lasing water

pullbangdead said:

[quote author=PyroEric link=1218511135/20#23 date=1224187486]As long as there is a net loss of mass from energy output there wouldnt be a violation of any existing physical laws. Hydrogen in the sun goes from hydrogen to helium and then back to hydrogen again many times in a cycle before being fused into heavier elements, if it didnt the sun would use up all its fuel in a fraction of the normal time.

There may be a way to split compounds with very little energy compared to the energy of reacting them chemically, perhaps causing them to make up the balance with their mass from some yet to be understood mass energy conversion.

Particles are constantly popping in and out of existence in numbers too large to comprehend.

Energy can not be created or destroyed, but these particles popping in and out of existence have mass and energy, and seemingly are created and then destroyed, perhaps their energy could be harnessed.

If people never kept an open mind and dared to think differently or take a different approach than what mainstream science tells them they should think like, there would be very few advancements.

Most of the great minds throughout history were regarded as nuts, heretics, or were told that what they were trying to do couldnt possibly work. In science its important to keep an open mind and not just repeat the standard rhetoric, though I agree that in most cases such a reaction would probably be impossible with mundane means.

Click to expand...

The highlighted part is really quite wrong.  If you have a source for that, that'd be great, but everything I've ever seen (I checked Wikipedia too, just to be sure), says the sun will last billions of years on it's supply of hydrogen, because it's actually a VERY slow fusion reactor.  From Wikipedia (always the quickest thing to get numbers from), 3.4(10)^38 hydrogen atoms fused per second, 8.9(10)^56 hydrogen atoms in the sun.  That's 2.6(10)^18 seconds, or, about 83billion years.  (The sun is only thought to live about 10billion years though, so I can only assume that it's because only about 10% of the hydrogen in the sun will be fused before there's not enough in the core anymore).  So no, it doesn't need recycled protons.

And really what does that have to do with breaking water and reforming it?  All you're doing is breaking a chemical bond and reforming it.  That chemical bond has the same energy before it was broken as it does after it was reformed.  Yeah, I get the whole think outside the box thing, got all that, but where is the extra energy coming from?  You input energy to break the bond, and the chemical reaction releases the energy that you put in when it goes back to a lower energy state.  If it was 100% efficient, which it will never be, that would be one thing.  But you're talking about getting MORE energy back out than you put in.  Where does that come from?

You're not getting a loss of mass, either.  I guarantee, if you measure the mass of the water before and after breaking the bonds and reforming them, the mass will be the same.  And no EXTRA energy will have come out, only the energy that you put in by breaking the bonds.

But there is no "way to efficiently break the bonds" and "inefficiently put them back together".  Bonds have a set energy, when you break one, that amount of energy is absorbed and given to the system as energy and/or entropy.  When you form a bond, entropy decreases and the bond absorbs energy.  With the chemical reactions, bonds are formed and broken, and the energy changes forms, with entropy coming into play as well.  When you get down to the crux of it, there's no matter of efficiency with it, because fundamentals control it.

Particles do come in and out of existence, but a fundamental change happens in the universe when that happens.  Entropy and energy.  Entropy increases, and energy is conserved.  Interchanging mass/energy don't change that equation.  

I get the whole outside the box thing, and Galileo was persecuted for his beliefs and all that.  I get it.  But you have to understand what's in the box before you can think outside of it, and this whole trend of ideas doesn't tell me that that's the case.[/quote]


Well in that case you better think outside of the box that your box is inside of.

If the sun wasnt going through the fusion cycle and recycling hydrogen, dont you think the 10 billion year life span would be less? As you said you assume that only about 10% of the hydrogen is being fused.

It stands to reason that if only a certain percent of the suns mass will be fused, that it would last longer if the hydrogen is recycled rather than used once, right? So because you decided that the sun only uses 10% of its mass to carry out fusion, that it doesnt need recycling, and that it couldnt possibly be fusing a smaller portion like say 3-5% with recycling to achieve the same lifespan.

The size of the sun makes it tricky for them to project the lifespan, so they just go with the 10 billion or so year estimate. If it turns into a white dwarf it will be around much longer than if it goes supernova and vaporizes the solar system. Estimates and projections are just that.

Fusion of hydrogen results in around a 3% reduction in mass from energy release. Go ahead and try to measure the change in mass from chemically reacting hydrogen to release a tiny fraction of the energy that would be released from fusing it. And yes if you kept burning the hydrogen and splitting the water with electrolysis there would be no mass change, but that is not what I am getting at.

You can not say definitively that there is no way to break a chemical bond using less energy than would be released by reforming the compound. I am not saying people on youtube can do it with their PVC pipe machines.... Where would the energy come from is as good of a question as where the universe came from.

The ancient Greeks thought they were right about their views on the universe, then the world used to be flat and the center of the universe for quite a long time, and its been mathematically proven that bumble bees cant fly. Dont tell the bees that, and dont tell the universe that it violated the law saying that energy can not be created or destroyed.

If an entire universe just popped into existence, what says we cant spontaneously generate some energy?

No one really knows anything, they might think they know, but they dont, and probably never will. We dont even know how big the universe is, let alone what it is, or why it is.

There is a difference between thinking you 'get it', and realizing that you cant truly 'get' anything.



As for the topic of lasing water, I do believe it would be possible to make a laser using water and Cerenkov radiation, I cant wait until they make plutonium reactor cells for lasers.

You could probably also get a light emission from a 'doped' water based solution and pulsed microwave bursts. Maybe micro cavitation of steam bubbles would produce a space for a powerful magnetron to create little plasma bubbles that would produce light, letting it run at relatively low temperatures with very high internal pressure for a high energy density laser.

