[Vwdiesel] negative aspects of burning water

[Ron Schroeder]

Hi Rolf,

The frequency and intensity really doesn't matter as long as it is all 
coupled and absorbed by the salt water.  If the RF was produced with 100% 
efficiency and all of the RF was absorbed by the salt water, then the 
absolute maximum energy that you could get out of the hydrogen and oxygen 
released would be EXACTLY the same as what you put in.  There is no "secret" 
frequency that will break the bond between atoms with less energy than what 
is released when they recombine.

The energy to break a chemical bond is ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME as the energy 
released when it recombines.

If you look into other electrolysers or even "Browns Gas" generators you 
will see that they all use quite a bit more energy than they produce.  The 
"Brown Gas" welder uses more electricity than a typical MIG or stick welder 
for example.

If you use this method or other electrolyser methods to make fuel for a car, 
you will use more electricity per mile than if you just used conventional 
battery technology.

At least an electric car uses less fossil fuel per mile than a fossil fueled 
internal combustion vehicle (even if we produced all of our electricity from 
fossil fuels) because our large scale electric generation and transmission 
system is more efficient than our cars.

Remember, only Lawyers and Salesmen can violate Laws of Physics  ;-)

Ron Schroeder
Brookhaven National Lab





> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:27:12 -0400
> From: Rolf Pechukas <rbp at 4u2bu.org>
> Subject: Re: [Vwdiesel] Burning water?
> To: vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> Message-ID: <CBF61EBE-AC53-492E-BD8F-FF0FB06A215A at 4u2bu.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> the main question is, what frequency and intensity do the radio waves
> have to be?
> that determines how much energy it takes to 'weaken' the H2<>O bonds,
> and whether this process could generate net energy
> radio waves are actually a lower form of electromagnetic energy than
> infra-red (heat) and visible (light) and UV, which are what's
> released when something burns
> so it does seem possible to me that this process might produce more
> energy than it consumes
> there may be no free lunch, but there are plenty of lunches worth
> paying for - petroleum being one, vegetable oil another, nuclear,
> coal, etc
> if we didn't get more energy out of digging up a bunch of oil than it
> took to do the digging, then there would be no petroleum industry
> the 'free lunch' is in the inherent energy content of the fuel
> water is made, of course, of hydrogen and oxygen, both of which will
> happily burn
> so theoretically there's a lot of inherent energy there
> but, of course, they're strongly bonded to each other
> it doesn't seem inconceivably to me, thought, that there might be a
> way to 'unlock' these bonds using less energy than is liberated in
> the elemental gasses
> that's exactly the kind of thing that Mother Nature does allow, if
> you are lucky enough to find the key
> time will tell if these guys have found it
> -- 
>
> Rolf in MA