from whence it was formed?

My questions before were a bit misguided, as I somehow thought that it was being suggested that the reason this reaction couldn't produce power was that the water formed would extinguish the fire... where I got that I don't know.

What you are actually saying, is that the energy released from the (thanks for the other explanation too, whatsisname) bonds isn't enough to power both the radio generator and still have enough left over to do anything, correct?

Sorry to be such a noob, but I haven't really bothered thinking about any of this stuff since chemistry (which, now that I am being reminded of it, is starting to come back, along with nightmares of trying to balance stubborn equations that just wouldn't compute right... probably because I have terrible handwriting when I'm in a hurry, and thus can't always accurately read back what I originally wrote)

My interest got piqued when I stumbled across the article in the OP, which I really should have Googled a bit more before posting... didn't bother, as I figured that if not one but three tv broadcast stations picked it up, it must have already passed level-headed inspection.... I mean, it wouldn't do to look stupid if it doesn't work, right?  Ha, I guess when it doesn't work and they find out they just never mention it (who wants egg on their face over reporting something erroneous, right?), resulting in conspiracy theories when those who saw the broadcast don't see the promised tech / inventions that were suggested would now be possible.

EDIT: z64555, watsisname, thanks, (I was aware of matter neither being created nor destroyed, however, is converting matter completely into energy considered it's "destruction"... (if not, matter being neither created nor destroyed seems like a logical extension of 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction', as, if you take something out of existence, something else would have to come into existence.. heh, that'd be a bit boggling) or do we simply not know how to do that (convert matter completely into energy) yet? (i.e. is it theoretically possible or theoretically impossible, obviously we don't have a way of actually doing it yet... and since burning doesn't do it (now that I think of it, the energy released from fission of an atom into two less dense atoms.. that should have tipped me off that whole atoms weren't being converted into energy by combustion.. lol ;) )
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 12:17:38 am by jr2 »

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Ch 3 News (ABC): Energy crisis solution and cancer cure - found??? Ha. thoughts?
What you are actually saying, is that the energy released from the (thanks for the other explanation too, whatsisname) bonds isn't enough to power both the radio generator and still have enough left over to do anything, correct?

Conservation of energy is one of the fundamental laws of reality.

You cannot power a radio generator in order to fuel the very process that powers the radio generator. That's a perpetual motion machine. It's like designing a car which uses electricity to move and uses motion to generate electricity: it will never even break even, let alone turn a profit. (You could generate some electricity, but you'd never get out more than you're putting in.)

No process can ever power itself. There must always be energy introduced from outside.

 

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Ch 3 News (ABC): Energy crisis solution and cancer cure - found??? Ha. thoughts?
Right, but, I was thinking the 'fuel' for the whole operation would come from the water 'burning', releasing less water (not realizing that, d'uh, no water is going to be consumed, it's just going to be converted)..

Still, the bonds from two H2O molecules being less than 2 Hydrogen and 2 Oxygen molecules (six atoms, yes? two Hydrogen and 4 Oxygen?).. those bonds being less, how much energy is output from that?

Hmm... I think I'm starting to see a bit... the energy to release those bonds must be the same as the energy gained from the resulting bonds having less energy than the originating bonds.. and since every device loses energy (not 100% efficient), to work, it would have to be like a perpetual motion machine... I think I've got it now.

 

Offline z64555

  • 210
  • Self-proclaimed controls expert
    • Steam
Re: Ch 3 News (ABC): Energy crisis solution and cancer cure - found??? Ha. thoughts?
If you want to get your mind blown, research "Monopole generators."  :drevil:
Secure the Source, Contain the Code, Protect the Project
chief1983

------------
funtapaz: Hunchon University biologists prove mankind is evolving to new, higher form of life, known as Homopithecus Juche.
z64555: s/J/Do
BotenAlfred: <funtapaz> Hunchon University biologists prove mankind is evolving to new, higher form of life, known as Homopithecus Douche.

 

Offline watsisname

Re: Ch 3 News (ABC): Energy crisis solution and cancer cure - found??? Ha. thoughts?
Quote
Hmm, so, (I got the rest of it, BTW, including no fission involved, forgot that, d'oh!) the amount of water produced then is not enough to extinguish the fire?  Wait, Why does water put out fire?  It cools it down... I'm guessing the amount of energy required to change water from liquid to gas state decreases the energy of the reaction causing the fire enough to put it out, and, perhaps in addition, smothers the fire a bit by reducing the oxygen available (oxygen can't get through the liquid when the liquid is covering the object burning, and, the gaseous water displaces oxygen).

So, is the reason the water doesn't put out this reaction perhaps the fact that the gaseous water vapor is already at a high temperature due to the reaction from whence it was formed?

Precisely.  Here's the math to demonstrate:

Molar Mass of Water:  18.02 g/mol
Specific Heat of Water:  4.186 J/g°C
Latent Heat of Vaporization:  2260 J/g
Heat released by oxidation reaction of hydrogen:  572kJ/mol

Let's imagine one mole (~18g) of water is produced by the reaction at an initial temperature of 20°C (about room temp).  How much heat is required to bring this water to boiling?
(100°C - 20°C)(1 mol)(18.02 g/mol)(4.186 J/g°C) = 6034 joules (~6kJ).
So any liquid water produced by the reaction will EASILY be brought to boiling by the excess heat produced.  How about vaporizing it?
That's 2260J/g times 18g which is a whopping 40.7kJ.
We are still left with 525kJ of heat.  Needless to say, that's plenty to turn the surrounding environment to a roiling fire.
In my world of sleepers, everything will be erased.
I'll be your religion, your only endless ideal.
Slowly we crawl in the dark.
Swallowed by the seductive night.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Ch 3 News (ABC): Energy crisis solution and cancer cure - found??? Ha. thoughts?
Right, but, I was thinking the 'fuel' for the whole operation would come from the water 'burning', releasing less water (not realizing that, d'uh, no water is going to be consumed, it's just going to be converted)..

Still, the bonds from two H2O molecules being less than 2 Hydrogen and 2 Oxygen molecules (six atoms, yes? two Hydrogen and 4 Oxygen?).. those bonds being less, how much energy is output from that?

Well, you know what a LOX rocket is, right? You've seen fire burn? So clearly quite a bit of energy.

Matter can be converted directly into energy via annihilation with antimatter. Matter can be partially converted into energy through atomic fission. The magnetic monopoles mentioned above are for the moment purely hypothetical, though they are a consequence of some unproven GUTs.

 

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Ch 3 News (ABC): Energy crisis solution and cancer cure - found??? Ha. thoughts?
If you want to get your mind blown, research "Monopole generators."  :drevil:

http://tesla3.com/free_websites/zpe_bedini_monopole.html

... waaaay over my head.  Some odd claims, though... where's his energy coming from?

Nuke, can you build that and tell me if it works?  :lol: