quack science gets picked up by major news outlets

First of all, you're mistaken.

The reaction happens in 2 steps.

H2O + energy -> H2 + O2 (energy input)

H2 + O2 -> energy + H2O (burning)

You're contending that you need to put in more energy to the first reaction than you get out in the 2nd reaction. Duh. Basic thermodynamics.

Now then, I've made up a conversation to represent what's going on here:

 

There was once a time when the science community believed that the vacuum of space was completely empty - when in fact it is full of interesting bits of quantum minutia popping in and out of existence.



Btw ~ I'm enjoying the fact we have discovered NewYorker's nerve.

 

The guy who likes to bug everybody about everything has the law of conservation of mass-energy as his Achilles heel.

Yeah we all saw that one coming.

 

My last reply to you in this thread, just because I can't ignore it.

1) I would pick the more efficient process for massive, continuous-usage applications.

2) I would pick the more portable process for applications that need mobility (i.e. fuel cells).

3) Efficiency isn't determined by the number of steps. Theoretically, yes, it is much harder to achieve high efficiency with multiple steps, but then again your sunlight -> power process is pretty damn limited by materials science at this point.

4) If salt water burns at 3k farhenheit, that's got its applications. Not to mention salt water is cheaper than solar cells and more readily available.

5) I didn't say that this was a slam dunk. I said it had potential. You're saying it's nothing. I strongly disagree. It could be nothing, or it could be something. You have no idea, because you haven't done the research. I have no idea, because I haven't done the research. But your ironfisted "this is quack science" statement is flat out false. There was a time when heliocentrism was quack science. And then it was discovered that heliocentrism was quack science. Then it was discovered that Newtonianism was quack science.

The point is, the experiment is reproduceable, has tangible results, and hasn't been explored. It would be foolish to dismiss it out of hand.

 

NewYorker I thought you would be interested to know I have recently constructed a perpetual energy device by surrounding a cloud chamber with magnets, wet ice, and a solar powered boom box tuned to AM channel 1531 (volume turned to 11).

 

More like a perpetual awesomeness[/b] device.

 

Thank goodness time travel does not exist, otherwise New Yorker could go back in time and convice James Watt and Thomas Newcomen that the modern steam engine was like totally un-possible due to thermodywhatevers.

 

Have you considered though that this process might have other applications besides as a primary power source? You're dismissing this completely out of hand without considering what other implications using radio waves to separate water might have. To me that is calling a cat a dog but telling someone a horse isn't a dog cause it can't fetch and is useless.

 

This is both weird and fascinating to see NewYorker get whipped into a frenzy over this. I guess everybody knows how to get his goat now.
NY- why are you so emotional on this topic? Why do you want to blast anyone that dare think this discover is worth further examination?

Why did you bring up thermodynamics in the first place? I've read a few articles on this and nobody claimed it did. I believe the inventor himself has made it clear that the energy for the radio waves being used is greater than the energy from the burning hydrogen- so why are you jumping to call him a quack?

The Youtube TV clip was lame- I can see how that would give people the idea "oh, wow, seawater car engines next year!" and that would be lame. Is that what has you so angry?

Your response does not answer at all the many pertinent and important assertations from kokopuff as to why this is worth investigation.
-continuous use applications, storage, portability, saltwater is cheap and available.

ROCKET FUEL, as you put it, has a few shortcomings in these areas.

If I were as emotional about this as you are, I would now call you a "moron" several times for missing this. But I won't because I'm more curious to learn than to beat people over the head with what I presume is my superior knowledge. As you have been doing all thread long. If you've been picked on at all on this thread, it is because you have stood there foaming at the mouth with a bat in your hand from the beginning. You're coming across as belligerent and insecure, which is really odd, because this discovery has nothing to do with you personally.

The production of hydrogen fuel cells is very inefficient at present- does that mean it deserves no further research? Why haven't you been jumping up and down screaming "quack science" at hydrogen fuel cells?

And where did you come up with beginning with H2O, ending with H2O? I've read several articles on this and I haven't seen anyone claim that they would end up with H2O as the final product. They're not even beginning with water, they're beginning with salt water. And maybe it'll produce tons of chlorine gas... who knows? We should at least look further.

You mentioned earlier that they've probably just found a new way of doing electrolysis, but you say it as if it means nothing. Why? What's insignificant about that? What if they find ways to increase efficiency?

The issues of portability, safety, availability, cost, and continuous use are very real issues. Look at the efficiency of batteries at present, and the bottleneck they provide for automakers trying to create electric cars. This merits a further look.

 

This is just the latest version of perpetual motion machines. You burn water to get water, and somehow produce energy out of it. Brilliant.

It's funny that in the 21st century we still believe in perpetual motion machines.

The only thing this technique might be useful at all is to separate water into H2 and 02, but then again we already have pretty efficient ways to do that.

Anyone that compares this to the burning of gas needs to note that when you burn gas, you get water and carbon dioxide, whereas here you burn water and you get water. There's no way you burn gas and get energy and still have gas in your tank, so there is no way that you can do the same for water.

 

What if you start out with salt water and end up with fresh water and some other byproduct(s)?

 

Gorgeous! Could this be the new PWNED?

awesomeness[/b] dude!

this thread rocks, but it does not rock more than the sum of its input rocks and rockheads, and rocketheads. ... Hey, where is rocketHEAD. He was so awesome[/b]

 

Get jiggy watt it, Max!

 

Doh! You beat me by 26 minutes.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=3116759&postcount=68

 

That was pretty funny, Yao Ming Kicks Ass. NewYorker should remember a blast from the past...




Chill! And Keep D&D Civil!

(god, the blonde turns me on!!!)