PullbANG,
Did U read the stuff that Hal Putoff discovered? Also, see "Rotoveter 460vac 3 phase electric motor" efficientcy it's like COP 3 run on lower 1PH 120vac and CAPS to 3rd wire. I'm doing it now.
You can find lots of inventions that defy that 2nd law limit.

Glad U realize that wasted power in transmission. We are just paying for electric pumping service and the power goes back to the source.

The minuteman missles went crazy. They found it's switching power supply was over 100% efficient, (resonant transformer/transistor module). They added snubbers to calm it down.

I've been researching this OU stuff for three years and plan on posting some simple circuit to proof my statements are true.

Tesla was the father of dark energy transmission to observable power.
He made 30 foot sparks with a 15KW generator! COP way up there!

Cheers [smiley=beer.gif]

Laserrod said:

PullbANG,
Did U read the stuff that Hal Putoff discovered? Also, see "Rotoveter 460vac 3 phase electric motor"  efficientcy it's like COP 3 run on lower 1PH 120vac and CAPS to 3rd wire. I'm doing it now.
You can find  lots of inventions that defy that 2nd law limit.

Glad U realize that wasted power in transmission. We are just paying for electric pumping service and the power goes back to the source.

The minuteman missles went crazy.  They found it's switching power supply was over 100% efficient, (resonant transformer/transistor module). They added snubbers to calm it down.

I've been researching this OU stuff for three years and plan on posting some simple circuit to proof my statements are true.

Tesla was the father of dark energy transmission to observable power.
He made 30 foot sparks with a 15KW generator! COP way up there!

Cheers [smiley=beer.gif]

Click to expand...

I don´t know too much about electronics, but I am in the process of learning... However, how the hell should a switching power supply ever be able to be more than 100% efficient??? That would mean that you get more power from it than you put in? Isn´t that like, impossible?

ArRaY

^I can answer that ArRay, it's because it's NOT more than 100% efficient!  COP is NOT the same thing as efficiency.  Gain is not the same thing as excess efficiency.  Moving energy is not the same thing as transforming it.  So you're right, it would be a perpetual energy machine, and therefore it doesn't exist.  Thank you for understanding what you have learned and observed.

PyroEric said:

Well in that case you better think outside of the box that your box is inside of.

If the sun wasnt going through the fusion cycle and recycling hydrogen, dont you think the 10 billion year life span would be less? As you said you assume that only about 10% of the hydrogen is being fused.  No.  You either didn't read what I wrote, or didn't understand the math.  There is enough hydrogen to last way MORE than 10 billion, and it only needs 10% of what it has to get to the predictied lifespan.  There is way more hydrogen than it needs, it doesn't need recycling to get to 10 billion years of fusion

It stands to reason that if only a certain percent of the suns mass will be fused, that it would last longer if the hydrogen is recycled rather than used once, right? So because you decided that the sun only uses 10% of its mass to carry out fusion, that it doesnt need recycling, and that it couldnt possibly be fusing a smaller portion like say 3-5% with recycling to achieve the same lifespan.  Sure, it absolutely does stand to reason that it would last long if it was being recycled.  But it's not being recycled, and it doesn't need recycling to last as long as it's going to.  What physics says that helium is splitting and protons are being recycled?  I could make up any nonsense, and say "well it could be", but it doesn't prove anything and it doesn't fit any of the gathered data.  Helium is stable, it doesn't decay, it doesn't undergo fission, where are you getting this bologna?  And no, I didn't decide that it can't be recycling because it only uses 10%, I decided it doesn't recycle because thousands of scientists have never mentioned such a thing, it doesn't make sense in a thermodynamic or a particle physics sense, and really I was just pointing out how wrong your initial assertion was.

The size of the sun makes it tricky for them to project the lifespan, so they just go with the 10 billion or so year estimate.  If it turns into a white dwarf it will be around much longer than if it goes supernova and vaporizes the solar system. Estimates and projections are just that.  Do you read anything in the science press, or even just Wikipedia or the articles it links?  Because there is a lot of good evidence for the projected lifespan.  And yes, it is just a guess and we'll never live to see it happen, but you really think scientists sit around and pull numbers out of thin air?  That's the job of internet psuedo-scientists, they have that WELL under control without any help from real scientists.

Fusion of hydrogen results in around a 3% reduction in mass from energy release. Go ahead and try to measure the change in mass from chemically reacting hydrogen to release a tiny fraction of the energy that would be released from fusing it. And yes if you kept burning the hydrogen and splitting the water with electrolysis there would be no mass change, but that is not what I am getting at. Then what are you getting at?  Yes, we can measure tiny changes in mass.  Changing water back and forht will not result in a change in mass.  Fusion and fission do result in changes in mass, and we can measure those things.  That's not hard, and it's been proven over and over again, E = mc[sup]2[/sup].

You can not say definitively that there is no way to break a chemical bond using less energy than would be released by reforming the compound. I am not saying people on youtube can do it with their PVC pipe machines....  Where would the energy come from is as good of a question as where the universe came from.  And you cannot definitively say that the next time I drop something, it won't go straight up to the ceiling in a strange reversal of gravity.  You're right, there MAY somewhere, somehow be an undiscovered form of physics that every reputable physicist on earth, ever, has just missed.  We certainly can't discount the chance that everything we know about an entire branch of physics is just completely wrong (because that is basically what you're saying).  There is always that tiny chance.  But really, for what you're saying to be true, we literally have to throw out almost every physics textbook ever written.  Literally.  Ever.  You really want to say "it could be true" and use that as a justification to overrule everything that mankind has learned about physics in the last 200 years?  If that's the case, there's no use arguing with you, I'd have a better chance of changing the mind of my desk.  "It might exist" is not a justification for overruling every bit of knowledge about thermodynamics that is known, and is HORRIBLE science.  In fact, it's NOT science.  Sure, you can never completely prove anything, in an overall philosophical sense.  But you've broken free from science and have landed in blind faith with statements like that.

