Perpetual motion/"free energy"

  • 301 Replies
  • 42262 Views
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #120 on: September 08, 2008, 09:32:28 AM »
So far you have an experiment that allows water to fall from the top of the container you placed it in to the bottom. Any energy gained from this process is just stored kinetic energy from placing the water in the container. Please continue.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #121 on: September 08, 2008, 10:42:59 AM »
The force that causes the gas to accelerate upwards through the liquid is only indirectly gravitational. It is an electromagnetic interaction that actually causes the movement.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #122 on: September 08, 2008, 11:28:24 AM »
Question 3: Was not answered yes or no, I will clearify, liquid meaning viscous liquid, so the gas does not become suspended it will either go into solution or rise to the surface one or the other will occur, correct? mayhem looks like you want to answer the question yes it would tend to rise. If it goes into solution it will reach a maximum solubility and then rise. Does that help clearify your apparent indiscission?

New persons weighing in wendigo with a theory of gravitational wave, lol, you mean I just proved gravitiational wave with 5 questions and one summation? After all there is an ongoing experiment which has for 5 years looked for evidence of a gravitational wave and has yet to identify one single occurance. Osama bin Laden weights in with electromagnetic interaction? Electromagnetic field or wave? I would have to ask for a demonstration that electromagnetic interaction is the actual cause of the movement. Demonstration meaning observation with measurements and identification of the field or waves causing the movement.

Raist, you made a comment that makes an assumption of the direction I am going with this, you did not answer the questions put forth.

To conserve space, Raist regarding your comment #126, you do not have to review all that is said just focus on the questions and their answers. The questions will lead you along the path being taken.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 11:45:37 AM by jehkque »

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #123 on: September 08, 2008, 11:34:06 AM »
Question 3: Was not answered yes or no, I will clearify, liquid meaning viscous liquid, so the gas does not become suspended it will either go into solution or rise to the surface one or the other will occur, correct? mayhem looks like you want to answer the question yes it would tend to rise. If it goes into solution it will reach a maximum solubility and then rise. Does that help clearify your apparent indiscission?

New persons weighing in wendigo with a theory of gravitational wave, lol, you mean I just proved gravitiational wave with 5 questions and one summation? After all there is an ongoing experiment which has for 5 years looked for evidence of a gravitational wave and have yet to identify one single occurance. Osama bin Laden weights in with electromagnetic interaction? Electromagnetic field or wave? I would have to ask for a demonstration that electromagnetic interaction is the actual cause of the movement. Demonstration meaning observation with measurements and identification of the field or waves causing the movement.

Raist, you made a comment that makes an assumption of the direction I am going with this, you did not answer the questions put forth.
I am simply anticipating. After 3 pages of you doing this, I don't feel like going back through and finding your fallacious jump in logic. It's called time saving. If I am wrong then just correct me.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #124 on: September 08, 2008, 12:35:35 PM »
Question 3: Was not answered yes or no, I will clearify, liquid meaning viscous liquid, so the gas does not become suspended it will either go into solution or rise to the surface one or the other will occur, correct? mayhem looks like you want to answer the question yes it would tend to rise. If it goes into solution it will reach a maximum solubility and then rise. Does that help clearify your apparent indiscission?

I cna live with that answer.  Yes, the gasses will tend to rise towards the surface of the liquid.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #125 on: September 08, 2008, 02:05:28 PM »
Ok one continuing with an open mind, two jumping in mid way making an abstract statement that is unsupported, and one not wishing to participate feeling it not worthy of effort of time to attempt to locate a fallacy if one exists in the line of questioning. For it is only the line of questioning that is the subject of this discussion. The line of questioning can and will be tied to previous statements. Not every statement but the important ones some of the statements came in defense of the statements that tie to the line of questions.

Questions 1 and 2 dealt with hydro-power situations and natural water cycles both answered yes. Questions 3-7 dealt with the nature of gases released under the surface of a liquid and their lift to its surface all answered yes. Question 8 was a summation of questions 3-7 identifying that the lift is a gravity induced lift. To be honest, it is the only lift of mass away from the center of gravity that actually occurs in nature as a result of gravity that I am aware of. I will state that I view gases as fluids and lighter gases released near the bottom of a heaver contained gas (fluid) will tend to rise to the upper portions of the container or atmosphere in a like manner as a released gas under the surface of a liquid (fluid).

Now, how do you come to have a continuation of gas released under the surface of a liquid because perpetual means continued.

