Gas from Water, (WaterFuel), HHO technology

Another proof of your lack of understanding of the very concept of "overunity".

I would love that something like that is invented. But this, like meyer's "hydrogen generator", is just another ********. Here's why. The ignorant who posted it talks about the output "energy". Energy is not the output of prime movers. The POWER is.

Write that down, you silly ignorant. Energy cannot be measured. The POWER can.

And, ask any electrician what happens when you increase the voltage to an electric motor.

They ACCELERATE, because the voltage accelerates the speed of a motor.

What happens in that video is NOT overunity.

POWER is a quotient of amperage and voltage TOGETHER. If you reduce the amperes, the POWER goes down, regardless of the fact that the morot "accelerates".

No energy has been created.

Dumb you and dumb the author of that video. If he were to connect the motor to do some work, the motor would stop in a second because the idiot increased the voltage and reduced the amperage. For example: if the voltage went to 240V, and amperes down to one, that would be 240 Watts of power available for a useful work. (I can already see you flying the planes with that power...in the safety of your little dark bedroom.)

Basic physics. But one needs to go to school to understand it. You don't so your debate is an ignorant one.

And, while it is futile, I'll repeat it:

ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED AND MEASURED.

POWER CAN.

And they are not the same thing.

Go back to school.

 

Random question, it has been many years since high school chemistry (The closest I come to chem/physics these days is assisting researchers in building better programs to run more efficiently for simulation.) but do you care to explain how we made bags of oxygen and hydrogen gas explode in the lab? And how we used the very white flame from burning hydrogen to boil water?

And be careful with the word 'fusion' in chemistry. I'm not sure how it is used in chemistry, but from physics if hydrogen and oxygen were fusing, wouldn't you be getting Fluorine? Or Neon if both hydrogen were going into the fusion with an oxygen atom?

 

I think someone is confusing fusion with bonding.

 

Yeah, the joy of international communications. Reminds me of the time a professor from overseas was going on and on in a lecture about "Play boys" and trying to get the class to respond. (mistranslation on "Game boy")

 

Hi *****,

Energy is measured in joules. One joule is the amount of energy it takes to lift an object that weighs one Newton, a distance of one meter.

EDIT- (edited to show correct weight of newton so as to not spread disinfo.)
A Newton is the metric unit for weight and is 102 g or 0.224871 lb or 3.59 oz.
-EDIT

Power is measured in watts consumed or produced and is calculated by multiplying volts times amps.

The link demonstrated negating Lentz law which destroys much of a motors output through counter electromotive force (CEMF). He nor I stated it was a "free energy device" but you are a functionally illiterate and belligerent idiot.

That would be true of a DC motor mouth breather but this is an AC motor. You have now proven that you are too stupid to learn from watching a video and don't know the first thing about motors or electromagnetic induction in general.

That was just a quick skim of you post which I tend to ignore, since they contain nothing but wrong information and ignorance. You are an ignorant idiot and you prove that with your every post. You lost all you credibility a long time ago and you have nothing left to lose - shut up. No wonder Chili is a third world country.

 

Thank you God....

1. Does not know what fusion is and has proven that.
2. Apparently the retard has not heard of a hydroxy torch which to my knowledge is the hottest flame welders use to cut big steel and even melt ceramic.
3. The retard has not figured out that the Sun is a fusion process and it emits the heat and light that allow life on Earth.

If it were not so sad, it would be funny. There is a level of stupid out there that should be put out of its misery for the good of the human race.

Look at the Sun until you go blind *****, then you won't be able to post your stupid on the web anymore. Stay in the Sun until you die of sunburn. At least your dead corpse will provide nutrition to plants and your skin bag won't be a total waste.

 

Could you two carry this on in private?

 

Masrapido, it is clear that you don't know anything about chemistry or physics and are just parroting your misunderstanding of things that you have read. I would like to encourage you to stop doing this. The effect you will have is to amplify your confusions by spreading them to other people, and this doesn't do anyone any good. To make matters worse, your pride won't let you even consider the possibility that another poster might actually know what he is talking about. You just assume that everyone else is bullshitting like you are, and so you will never learn from people who are actually knowledgeable.

How would you like it if I went around to other forums and pretended that I was an expert on boat building and started spreading dumb misinformation to people who didn't know anything about boats?

Well, it was perhaps too terse. Let me be more explicit: An explosion is what you get when you have a very sudden very-high-pressure region. The high pressure expands outward in a shock wave, hence the "ex" in "explosion". An implosion is what you get when you have a very sudden very-low-pressure region. The low-pressure region is filled by air rushing in. Hence the "im" in "implosion".

Explosions and implosions are mechanical processes, not chemical processes. They have nothing directly to do with chemistry or molecular chains except that highly exothermic chemical reactions are one way to get an explosion. There are other ways to get an explosion. I have caused a can of soda to explode by leaving it in the freezer. There were no covalent bonds being broken in this case.

