That is not exactly correct. You can get more energy than what you put in, sometimes - if the process changes state such as Nuclear Energy. You see, nature did most of the work by stuffing a lot of energy to create the heavy elements. But...guthrie is right...there is no perpetual machine in this dimension...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is worthy to note that electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen gases is well known and was discovered more than a hundred years ago. However, the problem has always been the power requirements (electrical requirements) to energize the water molecule to convert into separate hydrogen and oxygen gases. Typically the energy requirement was too great to produce an economical and efficient hydrogen fuel source. In addition, most conventional electrolyzers produced only small quantities of separate hydrogen and oxygen gas that were very explosive and dangerous if not handled properly. Due to the aforementioned difficulties, there is a lack of commercialization of conventional hydrogen and oxygen electrolyzed fuel sources. More recently, there has been considerable research in the separation of water into a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases. These studies were initiated by Yull Brown in 1977 via equipment generally referred to as electrolyzers and the resulting gas is known as "Brown gas" The "Brown gas" is defined as a combustible gas composed of conventional hydrogen and conventional oxygen gases having the exact stochiometric ratio of 2/3 (or 66.66% by volume) of hydrogen and 1/3 (or 33.33% by volume) of oxygen. A mixture of hydrogen and oxygen called HHO gas produced via a new electrolyzer, is distinctly different than the Brown and other known gases. The measurements herein reported suggest the existence in the HHO gas of stable clusters composed of H and O atoms, their dimers H-O, and their molecules H2, O2 and H2O whose bond cannot entirely be of valence type. Clusters of hydrogen and oxygen atoms contained in the HHO gas, appear to escape the traditional valence interpretation and constitute one of the novelties of the HHO gas over the Brown gas. The new HHO gas is regularly produced via a new type of electrolyzer and has resulted to be distinctly different in chemical composition than the Brown gas, even though both gases share a number of common features. It is indicated that the creation of the gaseous and combustible HHO gas from distilled water without the necessary evaporation or separation energy, suggest the existence of a new form of the water, with the structure (HxH)–O where x represents the new magnecular bond and – the conventional molecular bond. The transition from the conventional H-O-H species to the new HxH-O species is predicted by a change of the electric polarization of water caused by the electrolyzer. When H-O-H is liquid, the new species HxH-O can only be gaseous, thus explaining the transition of state without evaporation or separation energy. Finally, the new species (Hx H)-O is predicted to be unstable and decay into HxH and O, by permitting a plausible interpretation of the anomalous constituents of the HHO gas as well as its anomalous behavior. The capability by electrolyzers to perform the transition of water from the liquid to a gaseous state via the use of energy dramatically smaller than the evaporation energy is a unique feature of the HHO gas. A new form of the water molecule created by the electrolyzers via the removal of its natural electric polarization and consequential collapse of the two HO dimers, from their conventional configuration with 105o to a new configuration in which the two dimers are collapsed one against the other due to their neutral charge and strongly attractive opposing magnetic polarizations. Due to the loss of electric polarization, polymerization and other features, the above new form of the water molecule permits a plausible representation of the creation of the HHO gas from liquid water without the evaporation energy. Its unstable character also permits a plausible interpretation on the experimental measurements of all anomalous features of the HHO gas. The first remarkable feature is the efficiency E of the electrolyzer for the production of the gas, here simply defined as the ratio between the volume of HHO gas produced and the number of Watts needed for its production. In fact, the electrolyzer rapidly converts water into 55 standard cubic feet (scf) of HHO gas at 35 pounds per square inch (psi) via the use of 5 Kwh, resulting in the remarkable efficiency of 55/5,000 = 0.001 scf/W, namely, an efficiency that is at least of the order of ten times the corresponding efficiency of conventional water evaporation, thus permitting low production costs. On June 30, 2003, Adsorption Research Laboratory of Dublin, Ohio, measured the specific weight of the HHO gas and released a signed statement on the resulting value of 12.3 grams/mole. The same laboratory repeated the measurement on a different sample of the gas and confirmed the result. The released value of 12.3 grams/mole is anomalous. In fact, the conventional separation of water into H2 and O2 produces a mixture of 2/3 H2 and 1/3 O2 that has the specific weight (2+2+32)/3 = 11.3 grams/mole. Therefore, we have the anomaly of 12.3 - 11.3 = 1 gram/mole, corresponding to 8.8% anomalous increase in the value of the specific weight. Rather than the predicted 66.66% of H2 the gas contains only 60.79% of the species with 2 atomic mass units (amu), and rather than having 33.33% of O2 the gas contains only 30.39% of the species with 32 amu. These measurements provide direct experimental evidence that the HHO gas is not composed of a sole mixture of H2 and O2, but has additional heavier species. Moreover, the HHO gas used in the tests was produced from distilled water. Therefore, there cannot be