Question 9: The electrolysis of water (chemical reversing of water by electricity) produces 2 gases, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 10: An electrolysis device, made similar to a Hofmann voltameter, the electrodes (cathode and anode) are submerged in liquid water, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 11: The electrodes are the point for applying the externally applied DC current used to induce the chemical reversing of water, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 12: During the operation of a Hofmann voltameter type electrolysis device the Hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas are formed at the point where the electrodes make contact with the water, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 13: The Hydrogen and Oxygen produced during the electrolysis of water are thus released under the surface of a liquid, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 14: Can a Hofmann voltameter type electrolysis device cause the production of Hydrogen and Oxygen at any other point than where the electrodes make contact with the water (point of applying energy)? Yes or no and describe why for your answer.

Assuming the answer to be no.

In summation: In an electrolysis device made with current technologies, the electrolysis of Water will result in the formation of elemental Hydrogen gas and elemental Oxygen gas upon opposing electrodes (negaitve and positive) electrically charged by an external DC power source. In order to maximize the contact between the electrodes and the water the electrodes are submerged in the water. Each gas will form and be released at the point where the electrodes come in contact with the water in the device. The gases will not be formed at any other point other than upon their respective electrode.

Question 15: Would you agree with this summation? 

 



« Last Edit: September 09, 2008, 08:25:32 AM by jehkque »

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #126 on: September 08, 2008, 02:32:34 PM »
Still waiting


Come on, the battle lines are drawn and I am armed to the teeth with facts and prepared to do battle. Time to grind those that speak against me to shame and and rip the facade of the the false science they advocate to shreads. I am no longer trying to convience people to listen to what I have to say trying to benefit them. I am here to do battle against those who say lies in the name of truth that is science.  Battle against those that refuse to throughly examine what I say before condeming it. Battle against those that state false assumptions and defend them as the truth. Battle against them that make attempts to silence a man who is only trying to expose the truth for the benefit of his fellow man.

That great quality that science should be seeking in ernest rather than trying to keep the truth from being said and shown and understood for the benefit and advancement of mankind. So come on you blind followers of the blind, it's time for you to be knocked from the pillar you have falsely placed yourselves on and fall face first into the ditch of shame and discrace!!!!!!!!!!! I shall show no mercy upon you as you do not deserve it if you continue as you have after this warning. I am a humble servent armed with truth and I am waiting. :)

OK, look, draw up a schematic of your experiment, showing where the input energy is, where the output energy is and the steps required to go from one to the other.  That should highlight where the points of contention are.  I'm not willing to discuss this until there is a post that has a concise description and diagram of the experiment, since otherwise it just degenerates into "Oh well I'm not telling you what's in the magic box because you'll steal it" bullshit that nearly every other 'perpetual motion'/'zero point energy'/whatever maker comes out with.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #127 on: September 08, 2008, 02:48:56 PM »
Matrix you can answer the questions and follow the train of though. If you disagree with what is assumed to be the answer I post after each question except summation questions then make it known, and you and I can debate the disagreement. After the question and answer session, so that I know you have a firm grasp of the concept, I will be happy to give you all the details you need to devise your own test apparatus and make observations. First you have to know what to look for and if you see it what it means. Then and only then is your independent testing and observations worth anything to advance the proof or disproof of my claim. Otherwise its just an observation that I have to tie to what I am saying. You knowing what to look for and knowing what it means ,means your observation is more valuable either for or against proving my claim.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 02:51:17 PM by jehkque »

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #128 on: September 09, 2008, 02:46:08 AM »
Matrix you can answer the questions and follow the train of though. If you disagree with what is assumed to be the answer I post after each question except summation questions then make it known, and you and I can debate the disagreement. After the question and answer session, so that I know you have a firm grasp of the concept, I will be happy to give you all the details you need to devise your own test apparatus and make observations. First you have to know what to look for and if you see it what it means. Then and only then is your independent testing and observations worth anything to advance the proof or disproof of my claim. Otherwise its just an observation that I have to tie to what I am saying. You knowing what to look for and knowing what it means ,means your observation is more valuable either for or against proving my claim.

Is it really so hard to just give me the drawing and let me do the experiment? If you really want an independent test of your work then you can't pre-condition everyone that does it to make sure they're 'looking for the right thing'; either there will be more energy out than in or there won't be, it's not exactly brain surgery. I need at least a rough schematic (scanned in hand-drawn apparatus will do) with what materials you have used and in what environment the experiment is to be conducted (no external magnetic fields, dark room, direct sunlight, air currents, vibrational isolation etc etc...).

This is how independent research is carried out, not by 'following a train of thought' from someone else's question-and-answer session - that would easily lead to small misinterpretations. You give me the recipe and I'll tell you whether the cake rises or not.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #129 on: September 09, 2008, 06:07:34 AM »
I now need to go do some independant reserch into your questions before I can provide any useful answers.  I'll reply later today, possibly tonight.


