On Jun 25, 11:04 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
> large amount of chemically stored energy"
> This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that
released in
> air via broken valence bonds.
> I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
> outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.
>
> Comments?
> Vince
I certainly don't want to chime in with the usual "debunkers" and
start suggesting that you go read freshman texts on "conservation of
energy", but some of that has a certain relevance here.
It's really all about coming to a detailed understanding of what is
going on. The first point is that we all know that a "pulsed arc" can
liberate chemical energy. Example: a spark sets off an explosion! But
the KEY item is that the chemical energy already has to be STORED and
ready for release. The speculation in the above abstract has to do
with hydrogen bonds as a form of "stored energy". I'm not sure if that
is true, but splitting water into hydrogen and Oxygen is not. It TAKES
energy to do that. You don't RELEASE it!
I for one, am not going to join with the "debunkers" in crowing that
the mythical free-energy "water splitter box" is impossible to build.
Clearly a water-splitter box that takes energy CAN be built. It's
called electrolysis. The still unanswered question is has anyone
demonstrated a splitter box that takes less energy than you get back
from the burning of hydrogen and oxygen. No credible demonstrations
yet as far as I know.
But all that aside, let us also note that even if you could split
water with an energy requirement on a par with the energy developed,
that doesn't make the idea all bull. There would be distinct
advantages to running vehicles on fuel that produces zero pollution.
And there would be further advantages if the water-splitter process
could be made to run on energy sources in less short supply than oil
is going to be now and more im****tantly in the future. Even if the
water splitter ran on coal it could buy mankind maybe a couple of
hundred years of breathing space if the coal pollution problems could
be solved.
One simply needs to think clearly about these things. Note that if the
water-splitter operates on an electric arc, then it is essentially
running on coal (electric power plants). It doesn't have to produce
"free energy" to be useful!
|