an excess of O2 over H2 to explain the increased specific weight. The above measurement establishes the presence in HHO gas of 5.87% of hydrogen and 2.94% oxygen bonded together into species heavier than water, as identified below via mass spectroscopy and other analytic measurements. These measurements provide experimental evidence that the species with 18 amu detected in the GC scans of Fig. 1 is not water vapor, but a yet unknown bond of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms. HHO gas is composed of stable clusters of individual H and O atoms, HO dimers and ordinary molecules H2, O2 and H2O all bonded together by attractive forces between opposing polarities in the toroidal polarization of the orbitals of peripheral atomic electrons. Therefore, the presence of atomic and polarized hydrogen is a novelty of the HHO gas. Molecular bonds are notoriously restricted to valence pairing, in the sense that no additional atom can be bonded when all available valence pairs are coupled. By contrast, magnecular bonds do not have such a restriction, in the sense that atoms can indeed be added to a magnecule under the sole condition of the availability of opposite magnetic polarizations. The H-O-H molecule in which all electric polarizations have been removed, with the consequential collapse of the two polarized H-atoms one into the other due to their neutral charge and strongly attractive opposing magnetic polarities. This hypothesis permits a quantitative interpretation of the transition of state from liquid to gas achieved by Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. electrolyzer with energies dramatically less than the evaporation energy.
1977 was about the time when some other state of water was claimed (found only in small capillary tubes.)* I do not believe this HHO "Brown gas" exist either, but would welcome a reference to a journal article (not some company's press release trying to sell stock to fools) But just to be generous, lets assume it does. You should note that ALWAYS when something decays, it is from a higher energy state to a lower one, for the same reason water does not run up hill. Thus, your (Hx H)-O has more energy in it that the HxH and O it decays into. I assume HxH is just H2 (the well know and only molecule who's states have ALL been exactly computed with quantum theory), as I do not know what else to call HxH other than "diatomic hydrogen." (Are you also postulating a new form of hydrogen not known to quantum theory?) If the H2O is converted by Brown electrolysis into this higher energy (Hx H)-O than the difference between energy states of (H2 + O) and water, which is the energy difference required for ordinary electrolysis, then "Brown electroysis" will require MORE energy per gram of hydrogen produced than regular electrolysis. Thus even if any of this were true, it would not be useful or economical in competion with normal electrolysis. I hope you have not already invested in stock of of company announcing this new process! ----------------------- *Some one help remember: What did they call that new state of water?
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/BrownsGas/WaterFuel.wmv Watch this Fox news report, if you don't want to believe me.... Then get in line to buy company stock.
Cool clip. There've been cars able to run on water for awhile now. Only problem is that they haven't been mass produced. The only way to do it is to convert it yourself like the guy in the video has. Let's hope now that someone is trying to get serious about it, this guy gets the ball rolling. The huge problem though is that he's been recruited by the government so now our military is gonna get first dibs as usual. Unless someone copies his work, don't expect for any of this to be released to the public any time soon, unless more people start converting their engines themselves. The thing I found amazing was that he was using electricty as well and turning that water into a blow torch -- that was crazy. You could see the droplets of water falling and he was able to touch it. Insane. What he's created is a lot better than mere engines that run on water. Let's hope that he doesn't get bought out only to have his creation gone from the public forever only to be exploited militarily, or worse, he winds up dead. I wonder how his machine would work if turned into a fire-beam weapon. Burned to death by water, heh. - N
To I Don't Know: heres 10 sites, 8.The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Baliunas.pdf Errors in IPCC climate science » Blog Archive » The Royal Society http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=40 Hillsdale College http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/default.htm NEW ON THE SEPP WEB http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm Jennifer Marohasy: Cooling, Not Warming by 2030: Bob Foster http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001345.html Trends in Pacific Decadal Oscillation Subjected To Solar Forcing http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/pdotrend.htm Correlated terrestrial and marine evidence for global climate http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~pwilf/WilfJohnsonHuber2003PNAS.pd The sciences of self-annihilation by the demagnetization of the http://www.angelfire.com/space2/magnetosphere 32.Statement of Dr. Baliunas, Mar. 13, 2002 http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Baliunas_031302.htm Earth Change News on Earth Changes TV on the Web http://www.earthchangestv.com/breaking/breakarc0101.htm
Nitpicker- But I was simplifying for general consumption. Visitor- nice cut and paste job, but wheres the attribution? You also realise taht the word salad used makes no scientific sense at all? When I have more time maybe I shall take it apart, suffice to say that you should put your entire pension savings into this set up.