I'm getting the feeling we're leading more or less to a modified version of this:

http://aquygen.blogspot.com/

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #130 on: September 09, 2008, 06:55:42 AM »
None of that stuff works. Water will not readily react with any gas in the atmosphere found in abundance on earth. This means it can never be used for fuel like gasoline. The reasons for this are obvious and I will not go into them.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #131 on: September 09, 2008, 09:42:37 AM »
I now need to go do some independant reserch into your questions before I can provide any useful answers.  I'll reply later today, possibly tonight.


I'm getting the feeling we're leading more or less to a modified version of this:

http://aquygen.blogspot.com/


There are similarities, in a modification of the original synopsys detailing the research I was conducting, the similarity was noted in the fact that I identified a group of electrode patterns that may be able to obtain the effect that would be necessary to yield over unity chemical potential of energy in the resultants. Some of these patterns are used in devices used by the people seeking water for fuel. However, I find myself being very skeptical of their cleaims. Particularly the Joe Cell which claims orgone energy and connection to a blank on the engine compartment to power the engine. Stan Mayers type cell and his claim that resonance of water will split it into the original elements hydrogen and oxygen. Though resonance can break crystaline structures it does not change the chemical composition of the crystaline material. I can also state that I am aware that ultrasonic vibrations cavitate water and can form vaporized water but that is not forming hydrogen and oxygen from the water. Due to these items I could not find support scientific evidence for, I did not use their information in the research.

None of that stuff works. Water will not readily react with any gas in the atmosphere found in abundance on earth. This means it can never be used for fuel like gasoline. The reasons for this are obvious and I will not go into them.


Water is the ash of the combustion of Hydrogen in an oxygen environment. As an ash it will not burn, i.e. it puts out fires. Hydrogen on the other hand is a fuel source and will burn. The term water for fuel is absolutely incorrect. You can take water and obtain the fuel source hydrogen. however with current technologies you have to put in more energy to get the fuel supply than you get when you use the fuel supply. That is the problem with developing a hydrogen fuel source from a clean source, non-hydrocarbon source.

That is why I stated after President Bush unvailed his vision of a Hydrogen Economy that it would never be unless a way could be developed to have hydrogen fuel supplying the energy to redevelop the fuel source and supply the energy to drive the economy. That is why I repeated that statement and added that it would take perpetual motion to develop a Hydrogen economy, and made the statement that that feat was an impossibility before the board of a non profit organization which I sit as 1 of 3 memebers. That board voted 2 to 1 in favor of a Hydrogen Electric Generating Plant research project and put me in charge of that research, I was the one desenting. Also they placed strict guidlines on what information I could use because I animately opposed the idea and diligantly cited the claim by science that is would violate the laws of science. It was not by choice I did the research I did the other 2 board memebers placed me as the person responsible for conducting the research I even objected to that placement. One of them said "Well look at it this way now you can prove your claim or disprove it".  I had to form an open mind to do the research objectively as it was set by a board of directors and I am held accountable to uphold the leadership directives of that board.

I am not acting in a capacity for them here. I am acting out of a personal frustration from the continued acts of others who refuse to listen to a new idea and new evidence. I can, in ways, understand it because I held that position with out question at one time and to be honest I was completley shocked to find I could not prove my claim of impossiblity following the doctrine of science that is used to support the claim. Honestly if you factor in energy from the environment the laws of science allow greater energy outputs than you apply. That is where the distinction draws from when considering if a device yields an over unity energy output. It is not the total applied energy that should be considered. That is the fatal flaw in the claim that over unity is not possible. That is the reason why there are a few devices that on a small scale give over unity. It is not easy to get over unity, I will freely admit that but it is not impossible to get, it has already been done and documented and cited by others. Becaue of that it is not impossible, but I would venture to say improbable as in very difficult.

But water for fuel can never be. Your going to either use kenetic energy in water and do an energy conversion to get an energy output or you have to reverse water back in to its elements and in doing that you have a fuel source. Though I have identified only one possible way to reverse water back to hydrogen and oxygen that may yield positive energy potential and that method still has not been completely debugged. That is why the theory behind the method must be known and must be explored and imporvements in devices must be made and tested. Its not for me, its for mankind, is the way I had to look at the research project to be objective and have to open my mind to possibilities. I found one possiblity in regards to forming hydrogen with positive chemical potential from clean sources. That possibility paved the way to point towards other energy forms that are clean and yield positive energy which are not claimed as over unity even though they clearly are. I may not be totally right in this theory but I am not totally wrong either.   