The ancient Greeks thought they were right about their views on the universe, then the world used to be flat and the center of the universe for quite a long time, and its been mathematically proven that bumble bees cant fly. Dont tell the bees that, and dont tell the universe that it violated the law saying that energy can not be created or destroyed.  The bumblebee part isn't worth answering.  Google is your friend regarding the bumblebee hogwash, the first hit for "bumblebees can't fly" is a straight dope article.  And yes, science is often wrong and is corrected when better evidence becomes available.  But notice that "evidence" thing.  Greeks went on the best evidence they and, and came to the best conclusions they could.  Better evidence became available, and new tools such as math/calculus, and physics evolved.  Everything in science is based on EVIDENCE.  Every piece of evidence about it every recorded confirms the conservation of energy.  And if you're talking about the big bang when saying the universe violated conservation of energy, then you clearly don't understand the theory of the big bang, and it's not worth my time to explain it to you.  Again, Google is your friend, try "big bang conservation of energy".

If an entire universe just popped into existence, what says we cant spontaneously generate some energy?See last sentence above.

No one really knows anything, they might think they know, but they dont, and probably never will. We dont even know how big the universe is, let alone what it is, or why it is. This statement is pure philosophy not science.  You want a philosophy discussion, Off Topic would be a better section for that, IMHO.  Science is based on observations, you have zero observations, ever, to prove your point.

There is a difference between thinking you 'get it', and realizing that you cant truly 'get' anything.



As for the topic of lasing water, I do believe it would be possible to make a laser using water and Cerenkov radiation, I cant wait until they make plutonium reactor cells for lasers.

You could probably also get a light emission from a 'doped' water based solution and pulsed microwave bursts.  Maybe micro cavitation of steam bubbles would produce a space for a powerful magnetron to create little plasma bubbles that would produce light, letting it run at relatively low temperatures with very high internal pressure for a high energy density laser.

Click to expand...

Laserrod said:

PullbANG,
Did U read the stuff that Hal Putoff discovered? Also, see "Rotoveter 460vac 3 phase electric motor"  efficientcy it's like COP 3 run on lower 1PH 120vac and CAPS to 3rd wire. I'm doing it now.
You can find  lots of inventions that defy that 2nd law limit.No.  You can't.  There is not a machine on earth, or anywhere else for that matter, ever, that violates the laws of thermodynamics.  If such a machine exists, I will eat my socks and then cry for joy, because the energy needs of the entire world are solved.  Oil-dependent governments will crash tomorrow, I assume there will be no pollution so the environment is saved, and we'll all live happily ever after.  Too bad that it doesn't exist.  And in case you missed it, it doesn't exist.  Show me one.  Just one.  Please, I beg you.

Glad U realize that wasted power in transmission. We are just paying for electric pumping service and the power goes back to the source.Huh?  I don't get what you're trying to say.

The minuteman missles went crazy.  They found it's switching power supply was over 100% efficient, (resonant transformer/transistor module). They added snubbers to calm it down.

I've been researching this OU stuff for three years and plan on posting some simple circuit to proof my statements are true.

Tesla was the father of dark energy transmission to observable power.
He made 30 foot sparks with a 15KW generator! COP way up there!

Cheers [smiley=beer.gif]
Let me clear up one big misconception here.  COP is NOT the same thing as efficiency.  There's a reason they don't call it efficiency, and even Wikipedia gives an explanation of why it's not called efficiency (so you have no excuse for not at least reading that, Wikipedia is not a good source for in depth knowledge, but you have no excuse to be ignorant of anything it says since it's so easily accessed).  So again, COP != efficiency.  Everyone clear?  Since no machine has ever violated the laws of thermodynamics, we can see why this distinction is important, and why COP over 100% is not the same thing as efficiency over 100%.

Click to expand...

LOL. Google may be your friend but maybe you should make friends with some college text books instead, they tend to be a lot more reliable overall.

Google proton proton fusion cycle, since you are into that kind of thing. Also while you are at it google the carbon fusion cycle for what happens in really big stars. Its not some wacky idea I came up with to trick you, honestly.



The highlighted part is really quite wrong.  If you have a source for that, that'd be great, but everything I've ever seen (I checked Wikipedia too, just to be sure), says the sun will last billions of years on it's supply of hydrogen, because it's actually a VERY slow fusion reactor.  From Wikipedia (always the quickest thing to get numbers from), 3.4(10)^38 hydrogen atoms fused per second, 8.9(10)^56 hydrogen atoms in the sun.  That's 2.6(10)^18 seconds, or, about 83billion years.  (The sun is only thought to live about 10billion years though, so I can only assume that it's because only about 10% of the hydrogen in the sun will be fused before there's not enough in the core anymore).  So no, it doesn't need recycled protons.

I read what you wrote, I understand how you derived your math, but that does not make it "correct".

You assume that since the sun has enough hydrogen, by your math, to last 83 billion years, and that they say it will only last 10, that it must only be fusing a percentage of its mass before it dies, and that its fusing one time the exact percentage of its hydrogen needed to achieve that lifespan, not a different smaller percentage using the commonly accepted nuclear fusion cycle also experimentally validated here on earth in fusion reactors.

I am afraid that you entirely missed my point. For simplicity we assume what we have observed to be true everywhere and make 'laws' to make explaining things simple, but the smartest people on the planet cant even say things are certain. The truly intelligent scientists understand this. There is a difference between repeating words and understanding them.

The smartest most learned people on the planet can not say things for certain, so please understand that you look like a fool when you definitively proclaim things to be right or wrong when your knowledge of the situation is limited to magazines and wikipedia.

