Lennart, my comment wasn't directed at you but at Axil's question: "Do I need to spell this out any further?" After giving temperature numbers as though they represented energy or power. I tend to dismiss Axil's asserted-as-fact speculations posing as theory, if for no other reason than their tone -- but this takes the cake.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>wrote: > Thanks James, > I can use the thesaurus if the word was hard. I could not understand the > way you used it. > I think the quantities are comparable. They can be measured in any > pressure r volume dimension as far as I am concerned. > What I did not understand was what you are comparing. I did not mean to > compare anything. Did I ? > I take it as if you just supported Ed Storms post. I understand he is > saying that it is a chemical (catalytic) action in the welding example. > I have no experience of HHO and therefore I supposed that if there was > enough heat capacity in the gas (HHO) to heat the metal it should be enough > to heat the relatively small amount of gas (with a much smaller heat > capacity than metal). Yes, that might be ignorant but it is not a very > 'high ceiling' if you have problem overseeing that kind of ignorance. > > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 > > "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort." PJM > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:19 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_commensurability#Commensurability >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros >> <lenn...@thornros.com>wrote: >> >>> Ok James I admit my ignorance, although I am not a blue collar worker in >>> the AC field. I also admit my English is less than perfect. I do not know >>> what you mean with "incommensurable quantities". Are you just >>> supporting Ed Storms statements about quantities and temperature? I did >>> understand that, it seems without connection to anything. >>> However, I have very little experience from production of HHO gas and >>> has learnt that it does not exist because of what Alan G. explains. I think >>> I am back to my old believe that the talk about HHO gas is just wishful >>> thinking or in worst case scam. >>> Excusable or not my confusion (probably caused by ignorance) is now more >>> or less eliminated. Good enough for me - thanks. >>> >>> To Ed . I did not mean that the LENR process would be improved. My >>> thinking was that if a 'heat motor' could have very good efficiency like 80 >>> -90% due to high input temperature and low (room temperature) the LENR >>> result which you explained previously need to be in a level of five or so >>> to compensate for the losses due to energy losses when converting the >>> energy both to the loop back and to consumption. >>> >>> Best Regards , >>> Lennart Thornros >>> >>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >>> lenn...@thornros.com >>> +1 916 436 1899 >>> 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 >>> >>> "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >>> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort." PJM >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:44 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> The confusion between incommensurable quantities is excusable in >>>> someone who doesn't know the first thing about physics but not even in a >>>> blue collar technician that works on household utilities like electrical >>>> wiring or heating and air conditioning. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edmund Storms >>>> <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Confusion seems to exist between energy and temperature. A very high >>>>> temperature can be produced using very little energy if the energy is >>>>> highly concentrated. This is done regularly using lasers and electric >>>>> arcs. >>>>> In the case of HHO, the chemical energy released when H2O forms is >>>>> applied >>>>> directly to the material where it is released by catalytic action. The >>>>> skin >>>>> feels no heat because the reaction is not catalyzed by the skin. >>>>> >>>>> This gas would make a poor fuel in an engine because the reaction >>>>> produces a reduction in volume of gas, with only a temporary increases >>>>> produced by heating the gas. In contrast, gasoline produces a large >>>>> increase on gas volume, which is used to move the piston. >>>>> >>>>> However, use of such a gas might improve the efficiency of gasoline >>>>> combustion. More convenient ways exist to do this, which have been >>>>> applied >>>>> over the years, thereby making the gasoline engine increasingly efficient. >>>>> However, I have seen no evidence that LENR can be initiated this way. >>>>> Even >>>>> if it could, the heat energy would not be suitable to add much extra push >>>>> to the piston before the heat was dissipated. The process needs a >>>>> permanent >>>>> increase in gas volume, not just a temporary increase cause by increased >>>>> temperature. >>>>> >>>>> Ed Storms >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Axil, >>>>> I admit total ignorance of the HHO theory. >>>>> I have heard about people saying they can reduce gas consumption in >>>>> autos. It has never taken any commercial format. >>>>> I have a few questions though: >>>>> 1. If HHO produce this high temperature, then it sounds to me to be >>>>> logical that it saves gas in an Otto motor. The gasoline will explode in >>>>> an >>>>> instantaneously increased pressure due to HHO increases the temperature >>>>> and >>>>> therefore the pressure (compression). Is that how it works? >>>>> 2. Is it not true that if we can produce any 'heat motor' with higher >>>>> temperature we will increase COP? At 6,000 C temperature and 20C on the >>>>> exhaust a heat motor should be competitive with an electrical motor when >>>>> it >>>>> comes to COP. >>>>> 3. If 1 and 2 is correct then a LENR process at COP 2 would be >>>>> feasible as it at least will have excess energy after feeding its own >>>>> input. Is that correct? >>>>> I am OK with a lesson in basics:) >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards , >>>>> Lennart Thornros >>>>> >>>>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >>>>> lenn...@thornros.com >>>>> +1 916 436 1899 >>>>> 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 >>>>> >>>>> "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >>>>> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort." >>>>> PJM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Why is a HHO flame able to vaporize tungsten and yet will not burn >>>>>> the skin of your hand. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax4sW3bo_dM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The HHO gas stream contains solid crystals of water. These crystals >>>>>> act like nano lenses that concentrate infrared light in the boundary >>>>>> layer >>>>>> between a shiny metal surface and a dielectric gas like hydrogen or >>>>>> oxygen. >>>>>> The science that studies this effect is called nanoplasmonics. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The heat energy is confined to the metal surface and locked in(AKA >>>>>> dark mode) and concentrated their like in a EMF black hole. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The metal surface is said to have a negative coefficient of >>>>>> reflectivity. This keeps the heat from leaving the metal surface. >>>>>> In this way the heat energy builds up to huge temperatures to the point >>>>>> where it will vaporize tungsten. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The skin on your hand has a positive index of reflectivity; it is not >>>>>> shiny. The heat from hydrogen combustion is not confined to the surface >>>>>> of >>>>>> your skin and can escape to the surrounding air. So you will not be >>>>>> readily >>>>>> burned by the HHO flame. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a basic LENR effect (aka evanescent wave - >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave) of energy >>>>>> concentration and focusing. This indicates that the upper temperature >>>>>> limit >>>>>> of the LENR effect is beyond the temperature required to vaporize >>>>>> tungsten >>>>>> (5930 °C, 10706 °F) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, the combustion temperature of hydrogen is only >>>>>> 2,660 °C with oxygen. Do I need to spell this out any further? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ceOL83PM24 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On the downside, spark ignition of HHO does not use the LENR effect >>>>>> of the evanescent wave. >>>>>> >>>>>> So burning hydrogen in oxygen is only combustion and not LENR. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