 
« Last Edit: September 09, 2008, 10:11:57 AM by jehkque »

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #132 on: September 09, 2008, 10:48:10 AM »
OK so if I understand you correctly you're not claiming to have developed something that generates 'over unity' but rather some elaborate experiment to tap into either ambient heat/magnetism/angular momentum or some such... is that right?
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #133 on: September 09, 2008, 06:29:02 PM »
9 - Yes
10 - Yes
11 - Yes
12 - Not totally clear from the wikipedia article, but it makes sense that it would work this way...say yes for the sake of moving things along.
13 - Yes
14 - Unknown.  I agree with an anser of no, based on the answer to #12...logically if 12 is yes, 14 must be no, assuming no other technology is used.
15 - Yes.

Next. 

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #134 on: September 10, 2008, 06:15:11 AM »
Ok so far we have established that electrical energy can be derived from a conversion of kenetic energy present in moving water, and that needs a water cycle (traditionally supplied by the sun's energy) [q 1-2] and that rising bubbles in a liquid causes motion (lifting, sideways, and falling) in the liquid (provides a cycle where cycle is driven by bubbles being present and gravity) [q 3-8] and that electrolysis of liquid water causes the formation of bubbles under the surface of liquid water and the formation of the bubbles occur only at the point where electrical energy is directly applied to the water [q 9-15].

Question 16: One of the most common definitions of a generator is a wire rotating in a magentic field; where the magnetic field induces a flow of electrons in the moving wire, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 17: A wire is commonly defined as a channel of conductive material, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 18: Rotating is another way to state rotational movement, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

In summary, Induced electron flow (electrical generation) is acheived when there is movement of a conductive material in relation to a magnetic field.

Question 19: Would you agree with this summary?

OK so if I understand you correctly you're not claiming to have developed something that generates 'over unity' but rather some elaborate experiment to tap into either ambient heat/magnetism/angular momentum or some such... is that right?

No matrix your understanding would not be correct. Bear with or participate in the question answer session and from that state your understanding and ask if it is correct and you may then have a complete understanding that is correct.

To conserve space Raist in your reply #138 Please point specifically to where there is a mention by me of water causing a magnetic field to have movement?. If you can not do this your statement is abortrary and unsupported. Chalk another oops opened mouth and inserted foot up for ya.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 08:13:19 AM by jehkque »

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #135 on: September 10, 2008, 07:05:53 AM »
Ok so far we have established that electrical energy can be derived from from a conversion of kenetic energy present in moving water, and that needs a water cycle (traditionally supplied by the sun's energy) [q 1-2] and that rising bubbles in a liquid causes motion (lifting, sideways, and falling) in the liquid (provides a cycle where cycle is driven by bubbles being present and gravity) [q 3-8] and that electrolysis of liquid water causes the formation of bubbles under the surfact of liquid water and the formation of the bubbles occur only at the point where electrical energy is directly applied to the water [q 9-15].

Question 16: One of the most common definations of a generator is a wire rotating in a magentic field; where the magnetic field induces a flow of electrons in the moving wire, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 17: A wire is commonly defined as a channel of conductive material, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

Question 18: Rotating is another way to state rotational movement, correct?

Assuming the answer to be yes.

In summary, Induced electron flow (electrical generation) is acheived when there is movement of a conductive material in relation to a magnetic field.

Question 19: Would you agree with this summary?
The entropy in the movement of the water would cause no net magnetic field rotation.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #136 on: September 11, 2008, 07:28:36 PM »
Water is not the "ash" or hydrogen and oxygen.

Ash is a non-reactive residue present in the fuel source.

Water is a product.

Hydrogen will burn with any number of things. As will oxygen, chlorine, fluorine. You are aware almost all metals will burn in oxygen? Carbon monoxide will burn.

You say water won't burn? Have you ever put sodium into water? That produces an extremely exothermic reaction that some would consider akin to burning.

Most of our energy comes from utilising exothermic reactions.

The hydrolysis of water is not a energy equal reversible reaction. More energy is required to crack the water than is attained from reacting it.

Where did you learn chemistry? They need to pick up their game.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #137 on: September 11, 2008, 07:58:09 PM »
Water will not react with anything readily available on Earth.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #138 on: September 11, 2008, 08:12:04 PM »
Readily available in nature you mean?

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #139 on: September 11, 2008, 08:53:33 PM »
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #140 on: September 11, 2008, 09:10:42 PM »
me?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #141 on: September 11, 2008, 09:18:06 PM »
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #142 on: September 11, 2008, 09:26:42 PM »
No you are right that it won't react with anything naturally occurring. By react I mean chemical change. Dissolving rock and erosion isn't a reaction.