Knowledge is useless without understanding.

Bigger atoms like carbon do decay, in bigger stars and other places, absolutely. Carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen have unstable isotopes, absolutely, I'll give you those. But show me where helium decays back into hydrogen, I've yet to find it. Or show me where helium fission happens in the sun, I've yet to find it either.

And your initial assertion was the the sun would run out of hydrogen much faster than usual without recycling. But please, show me where that is the case. You said it would run out sooner, so I said "no, it won't run out sooner, it'll never use all it has." In fact, it has enough hydrogen, if all that hydrogen was available for fusion in the core, to fuse hydrogen into helium for a longer time than the postulated age of the universe. Your assertion that it needs recycling, or else it'll run out, is wrong. And you didn't point to any evidence that helium decaying into hydrogen is commonplace. You pointed out the proton fusion cycle, which goes in one direction as far as I know, and the carbon cycle, which has little to do with our sun anytime in the foreseeable future (unless some more new physics gets invented).

And trust me, I'm well aware that google is not a good source technical information. But if something you say can be proven wrong by a google search, what does that say about your sources of information. I can go into Web of Science and look for journal articles and give you all the info you want on that stuff, but why do that when the knowledge is more easily available elsewhere? There are different sources for different needs. If I need the best, journals and articles are there. But I can prove points wrong quite easily with google as well. And if you're getting your arguments from college textbooks, I'd REALLY like to know which ones. Please list them, I'd like to read about this helium decay/fission idea, and I'd like to find an aeronautical engineering or aerodynamics book that tells you bee's can't fly as well. Seriously, if you have textbooks telling you these things, what textbooks are they?

And to your last few paragraphs: Yes, I know absolutely that things are uncertain. But you seem to have missed my entire point as well. Your "free energy, maybe there's a way to more efficiently break bonds" is completely lacking evidence of any kind. Of course nothing is certain, and we can only try to explain things that we observe. Then we build theories on these observations, and test for other predicted results of those theories. What you seem to advocate instead, is saying "Well this would be nice, because it would make things really easy, so hopefully it's true. And you can't disprove it, because we can't know everything! So it MUST be possible!". Get me one example, one experimental result, of anything that disproves thermodynamics and the conservation of energy, and then you can discuss how all this free energy will work. Until you have a single shred of evidence to base it on, it's not science.

pullbangdead said:

Bigger atoms like carbon do decay, in bigger stars and other places, absolutely.  Carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen have unstable isotopes, absolutely, I'll give you those.  But show me where helium decays back into hydrogen, I've yet to find it.  Or show me where helium fission happens in the sun, I've yet to find it either.

And your initial assertion was the the sun would run out of hydrogen much faster than usual without recycling.  But please, show me where that is the case.  You said it would run out sooner, so I said "no, it won't run out sooner, it'll never use all it has."  In fact, it has enough hydrogen, if all that hydrogen was available for fusion in the core, to fuse hydrogen into helium for a longer time than the postulated age of the universe.  Your assertion that it needs recycling, or else it'll run out, is wrong.  And you didn't point to any evidence that helium decaying into hydrogen is commonplace.  You pointed out the proton fusion cycle, which goes in one direction as far as I know, and the carbon cycle, which has little to do with our sun anytime in the foreseeable future (unless some more new physics gets invented).

And trust me, I'm well aware that google is not a good source technical information.  But if something you say can be proven wrong by a google search, what does that say about your sources of information.  I can go into Web of Science and look for journal articles and give you all the info you want on that stuff, but why do that when the knowledge is more easily available elsewhere?  There are different sources for different needs.  If I need the best, journals and articles are there.  But I can prove points wrong quite easily with google as well.  And if you're getting your arguments from college textbooks, I'd REALLY like to know which ones.  Please list them, I'd like to read about this helium decay/fission idea, and I'd like to find an aeronautical engineering or aerodynamics book that tells you bee's can't fly as well.  Seriously, if you have textbooks telling you these things, what textbooks are they?

And to your last few paragraphs: Yes, I know absolutely that things are uncertain.  But you seem to have missed my entire point as well.  Your "free energy, maybe there's a way to more efficiently break bonds" is completely lacking evidence of any kind.  Of course nothing is certain, and we can only try to explain things that we observe.  Then we build theories on these observations, and test for other predicted results of those theories.  What you seem to advocate instead, is saying "Well this would be nice, because it would make things really easy, so hopefully it's true.  And you can't disprove it, because we can't know everything!  So it MUST be possible!".  Get me one example, one experimental result, of anything that disproves thermodynamics and the conservation of energy, and then you can discuss how all this free energy will work.  Until you have a single shred of evidence to base it on, it's not science.

Click to expand...

Are you really this dense or are you being deliberate? Read about the proton proton fusion cycle, again.

Helium isnt decaying into hydrogen by fission, its called nuclear physics.

Hydrogen fuses into deuterium and a neutron, deuterium and another hydrogen fuse into a light helium, then two light helium fuse into a heavy helium and two hydrogen, which then go through the cycle over again.

Here is a page from your precious wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain_reaction

And I quote:

"The proton-proton chain reaction is one of several fusion reactions by which stars convert hydrogen to helium, the primary alternative being the CNO cycle. The proton-proton chain dominates in stars the size of the Sun or smaller.

Overcoming electrostatic repulsion between two hydrogen nuclei requires a large amount of energy, and this reaction takes an average of 109 years to complete at the temperature of the Sun's core. Because of the slowness of this reaction the Sun is still shining; if it were faster, the Sun would have exhausted its hydrogen long ago."


Dont worry if material science doesnt work out theres always economics, or burgerking.