As I said, watch this Fox news report, if you don't want to believe me.... And don't worry about Iran or rising oil prices, thats just weak. Be strong, hold you head up....and quit whinning. http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/BrownsGas/WaterFuel.wmv
- As far as I can see, none of these "articles" are peer reviewed - and I specifically asked for peer reviewed articles (and so for a reason, finding 10 non peer reviewed "scientific articles" claiming just about anything is easy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) I also don't think all of them "disagree that there has been a significant anthropogenic change in climate the last 150 years" - which was my other requirement.
Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, here are ten peer reviewed articles that agree that there has been a significant anthropogenic change in climate: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6903/abs/nature01092.html http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003EAEJA....14580Q http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5648/1200 http://www.springerlink.com/(4kjjudzockvefb55qeyrwa2z)/app/home/main.asp?referrer=default http://www.cerfacs.fr/globc/publication/article/2004/jcli-3244.pdf http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/jones_et_al_attribution_3d_GRL_2003.pdf http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/HCTN/HCTN_19.pdf http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~olb/PAPERS/len7.pdf http://apollo.eas.gatech.edu/yhw/publications/hansen_etal_2002.pdf http://www.ingentaconnect.com/searc.../rms/wea/2002/00000057/00000008/art00007&unc=
So does China, India, Russia, and over over-populated or 3rd world countries.. But yes, since America tries to act high and mighty better than everyone else, we should set an example. Not to mention no longer have environmental advisors who are in the oil business alter White House documents that would have mentioned our involvement in global warming. - N
There's going to be some serious "global warming" once those nukes start flying back and forth. Got any sunblock rated at about 3,000?
Your post didn't specify peer review, and name me anywere in the industrial world that has a cleaner enviorment than America, and yes they wonder if global warming may be caused by Anthropogenic action, but they also are looking into the magnitic politarity change, sun spot activity, reduction of the earths magnitic field, and they have come to the conclusion that there is change but have not identified a single causitive factor.
Well, perhaps there are even countering - anthropogenic global warmings papers that don't even know that they are countering like the one in this thread for instance: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51769 showing that the global temperature and Earth reflection (albedo) have a very high correlation but the actual temperature reaction to changes in reflection is much less (0,6 deg C instead of 2,8 deg C) showing incredible climate stability to changes in forcing.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem to me that the sign (+ or -) of this correlation must depend upon the temperature. For example, (Case 1+): If Earth were a little colder, then a slight farther drop in temperature would increase the snow cover and the albedo, thus tending to decrease the temperature farther as more solar heat is reflected back to space. This is: A POSITIVE feed back system driving to colder conditions, perhaps even an ice age. (Case 2-): If, however, Earth were a little warmer, a slight increase in temperature would increase the percentage of cloud cover (assuming it is not already 100% as is the fact for Earth today) and increase the albedo, again reflecting more solar heating back into space. This tends to lessen the temperature rise (compared to that which would occur on a "dry planet.") This is: A NEGATIVE feed back system tending to maintain stability despite changes in the conditions imposed. Now you no doubt understand that 1+ and 2- indicates the type of feedback. Currently the "averaged Earth" seem to be in Case 2- as she resists rather surprisingly well all sorts of natural and man made efforts to radical change her temperature. If Earth were in Case 1+ even slight disturbances would grow as positive feed back system are unstable (until the saturate and become neutral stability in some new state, Case S. - For example if Earth were cold enough to initially be in Case 1+ this stable state, Case S, might be when all the oceans have frozen over. This state is sometimes called "Snow ball Earth" so "S" can be associated with that name or "stable.") Now let us recognize that Real Earth is not "averaged Earth" but has two hemispheres in different seasons or temperature ranges. Very interesting results are possible (AND WOULD OCCUR) if Earth were not in essentially a circular orbit. For example, it is entirely possible that the Northern Hemisphere is locked in