sci.energy

On Sep 13, 6:48 am, Chris wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:50:10 -0700, number6 wrote:
> >On Sep 11, 12:12 pm, Marvin wrote:
>
> >> >> Anthony Matonak wrote:
> >"But researching its potential will take time and money, he said. One
> >> > immediate question is energy efficiency: The energy the RF generator
> >> > uses vs. the energy output from burning hydrogen."
>
> >> > So they are not trying to pass this off as a "free energy" proposition.
>
> >> Hard to see any potential, for the same reason other schemes
> >> like it fail. Thermodynamics rules
>
> >a priori I don't see how this can work to be a net gain ... but I do
> >know that a RF generator and an induction furnace is the most
> >efficient way to melt metal ...
>
> >So being able to use RF to electrolyze water ... could easily be the
> >most efficient way to do that ...
>
> I've thought of that too. Even if you end up with a net loss if the
> net loss is less than the net loss with conventional methods than you
> could make rocket fuel more efficeintly.
>
> Chris
> If life seems jolly rotten
> There's something you've forgotten
> and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I read somewhere that the most economic way to get hydogen is to start
with natural gas, and this radio wave method will probably not be able
to compete with that, for decades.