Hyperphysics has another good explanation with clear easy to follow pictures for each step.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/procyc.html

Sorry if I seem belligerent (I'm sure can understand my frustration with trying to argue over "free energy" on a SCIENCE forum, it does get me sometimes), but for how I read what you wrote previously, that's not "recycling" of hydrogen.  You go from all hydogen to 2 hydrogen and a heavy helium.  Forgive me for not understanding your semantics, but the overall reaction is from hydrogen to heavy helium.  In the beginning, it's all hydrogen.  In the end, it's still some hydrogen, with the new heavy helium.  Once it's heavy helium, it is no longer hydrogen, and it doesn't go back to hydrogen.  I'm not dense, and I can read what you wrote and I can read what I wrote.  Here's your original quote:

Hydrogen in the sun goes from hydrogen to helium and then back to hydrogen again many times in a cycle before being fused into heavier elements, if it didnt the sun would use up all its fuel in a fraction of the normal time.  

Now, you said hydrogen to helium, and back again, many times before being fused into heavier elements.  Maybe you're just sloppy with your wording, because that's not what you're finally agreeing really happens.  The overall cycle begins with a bunch of hydrogen, and ends with some hydrogen and a heavy helium.  Heavy helium does not go back to hydrogen.  The 2 light helium fusing into a heavy helium and 2 hydrogen is still a release of energy, going to a lower energy state, and it's not "helium being recycled back into hydrogen".  What you wrote is that it goes "back to hydrogen again", which it does not.  My original point stands, and your sloppy wording does nothing except make us both look dumb for reading different things from the same words.

You also wrote it would run out if not for this recycling, but it won't.  The hydrogen at the end was hydrogen when the process started.  They were spectators, not products of the cycle.  They do go through the cycle, but the product of the cycle is a heavy helium.  Once it reaches that product, that's what it stays as.  That's where the energy comes from, from hydrogen and neutrons to a heavy helium.  No net energy was released by those 2 hydrogens that are still hydrogens both before and after the reaction, the energy released is the difference between the mass of the heavy helium and the products that actually formed the heavy helium.

Semantics.  That's all it was.  I admit there is hydrogen left over after the reaction after riding through the cycle, making it end up as a spectator.  But that left-over hydrogen has no bearing on the energy produced by the reaction, except that the reaction proceeded with the hydrogen riding along in the intermediary steps. But hey, if you want to call it "recycling", fine, go ahead. I now know what you mean, and I'll be able to read what you mean from it and evaluate it correctly from your point of view.


Oh, and it's still not "free energy".  But good job finding that one point you could attack instead of the whole idea of everything I've been writing, which is that "free energy" is a myth until someone can prove it and build a science around it, or disprove everything done in physics in the last 200 years.  And especially nice job attacking me personally with the last quip, it really highlights your superior intellect and greater understanding of both physics and the world at large.  I'm in awe.

PBD is right, everyone arguing with him needs to read more.

Case closed

Free Energy is my dumb way of ...
= human observation of excess power over work put in.

I want to do a experement : electrolosys of weak h2so4 & water using lead amalgum electrodes to get monotomic H (not diatomic H2)

or sending H2 through a carbon arc and then burning the H. This should create more heat than textbooks will read!

Let's start assuming and test out this stuff and see the oilcompanys reaction!

Stop the pissing match guys, we can't observe sunworks.

Whatever heats, cools, lights or propels me I'll thank... and won't worry about why. ;D

How can there be a finish when there is no start? Nothing is impossible.

PBS: on now NOVA "Parallel Universe", Watch it!



Back on topic.
A water laser doped with mater might yeald a suprise.

pullbangdead said:

Sorry if I seem belligerent (I'm sure can understand my frustration with trying to argue over "free energy" on a SCIENCE forum, it does get me sometimes), but for how I read what you wrote previously, that's not "recycling" of hydrogen.  You go from all hydogen to 2 hydrogen and a heavy helium.  Forgive me for not understanding your semantics, but the overall reaction is from hydrogen to heavy helium.  In the beginning, it's all hydrogen.  In the end, it's still some hydrogen, with the new heavy helium.  Once it's heavy helium, it is no longer hydrogen, and it doesn't go back to hydrogen.  I'm not dense, and I can read what you wrote and I can read what I wrote.  Here's your original quote:

Hydrogen in the sun goes from hydrogen to helium and then back to hydrogen again many times in a cycle before being fused into heavier elements, if it didnt the sun would use up all its fuel in a fraction of the normal time.  

Now, you said hydrogen to helium, and back again, many times before being fused into heavier elements.  Maybe you're just sloppy with your wording, because that's not what you're finally agreeing really happens.  The overall cycle begins with a bunch of hydrogen, and ends with some hydrogen and a heavy helium.  Heavy helium does not go back to hydrogen.  The 2 light helium fusing into a heavy helium and 2 hydrogen is still a release of energy, going to a lower energy state, and it's not "helium being recycled back into hydrogen".  What you wrote is that it goes "back to hydrogen again", which it does not.  My original point stands, and your sloppy wording does nothing except make us both look dumb for reading different things from the same words.

You also wrote it would run out if not for this recycling, but it won't.  The hydrogen at the end was hydrogen when the process started.  They were spectators, not products of the cycle.  They do go through the cycle, but the product of the cycle is a heavy helium.  Once it reaches that product, that's what it stays as.  That's where the energy comes from, from hydrogen and neutrons to a heavy helium.  No net energy was released by those 2 hydrogens that are still hydrogens both before and after the reaction, the energy released is the difference between the mass of the heavy helium and the products that actually formed the heavy helium.

Semantics.  That's all it was.  I admit there is hydrogen left over after the reaction after riding through the cycle, making it end up as a spectator.  But that left-over hydrogen has no bearing on the energy produced by the reaction, except that the reaction proceeded with the hydrogen riding along in the intermediary steps.  But hey, if you want to call it "recycling", fine, go ahead.  I now know what you mean, and I'll be able to read what you mean from it and evaluate it correctly from your point of view.