Energy is not released when you break covalent bonds. You have to put energy in to break covalent bonds. If breaking the bonds released energy then there would be no bonds in the first place. The reason that two atoms are bonded together into a compound is because that is a lower-energy state than the state where the two atoms are separate. Where the energy comes from in combustion is that one set of bonds are broken (which requires energy input) and another set of bonds are created (which releases energy). If the new compound is at a lower energy than the original compound, then you have net energy production. If the difference in energy is great enough, and the reaction happens rapidly enough to produce a high-pressure gas, then you get an explosion. It doesn't matter what the length of the chains are (except indirectly). All that matters is the energy of the reaction and how rapidly it is produced.

I think I suddenly realized where you are getting this idea. In hydrocarbons, long-chained molecules tend to have a lower vapor pressure than short-chained molecules and the liquids and solids of long-chained molecules tend to be denser. But that doesn't make an implosion.

When they say that hydrogen burns with an invisible flame, they mean that the flame is colorless and transparent, not that it doesn't emit light. Hydrogen flames produce both heat and light.

If you take an air-tight container, fill it with hydrogen and oxygen in the right proportion, and then heat it until a chemical reaction takes place, then you will definitely get an explosion. This is not an "opinion", it is a simple experiment that is often performed in low-level chemistry classes. Seriously, masrapido, anyone who has taken high-school chemistry knows this.

I didn't learn chemistry and physics from the internet, I learned it at a university. And rather than me trying to "correct" my university education through the internet, why don't you email someone who wrote a page about hydrogen combustion to explain your understanding to him? See what he says about it.

Masrapido, you are just misunderstanding something that you have read on the internet. It is true that at a given temperature and pressure, two moles of water has less volume than the 2 moles of hydrogen and one mole of oxygen that went into the production, but immediately after the chemical reaction, the water is at a much higher temperature than the reactants which gives it a much greater volume.

 

Dave didn't just pay attention in class...He paid attention in Richard Feynman's class!

 

Quarktoo, I thought you were going to play nice. Before I answer the substantive errors of your post, I'm going to point out all of your insults and condescension in one place so that you can reconsider the way that you are behaving. I'm not interested in taking out my aggression on the internet, and if you can't separate your testosterone issues from your intellectual pursuits, then I'm not interested in talking to you.

Because looking up words is a rhetorical device to win a pointless argument. I only brought up the common usage of the word (note: not the dictionary definition, but the common usage) to explain why I had misunderstood you. Instead of clarifying yourself, you took the opportunity to play Dictionary Gotcha.

I made no argument around the meaning of the word "burn". I was only responding to your accusation that I "misquoted" you in order to explain that it was not a misquote but a misunderstanding, and explain why I misunderstood.

Since this is not contest for me, I was not looking for Typo Gotchas. I genuinely thought that you were talking about hydroxyl.

Accusing me of ignorance for not being able to read your mind.

Condescension.

Accusing me of misquoting you because I worded something in a way that you don't approve of. The difference between saying that the thermodynamics is violated and saying that the 2nd law does not apply depends on how widely you construe the 2nd law. Since that is one of the issues under dispute, you can hardly expect me to just assume that you are correct in the way that I word things. Politely disagreeing with my wording is one thing. Being condescending and accusing me of bad faith is quite another.

Condescension.

Yes, it was semantics. That was the point of the joke. If "universe" means "everything that exists", then by definition there cannot be two universes. I'm not sure what to call the capricious use of the word "********" in the above. Still, given the overall tenor of your post, it is reasonable to think that it was meant in some way to offend me. I'm not sure how.

Irrelevant, hostile political aside.

Specious accusation and associated insult combined with the false assertion that you are being "nice". Just because your hostility to me so far has been more passive-aggressive than full-on name calling, that is not the same as being nice.

Condescension.

Condescension.

So, what about it, Quarktoo? Do you really want to have a discussion or is the internet just your tool for taking out your aggression on people who can't hurt you?

 

With the price of Evian going up, I think I will keep on filling my tank with petroleum products for the time being

 

Dave,

I can play nice but misquoting me is not nice. I have had this conversation many times with many people and have seen all the tricks used to try and discredit the free energy movement.

One of the most widely used tricks is to find an insignificant error and then pound away on that to try and draw attention away from the pink elephants in the room.

Another is to misquote and then try and base an argument around that.

And yet another is to expand the laws of thermodynamics beyond their scope in an attempt to negate that important and key word "isolated". This of course creates a discussion / argument of theory and tantamount to a dog chasing its tail. Eventually the person is worn down and gives up.

Can I play nice? Sure I can. Do I enjoy your feedback and posts? More than all others combined. Do I want to continue the discussion? I await your next post with bated breath as stated. Did I enjoy your definition of universe and the humor indicated by those smiley faces? Sure but also saw it is attempting to forward the expansion of 2nd law masked as humor.

