Re: hydrogen for nothing

Basically, you blow ordinary hydrogen through an electric arc. To make a working torch requires a bit of engineering.

I'm sure you can find the details with a Google search.

This is not oxy-hydrogen welding, which is a bit more common and mostly used underwater because you can't get the required pressures with acetylene.

And before any nimrod even suggests it, no, it does not generate energy, it changes electrical energy into extremely high temperatures.

Well, Graham, atomic hydrogen may not be quite as drivelous as you seem to think. For example, at:

jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/article/langmuir_nm.pdf

you'll find a detailed description of Langmuir's work, and a practical application at:

There are a number of hits if you google for "atomic hydrogen torch", including the one cited several posts ago to du.edu.

What were your reasons for calling it "drivel"? Did you even read the link?

Bill Ward

Did you ever read the title of the thread ?

Graham

It is possible to separate the hydrogen at "to low" energy costs.

Stanley Meyer * U.S. Patent 5,149,407 : Process and apparatus for the production of fuel gas and the enhanced release of thermal energy from such gas * U.S. Patent 4,936,961 : Method for the production of a fuel gas * U.S. Patent 4,826,581 : Controlled process for the production of thermal energy from gases and apparatus useful therefore * U.S. Patent 4,798,661 : Gas generator voltage control circuit * U.S. Patent 4,613,779 : Electrical pulse generator * U.S. Patent 4,613,304 : Gas electrical hydrogen generator * U.S. Patent 4,465,455 : Start-up/shut-down for a hydrogen gas burner * U.S. Patent 4,421,474 : Hydrogen gas burner * U.S. Patent 4,389,981 : Hydrogen gas injector system for internal combustion engine

besides from a long list of potentially imaginary witnesses the US patents on various parts of the WFC system were granted under Section

101 by the US Patent Office, thus the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established.

Almost a note: Hydrogen engines are (about) two and one half times as powerful as gasoline. The byproduct of the combustion is water vapor. So we can also keep humans in the same enviro-thingy.

also interesting:

dennis klein

and: I'm sure most will think their 10 sec. guess is much more accurate as real research. Maybe I'm just rambling and the patent office has gone all loopsy. Should we shake sticks at em? what do you think? For now I think I we can ask anyone why they are not using it?

Could that be because it's forbidden to talk about it?

Your comment will tell.......

Sooo...where does this hydrogen come from?

Yes. Are you going to dodge my question? Overclipping doesn't fool anyone, you know.

Now, _that's_ drivel. Stan was a fraud, the patent office doesn't require demo models, H2 - air engine conversions _lose_ max power, due to the low density of H2, and TANSTAAFL. Get a grip.

Bill Ward

Bwahahahahahahaha !

Meyer was a crook.

Furthermore the existence of a patent doesn't mean the idea works.

Graham

Hydrogen mines and wells of course !

Graham

In sci.physics, Eeyore

wrote on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 16:50:23 +0000 :

There's a notion: a fusion mine. I'd not want to get anywhere near one of those. Step on it and everything within about 10 km goes ka-poof.

The good news: at ground zero, the stepper won't feel a thing. The bad news: he won't feel anything afterward, either.

:-)

Dear Eeyore:

"Eeyore" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com...

The Sun of course. But we can only visit at night...

David A. Smith

[...]

I guess my opinion counts, then, since I wear civvies.

[...]

Well, I could tell you more about it, but then the black helicopters would leave their posts watching my house and strafe yours. You should be grateful I'm protecting you.

What we really need is an anti-matter mine! Actually, just a couple of shovels full of anti-matter would take care of our energy needs for centuries.

All we need now is a shovel made out of anti-matter... ;-)

Dear David Bostwick:

"David Bostwick" wrote in message news:esh9ig$r67$ snipped-for-privacy@news-int2.gatech.edu...

Thanks, David.

Is it true they use Dark Fuel?

David A. Smith

Can't tell you.

In sci.physics, Paul O

wrote >> In sci.physics, Eeyore

Uh...I'm not sure I'd want one of those on the *moon*, never mind around here! :-) But lessee.

1 kg matter + 1 kg antimatter = about 1.8 * 10^17 J, or 43 million metric tonnes of TNT. Fortunately, that's not quite enough to shove the moon out of orbit (the moon's mass is 7.35 * 10^22 kg) and it's quite clear that even if one used a metric tonne of antimatter the moon wouldn't go traipsing out into deep space to meet various interesting aliens, though it might throw off eclipse calculations a bit.

So how big was Space: 1999's nuclear dump again? :-)

and an anti-matter slave to shivel it ...