Oh, and it's still not "free energy".  But good job finding that one point you could attack instead of the whole idea of everything I've been writing, which is that "free energy" is a myth until someone can prove it and build a science around it, or disprove everything done in physics in the last 200 years.  And especially nice job attacking me personally with the last quip, it really highlights your superior intellect and greater understanding of both physics and the world at large.  I'm in awe.

Click to expand...

What can I say, I love a good argument.

My wording may have been a bit sloppy in not explaining the full extent of the reaction in a quick forum post, but the result is the same, the cycle starts with hydrogen, and ends with helium and hydrogen, and the resulting goes through the cycle again.

You bullshit as you go along, you ask to be corrected, and then once you are, you quick do some reading from the sources that you asked for, and act like you knew it all along.

Somehow I knew that if I baited you with a partial description, and sent a link with a very easy to follow (and incomplete) picture explanation you would go for that one, you should have read the wikipedia version. The helium does not stay helium, it undergoes further steps.

How can you claim to know what the proton proton fusion cycle is, when you thought that my 'sloppy' statement was unbelievable and that you thought I must have been talking about helium undergoing fission.

Also you seem to be hung up on the whole lifespan of the sun thing. You keep saying the sun has enough hydrogen to last for 80 billion years, but will only last for 10. You say that it must only use a fraction of this hydrogen to support fusion.

Then you try to say that I am wrong, that the hydrogen can just go right to helium and stay there, because it has enough to last 80 billion years, ignoring the fact that you already said it only uses a fraction of its hydrogen.

Im at a loss as to what you might call this portion of the hydrogen that is used to support fusion in the sun, such a tricky concept... What could we call the portion of something that is used to produce energy... I got nothing, my brain has run out of fuel.

Go google a retort, I look forward attacking your 'points'.

P.S.

Also work on your reading comprehension, its pretty funny how you got 'free energy' from me saying its not a violation of any laws if there is a net loss in mass, with repect to the proton proton fusion cycle. Try not to piece together things out of context.

PyroEric said:

[quote author=pullbangdead link=1218511135/40#40 date=1224631856]Sorry if I seem belligerent (I'm sure can understand my frustration with trying to argue over "free energy" on a SCIENCE forum, it does get me sometimes), but for how I read what you wrote previously, that's not "recycling" of hydrogen.  You go from all hydogen to 2 hydrogen and a heavy helium.  Forgive me for not understanding your semantics, but the overall reaction is from hydrogen to heavy helium.  In the beginning, it's all hydrogen.  In the end, it's still some hydrogen, with the new heavy helium.  Once it's heavy helium, it is no longer hydrogen, and it doesn't go back to hydrogen.  I'm not dense, and I can read what you wrote and I can read what I wrote.  Here's your original quote:

Hydrogen in the sun goes from hydrogen to helium and then back to hydrogen again many times in a cycle before being fused into heavier elements, if it didnt the sun would use up all its fuel in a fraction of the normal time.  

Now, you said hydrogen to helium, and back again, many times before being fused into heavier elements.  Maybe you're just sloppy with your wording, because that's not what you're finally agreeing really happens.  The overall cycle begins with a bunch of hydrogen, and ends with some hydrogen and a heavy helium.  Heavy helium does not go back to hydrogen.  The 2 light helium fusing into a heavy helium and 2 hydrogen is still a release of energy, going to a lower energy state, and it's not "helium being recycled back into hydrogen".  What you wrote is that it goes "back to hydrogen again", which it does not.  My original point stands, and your sloppy wording does nothing except make us both look dumb for reading different things from the same words.

You also wrote it would run out if not for this recycling, but it won't.  The hydrogen at the end was hydrogen when the process started.  They were spectators, not products of the cycle.  They do go through the cycle, but the product of the cycle is a heavy helium.  Once it reaches that product, that's what it stays as.  That's where the energy comes from, from hydrogen and neutrons to a heavy helium.  No net energy was released by those 2 hydrogens that are still hydrogens both before and after the reaction, the energy released is the difference between the mass of the heavy helium and the products that actually formed the heavy helium.

Semantics.  That's all it was.  I admit there is hydrogen left over after the reaction after riding through the cycle, making it end up as a spectator.  But that left-over hydrogen has no bearing on the energy produced by the reaction, except that the reaction proceeded with the hydrogen riding along in the intermediary steps.  But hey, if you want to call it "recycling", fine, go ahead.  I now know what you mean, and I'll be able to read what you mean from it and evaluate it correctly from your point of view.


Oh, and it's still not "free energy".  But good job finding that one point you could attack instead of the whole idea of everything I've been writing, which is that "free energy" is a myth until someone can prove it and build a science around it, or disprove everything done in physics in the last 200 years.  And especially nice job attacking me personally with the last quip, it really highlights your superior intellect and greater understanding of both physics and the world at large.  I'm in awe.

Click to expand...

What can I say, I love a good argument.

My wording may have been a bit sloppy in not explaining the full extent of the reaction in a quick forum post, but the result is the same, the cycle starts with hydrogen, and ends with helium and hydrogen, and the resulting goes through the cycle again.

You bullshit as you go along, you ask to be corrected, and then once you are, you quick do some reading from the sources that you asked for, and act like you knew it all along.

Somehow I knew that if I baited you with a partial description, and sent a link with a very easy to follow (and incomplete) picture explanation you would go for that one, you should have read the wikipedia version. The helium does not stay helium, it undergoes further steps.

How can you claim to know what the proton proton fusion cycle is, when you thought that my 'sloppy' statement was unbelievable and that you thought I must have been talking about helium undergoing fission.

