sci.energy

Tom wrote:

> 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.

Unless if there is 'cold fusion reaction' happen inside this radio wave
electrolysis process.