Fire away Dave, you clearly have an academic background in physics and I learn and grow from these conversations. As long as learning is more important than winning, I enjoy them.

So let us start fresh with my apology equal to yours for misquoting me.

I am sorry that you pissed me off.

 

the second law of thermodynamics

Thanks quarktoo.

Now before I get into the 2nd Law, I'd like to say that even though your interpretation of the law is wrong, your argument against using the law may be correct. If the apparatus in question really is an open system then the second law does not apply to it, at least not directly. If it is really using something up in the process of creating energy then there is no violation of either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics apply to closed systems and they apply to the universe as a whole (which is just a big closed system). They do not apply directly to open systems.

Whether your device is actually an open system, I'll discuss later.

As to the 2nd Law itself, let me quote you from the very same Wikipedia page you used to refute me:

There are many ways of stating the second law of thermodynamics, but all are equivalent in the sense that each form of the second law logically implies every other form...

The formulation of the second law that refers to entropy directly is as follows:

In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.​

​

However, you shouldn't take the wiki's word for it; you should reason out for yourself why the formulation in terms of closed systems is logically equivalent to a formulation in terms of the entire universe. I'll explain the argument again at the end of this post.

Frankly, I never liked the statistical mechanics version of entropy that they emphasize in Wikipedia. I prefer the classical version where entropy of a system is just the ability of a system to do work. In the most general case this is the internal energy of a system that is available to cause change of any kind. What the second law of thermodynamics says is that any system can only change so much, and then eventually it reaches an equilibrium and there is no longer any imbalance in the system that can cause further change.

If you think about it, this must be true, given what we know. What are the alternatives? One alternative is that the system goes through some cycle over and over again, with absolutely no friction or other sort of "loss" in the system. The other alternative is that it will continue into an infinite set of states, never repeating a state that it had before because as soon as it repeats a state, then it is in a cycle. We have never observed a system like either one of those. Instead, what we always observe is that a closed system will change until it "winds down" to a stopping point, at which point it will change no more until there is an input from the outside.

Now, you expressed doubts that we can apply this law to the entire universe. First of all, let's note that if there exists some unknown physical process in the universe so that there can be a closed system where the 2nd Law does not apply, then it does not apply to the universe as a whole. But if it applies to every closed system, then it must also apply to the universe as a whole.

If it does not apply to the universe as a whole, then there must be some process which decreases the entropy of the universe as a whole. There is some volume of space where the entire process takes place, including all of the entropy changes. Let's call that volume of space the system. This is a closed system because it includes all of the effects of the process. Within this closed system, the entropy is decreasing. But that violates the closed-system version of the 2nd Law. Therefore if the closed-system version of the 2nd Law is true, so is the universal version.

 

accidentally hit the wrong button and duplicated post.

 

Dave,

Thanks for your well thought out and written response. I will have to stand my ground on the fact that you cannot define and assume an unknown universe proves your belief. I hope that you will see your circular logic and I propose a challenge to break your magical thinking spell based in belief.

I propose an experiment that you can easily replicate. If you can explain it, I will accept anything you have to say on the matter of science as truth. Don't get your hopes too high for a shoe licking... you would be the first.

Now if academic science is so rational and developed, then it should be able to explain the electromagnetic behavior of a copper wire and two pieces of steel.

Joseph Leedskalnin built the coral castle near Miami Florida. While Joesph only had a sixth grade education, he build a permanent magnet motor and a small experiment, that to this day, cannot be explained by the classic EM model. His experiment was called the perpetual or permanent motion holder - you can Google it.

Fabricate a C-core and a couple of spools and replicate it yourself. You could probably also do it with a toroid and or relay but let's stick with the basic experiment for clarification purposes.

What you are going to find is what Leedskalnin did, that there is no indication of entropy. The device behaves similar to a permanent magnet, yet is an electromagnet. No current flows, yet if you break the connection to the coils, the electromagnet stops functioning. EM theory does not allow for electromagnet current without current flow.

How exactly does first and second law apply to that isolated and closed system? It doesn't. The entropy does not jive with the force produced in holding the bar to the U shaped magnet and that energy produced is greater than the input energy, hence second and first law violations respectively. How can something do work if it is not in motion? This is the empirical science of a sixth grader and yet nobody can explain it using classic EM theory.

If you are nice to me, replicate and try to explain it, I will teach you how to put that static perpetual motion into perpetual motion and then you will understand how the Hubbard coils works. BTW - The information was peer reviewed and quietly published on the web and it too defies classic EM and violates first and second law.

Since I don't have a degree in chemistry but have a fairly good knowledge of EM, and it is after all the work of a sixth grader, this would be a fair playing field for all.

What academic science doesn't know about the universe or even simple little things like copper and steel in an EM field, best defines what they do.

Respectfully,

Quarktoo

EDIT-
PS - I do not ascribe to Leedskalnin's theory of how or why it works.
-EDIT