Also you seem to be hung up on the whole lifespan of the sun thing. You keep saying the sun has enough hydrogen to last for 80 billion years, but will only last for 10. You say that it must only use a fraction of this  hydrogen to support fusion.

Then you try to say that I am wrong, that the hydrogen can just go right to helium and stay there, because it has enough to last 80 billion years, ignoring the fact that you already said it only uses a fraction of its hydrogen.

Im at a loss as to what you might call this portion of the hydrogen that is used to support fusion in the sun, such a tricky concept... What could we call the portion of something that is used to produce energy...  I got nothing, my brain has run out of fuel.

Go google a retort, I look forward attacking your 'points'.

P.S.

Also work on your reading comprehension, its pretty funny how you got 'free energy' from me saying its not a violation of any laws if there is a net loss in mass, with repect to the proton proton fusion cycle. Try not to piece together things out of context.

[/quote]

I don't honestly get half of what you're trying to say here. As far as the thing about lifespan, all I EVER tried to say about that was that the sun doesn't NEED to re-use hydrogen to last for 10 billion years, it can make it that far just fine on a once through. This was due to the misconception from reading you post: By "recycling", I thought you were saying that heavy helium is routinely converted BACK to hydrogen, but we both appear to know that this isn't the case. Since it appeared to me that you thought helium-4 was converted BACK to hydrogen, and you said this was necessary for the sun to live as long as it does, then the fact that there is no shortage of hydrogen without this He-4 to H conversion would be good evidence that such a reaction is not necessary. But since I now understand you weren't saying He-4 goes back to H, I realize that this line of argument isn't relevant.

We both know that you start with hydrogen, and end with hydrogen and helium, and that all of the energy from that reaction, and most of the energy of the sun, comes from that helium. The spectator hydrogen goes through again, eventually becoming helium itself. Once it's heavy helium, it stays heavy helium until it is fused with something else, but it doesn't go to hydrogen again. At the end of "pp-I" or whatever you want to call it, the helium that is there will never again be hydrogen, that's the point I was making. I think we both agree that that is what is happening, right? So what the heck are you trying to argue?

(And yes, I do mean "heck". As a partial aside, kids read these forums, as well as parents. While I'm all for breaking kids out of their shelters in general, let's keep it clean, ok? I'm sure you've noticed how there really is no foul language on this board, and I think most would like to keep it that way. And the fewer angry parents cold has to deal with, the better for us as well.)

And my association of you with "free energy" was from your defense of "Maybe there's a way to break bonds using less energy than we get out of the bond" a few posts ago, not from your sun post, which was otherwise a good post (except for the part we've been discussing). That would be "free energy", so my reading comprehension is ok, I think. To be clear, you haven't corrected anything I've said yet, and the only thing I've really corrected of you is semantics. You called it "recycled" hydrogen, I called it spectator hydrogen. Semantics, really, that's the only difference as far as I can tell. Your statement implied, to me, that He-4 is converted back to H, which according to both of us, it is not. Therefore, the only difference is how we read the statements. (Basically, I'm saying we're both right, so you can stop getting indignant over it and stop with the insults.)

On a lighter note, I am glad you've found sarcasm. For some reason, I find it more appealing than outright telling me that Burger King would be a good fall back for the level of my intelligence that you have apparently observed. How you came to this conclusion, I shall never know. Because to be completely honest, I prefer In-n-Out, Cook-Out, Wendy's and Jack-in-the-Box all above Burger King when it comes to fast-food burger joints, and prefer chicken-themed restaurants above all those. So Burger King would be pretty low on my list if it did come to that. But honestly, as long as laser diodes and LEDs stay popular, I don't see that happening anytime soon .

Fascinating stuff here! You guys are way beyond me... but I am very interested in this kind of thing.

What about the power in magnets? I know that magnets are used in many ways to 'help' in using less energy. (such as even an electric motor)

But we can get generated electricity from other outside sources such as the wind, and the sun. Why not some way to harvest the power in magnets to generate usable electricity from only the source? Like we do with wind and solar...

This idea seems possible. I have built a very complex 'mini motor' with rare earth magnets trying to find a way to get it to turn from only the power of the magnets. Obviously with no results.

I know that others have been working on this for years. Seems like it should be possible...
Jay

Well I have read all of your huge posts.Stuff discussed is beyond my level of education in this field but it does seem that PyroEric clearly stated something that simply isn't true, semantics or otherwise.Besides, the insults were totally uncalled for, a scientific argument should be a chance to learn something new, not a battle. And I'm sure pullbangdead's field (dunno exactly what it is) has worked out well enough since he's working on his PhD.

And I do believe free energy only exists if it means energy that you don't have to pay for, so you can count solar power and wind power free energy as long as you already have the tools needed to harvest it.

I'm pretty sure you can't make power out of a system relying solely on magnets and nothing else external.The system will tend to the lowest state of energy so you might be able to make something that spins or oscillates for a long time but it's eventually going to stop and it's not going to output constant energy and continue to do so indefinetly. :-/

pullbangdead said:

I don't honestly get half of what you're trying to say here.  As far as the thing about lifespan, all I EVER tried to say about that was that the sun doesn't NEED to re-use hydrogen to last for 10 billion years, it can make it that far just fine on a once through.  This was due to the misconception from reading you post: By "recycling", I thought you were saying that heavy helium is routinely converted BACK to hydrogen, but we both appear to know that this isn't the case.  Since it appeared to me that you thought helium-4 was converted BACK to hydrogen, and you said this was necessary for the sun to live as long as it does, then the fact that there is no shortage of hydrogen without this He-4 to H conversion would be good evidence that such a reaction is not necessary.  But since I now understand you weren't saying He-4 goes back to H, I realize that this line of argument isn't relevant.