But yes, all the elements that would readily react have long since been oxidised.


*

beast

  • 2997
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #143 on: September 11, 2008, 09:46:02 PM »
You are absolutely wrong.  Water reacts with lots of naturally occurring things.  In fact water reacting with carbon dioxide and energy (light) is probably the most important reaction that occurs on earth (photosynthesis).

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #144 on: September 11, 2008, 10:00:34 PM »
You are absolutely wrong.  Water reacts with lots of naturally occurring things.  In fact water reacting with carbon dioxide and energy (light) is probably the most important reaction that occurs on earth (photosynthesis).

 ::).

That is an endothermic reaction. You are correct of course. I should have been a lot more specific.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #145 on: September 11, 2008, 10:12:12 PM »
Water is not reacting in photosynthesis. It is acting as a medium. That is biological anyway. Weren't we talking about inorganic chemical reactions?

We were talking about burning(exothermic reactions) before I think anyway.

Although there is a reaction with CO2 and water to form carbonic acid so you are correct. I didn't think about that one. But again, its not the exothermic reactions we were talking about before.

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #146 on: September 11, 2008, 10:12:54 PM »
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #147 on: September 11, 2008, 10:32:44 PM »
Water is not the "ash" or hydrogen and oxygen.

Ash is a non-reactive residue present in the fuel source.

Water is a product.

Hydrogen will burn with any number of things. As will oxygen, chlorine, fluorine. You are aware almost all metals will burn in oxygen? Carbon monoxide will burn.

You say water won't burn? Have you ever put sodium into water? That produces an extremely exothermic reaction that some would consider akin to burning.

Most of our energy comes from utilising exothermic reactions.

The hydrolysis of water is not a energy equal reversible reaction. More energy is required to crack the water than is attained from reacting it.

Where did you learn chemistry? They need to pick up their game.


source is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary word search ash, defination ash[2, noun]

Main Entry: 2ash
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English asshe, from Old English asce — more at arid
Date: before 12th century
1: something that symbolizes grief, repentance, or humiliation
2 a: the solid residue left when combustible material is thoroughly burned or is oxidized by chemical means b: fine particles of mineral matter from a volcanic vent
3plural : the remains of the dead human body after cremation or disintegration
4plural : deathly pallor <the lip of ashes and the cheek of flame — Lord Byron>
5plural :

refernece line 2 a:

At STP [ 0 deg C and 1 ATM ] water is a solid, freezing point of water is 32 deg F or 0 deg C at 1 ATM of pressure. So according to the definition "the solid residue left when combustible material is thoroughly burned or is oxidized by chemical means"  Water is the ash of Hydrogen!

Care to open mouth and insert foot about what I say again?

Let's give you another open mouth and insert foot though it is what you brought up. The reaction of sodium in water does not burn water it releases Hydrogen when sodium hydroxide is formed and releases heat (exothermal reaction) which can ignite the hydrogen comming off when there is an oxidizer present in the atmosphere where the hydrogen excapes to. The reaction with water occurs with other group 1 metals of the periodic table of elements as well, some more violant than the Sodium reaction.

If you think I do not know much about chemistry you better think again. I evidently know more than you about chemistry and I just demonstrated that fact.


*

beast

  • 2997
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #148 on: September 11, 2008, 10:46:34 PM »
Water is not reacting in photosynthesis. It is acting as a medium. That is biological anyway. Weren't we talking about inorganic chemical reactions?

Water definitely does react in photosynthesis.  There is a famous experiment where "heavy" water was used to track the reactions and it clearly showed that the water molecule bonds are broken and that the water produced from the reaction is different to the water you begin with.  The oxygen plants produce comes from the water in a photosynthesis reaction (and not the carbon dioxide, as many people think).

Sorry I only read this page so I wasn't aware you were talking about exothermic reactions.



I also think it's ridiculous to call water the ash of hydrogen.  Ash refers to, as you quoted, "residue."  When hydrogen is "oxidised" (and this is also incorrect, as it's a covalent bond, not an ionic bond) then all the hydrogen turns to water.  Residue obviously refers to a small remainder, not the whole product.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #149 on: September 11, 2008, 10:56:24 PM »
You've demonstrated you can misunderstand things.

If you burn a conventional hydrocarbon fuel in the presence of excess oxygen you should theoretically end up with gaseous products. Any ash should be an inorganic impurity.

If you are going to stick to your dictionary definition, how often does burning hydrogen with oxygen result in ice? You think ash can extinguish fires? It depends on what it is.
Again, water is not ash.

I said some would would consider akin to burning. I'm not tasting any foot.

Can you post any quote referring to water as ash? Besides your own misguided one.