a permanent ice age (Case 1+ --> Case S) while the Southern Hemisphere remains in Case 2- state. I discuss this in detail in Chapters 5 & 6 of my book, Dark Visitor, which I rarely mention it, but when I do, I always tell that the web site under my name, not only explains why I wrote this physics text in the form of a cosmic disaster story and gives details about the physic hidden in the story, etc, but also how to read it for free. The basic idea of Dark Visitor (reflected in this name) is that a small black hole quickly passing by the solar system will perturb the orbits of the planets by a gravitational impulse. This impulse will make them all have more elliptical orbits but not change their rotation axis. These small black holes, like most stars, typically occur in pairs.* They are more common than all the existing stars. In Dark Visitor, one of 2.2 solar masses misses Earth by 12 AU** and change Earth's orbit to one of 378 days with eccentricity, e = 0.836 instead of the current e = 0.171. The new "e" of Earth is less than the current "e" of Mars and an extra 13 days in the year would not seem to be a big deal, but it is. As bad luck would have it, Earth’s new apogee (1.108AU) occurs in the middle of the North's summer (makes less summer heating) and perigee (0.937AU) during northern winters provides more solar heating in winter. - That would seem to be great improvement, but it is a terrible curse! Climate is complex. (Andre probably agrees with that.) The really big snowfalls always occur in relative mild winter weather, not when it is bitterly cold. (Too little water vapor in the air.) While the North is in winter, the South is in summer and at perigee, 0.063AU closer to the sun. Southern hemisphere is mainly ocean and it evaporates in Case 2- conditions so does not get too much hotter than currently but the cloud cover is 100% all summer long, and also 100% to a relatively high northern latitude. This continuous winter cloud cover in the mild winter conditions causes approximately two feet of snow to fall every day in Washington DC, for an winter total of 77 feet, the first year after the Dark Visitor has passed, but the North is in Case 1+ so snow increases each year. Reason for Case 1+ conditions is the mild or almost cold summers do not melt all the snow that fell the prior winter. In ten years, (approximately) the ocean levels have dropped enough to make all existing ports useless, and that is just the start of the cosmic disaster. In 100 years, the advancing ice sheet covers Miami and Washington DC is under more than 100 feet of ice. Many lives are lost in the Southern Hemisphere also because every summer evening for several hours, torrential rains fall and all the major cities are destroyed, but it is still possible to grow rice and humanity survives in the south. This ice age differs from all prior ones in that it is permanent and only present in Northern Hemisphere. (I live in Brazil - so I timed the passage of the Dark Visitor in the computer code to make this so - only the Northern Hemisphere is uninhabitable.) Most people think that cold winters cause ice ages, but as discussed in greater detail in Chapters 5 & 6 they can be caused by warmer winters and colder summers that fail to melt all the ice, first only at high latitudes, but an ice sheet rapidly grows for that part of Earth in Case 1+ conditions. ---------------------- *The first of a pair of gravitationally-bound, small black holes (cores of first generation star pair) may have passed in the late 1920s. Neptune, the most distant Planet known at the time was perturbed, and the search for why led to the discovery of Pluto, which was for many years thought to be several times larger than Earth because that much mass is required to make the observed perturbation. It is now know than Pluto is smaller than the moon, which leaves open the question as to what did happen in the late 1920s. (A Dark Visitor passing? First of a pair?) ** Much more probable than the "direct hit", usually assumed in cosmic horror stories. As the black hole does not reflecting sun light, you can not see it coming. Some day it will come, but it is not likely to be passing in late 2007 or early 2008 as assumed in Dark Visitor (Based on the slight perturbation observed now in Pluto's orbit.)
- My post: There's a reason I linked to google scholar in stead of ordinary google Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - Scandinavia. Why do you ask? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - They have identified the one main reason why it's happening. No one's ever said other things didn't come in to play, but as the graph showed, natural factors are not enough. You might want to check out the Hansen et al article I linked to. I didn't read more than the abstract, but I think I've heard of it before and it seems interesting for someone with a genuine interest in this stuff. I'm too busy with my term paper, tho Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