We both know that you start with hydrogen, and end with hydrogen and helium, and that all of the energy from that reaction, and most of the energy of the sun, comes from that helium.  The spectator hydrogen goes through again, eventually becoming helium itself.  Once it's heavy helium, it stays heavy helium until it is fused with something else, but it doesn't go to hydrogen again.  At the end of "pp-I" or whatever you want to call it, the helium that is there will never again be hydrogen, that's the point I was making.  I think we both agree that that is what is happening, right?  So what the heck are you trying to argue?  

(And yes, I do mean "heck".  As a partial aside, kids read these forums, as well as parents.  While I'm all for breaking kids out of their shelters in general, let's keep it clean, ok?  I'm sure you've noticed how there really is no foul language on this board, and I think most would like to keep it that way.  And the fewer angry parents cold has to deal with, the better for us as well.)

And my association of you with "free energy" was from your defense of "Maybe there's a way to break bonds using less energy than we get out of the bond" a few posts ago, not from your sun post, which was otherwise a good post (except for the part we've been discussing).  That would be "free energy", so my reading comprehension is ok, I think.  To be clear, you haven't corrected anything I've said yet, and the only thing I've really corrected of you is semantics.  You called it "recycled" hydrogen, I called it spectator hydrogen.  Semantics, really, that's the only difference as far as I can tell.  Your statement implied, to me, that He-4 is converted back to H, which according to both of us, it is not.  Therefore, the only difference is how we read the statements.  (Basically, I'm saying we're both right, so you can stop getting indignant over it and stop with the insults.)

On a lighter note, I am glad you've found sarcasm.  For some reason, I find it more appealing than outright telling me that Burger King would be a good fall back for the level of my intelligence that you have apparently observed.  How you came to this conclusion, I shall never know.  Because to be completely honest, I prefer In-n-Out, Cook-Out, Wendy's and Jack-in-the-Box all above Burger King when it comes to fast-food burger joints, and prefer chicken-themed restaurants above all those.  So Burger King would be pretty low on my list if it did come to that.  But honestly, as long as laser diodes and LEDs stay popular, I don't see that happening anytime soon  .

Click to expand...

And what exactly was it that I clearly stated that isnt true?

So my first post in this thread wasnt perfectly and completely worded to describe the full extent of a many step nuclear reaction, as I thought the basic concept would be gotten across by anyone who even had a clue what happens in the sun, not knowing there are those who nit pick every little thing with a flawed basic understanding I wasnt concerned with perfect wording.

If i added  'and some helium'  in one spot there would be nothing wrong with the statement, as below:

Hydrogen in the sun goes from hydrogen to helium and then back to hydrogen and some helium, again many times in a cycle before being fused into heavier elements, if it didnt the sun would use up all its fuel in a fraction of the normal time.  

It is a pretty well known process, clearly described in every physics book I have ever seen, including high school physics books.


You keep calling the hydrogen at the end spectators, first you said they dont have anything to do with the power produced from the reaction, now you are saying that most of the power is from the helium.

How exactly are these protons fused into deterium (releasing energy), the deterium and another hydrogen fuse into light helium (releasing energy),  2 light helium fuse into a heavy helium and two hydrogen (releasing a lot of energy).

Please point out at which step the 'spectators' sneak through without releasing any energy in the thermonuclear reaction. Please, go ahead and try.

Also another fine destinction, YOU came up with the term proton recycling after my first post, not I.

"The highlighted part is really quite wrong.  If you have a source for that, that'd be great, but everything I've ever seen (I checked Wikipedia too, just to be sure), says the sun will last billions of years on it's supply of hydrogen, because it's actually a VERY slow fusion reactor.  From Wikipedia (always the quickest thing to get numbers from), 3.4(10)^38 hydrogen atoms fused per second, 8.9(10)^56 hydrogen atoms in the sun.  That's 2.6(10)^18 seconds, or, about 83billion years.  (The sun is only thought to live about 10billion years though, so I can only assume that it's because only about 10% of the hydrogen in the sun will be fused before there's not enough in the core anymore).  So no, it doesn't need recycled protons."

You were the one that came up with proton recycling, you said there is no need for it, and that it doesnt happen, though it is a somewhat appropriate description of what happens with the hydrogen though, so I used your vernacular in further posts. The hydrogen goes through a cycle and then there is some at the end that goes through the cycle again, recycling is a suitable term.  

My first post may have been a quick post to convey an idea, being somewhat incomplete as explaining the full reaction cycle was a little beyond my intentions for the post, but your post was certainly not.

In your post you show a flawed understanding of what goes on in the sun, you just quoted some numbers from wikipedia, you make no mention of any subsequent steps of fusion, and assume that 10% or so of the hydrogen is being fused once, into helium. Say whatever you want but you clearly spell that out in your math. There is no room for other interpretation in the language of numbers.

You are also correct in that I didnt correct you, you obviously knew everything from the start, despite the fact that your understanding of the subject makes quantum leaps after each subsequent post where you can google a new term or a a new concept.

Like I said, work on your reading comprehension, this includes retention of what you read, and knowing who came up with what, because using the argument that someone came up with and used a term that you actually came up with, well that is laughable.

While you may be able to pull something over on most because they either dont know what is being talked about, or they dont read everything, you arent going to get away with anything here.


P.S.
How many 'kids' really read high powered laser science forum. I'm pretty certain that everyone capable of reading and understanding this stuff is mentally developed enough to handle some 'bad words'. You do realize what they say on TV these days? What they sing about in these 'kids' music. I think you can go ahead and say hell without worrying too much. Though dont swear in the workplace, customers probably wouldnt like it if you ask them what the hell else they want with their value meal, but I wont hold it against you.