Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:34:48 -0400
Reply-To: Dave Katsuki <dkatsuki@THEWORLD.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Dave Katsuki <dkatsuki@THEWORLD.COM>
Subject: Re: Running on Tap Water on Friday
In-Reply-To: <61.22840290.2a6025a4@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Seeesh! Youse guys clearly don't know anything about thermodynamics or
electrolysis or nothin. So I gotta make a Friday explanation:
Here goes:
Scientists have known for a long time that electrolysis is a very effective
way to remove hairs.
What has not been properly appreciated until just recently (in the last 5
minutes) is that all electrical devices are covered with very very small
nano-hairs, which allow smoke to emerge invisibly and at a very low
rate. Since there are so many nano-hairs, the cumulative effect is
significant.
Why, you ask, does smoke have anything to do with it? The classical
explanation was eloquently restated a while ago on the list, I think by
Unca Joel.
To briefly (and not as eloquently) summarize:
Electrical devices produce and consume power only when the smoke is
properly contained within. The simple evidence for this, as we all have
experienced, is that when the smoke leaks out, the devices stop
functioning. Sometimes, when the devices are very small (like integrated
circuits), only a very small amount of smoke is required for operation, and
therefore you often can't see it when it leaks out, but the devices fail
all the same.
So the real explanation for the apparent contradiction of the "laws of
thermodynamics" is that the electrolysis actually removes the nano-hairs,
thereby keeping the smoke contained and permitting unlimited operation.
Dave
90 Westy (no smoke today, but still needs gas...)
At 08:29 AM 7/12/02 -0400, Bill Marshall wrote:
>OK, now I have to chime in.
> If the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen gave off more energy than it
>takes to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water, then there would be no
>energy crisis in California or anywhere else. The world would be a different
>place. Engineers would be able to make a tiny engine out of a few drops of
>water, that would continuously be split and rejoined, providing endless
>amounts of energy.
> The simple fact that electrolysis has been thoroughly researched (and
>taught in every high-school science class) and the current level of
>technology is very high, and yet these water engines do not exist, should
>indicate to the non-scientist that you cannot extract more energy from water
>than you put into it.
> I understand the laws of thermodynamics. Perhaps others don't. But
>beyond the academic aspect of it, the proof that this doesn't work is that
>electrolysis isn't used as a power source. Yes, hydrogen is used as a fuel,
>but it is manufactured at a cost. The hydrogen is only used as an
>intermediary to transfer energy. You cannot get something for nothing. Even
>if burning H and O2 made a minute amount of additional energy over
>electrolysis, it would be the biggest thing ever. Free energy!! Perpetual
>motion!! Even if the reaction broke even (energy-wise), the dissipative
>forces like friction and radiated heat would tip the balance.
> It is a nice thought, though, imagining a world with endless energy
>supplies.
>
>Bill Marshall
>85 GL Tiico with many oxygen-related chemical reactions on the body
| 
