All he got for Christmas was his hydrogen fuel cell powered electric
Studebaker?

Salmon Egg wrote:
On 12/26/06 8:55 AM, in article
, "Martin Winer"
wrote:

Again please. How do you save energy by splitting water molecules
mechanically as opposed to electrically? Are you going to get perpetual
motion?

Not out of those salmon eggs. Try a Super Duper and see if you can
improve your cast enough to make it last forever.

Who knows anything about water? The present state of scientific
knowledge about it seems to extend to no more than this: it comes from
lakes, rain puddles, and as vapor from out of the depths of the earth.

Try to find something on the web about how water comes into existence
in the *first place*--eh? Check it out and good luck! Every search
I've tried draws a complete blank; all you get is the same ignorant
nonsense you learned in grade school: "There is only so much of it; it
perpetually cycles from liquid to vapor and back to liquid again."

OBVIOUSLY, if water can be broken down into its constituent elements by
means of electrolysis, then it perfectly stands to reason that
electricity just might have something to do with its natural
manufacture as a compound in the first place?

We hear the thunder, we see the flash of lightening, the sudden
downpour of rain--and we don't get it! While we are readily able to
admit that lightening does generate a reaction between carbon dioxide
and nitrogen to produce the soil nutrients, nitric oxide and nitrogen
dioxide. Yet somehow we just can't get that the same thing is
happening to produce *new water* from hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

OBVIOUSLY, the simplest intuition on earth can't get around the grade
school dogma about the "water cycle."

OBVIOUSLY, there are veritable vapor trails of free hydrogen ions (or
plasma?) constantly being blasted into space from the sun.

OBVIOUSLY, the earth gets rained on by these space showers of solar
flares.

OBVIOUSLY, when such highly charged vapors of hydrogen enter into the
earth's atmosphere tremendous turbulence is the result.

OBVIOUSLY, this is what is observed as an electrical thunderstorm.

CLEARLY, there is nothing to fear from global warming.

And why? Well, c'mon . . .

OBVIOUSLY, an excess of carbon dioxide will only result in an excess of
rain as it combines with available hydrogen. We are saved, redeemed,
brought right back to *Go* with a "Get Out of Jail Free" card by the
natural atmospheric process of manufacturing *new water*, oxygen and
ozone by lightening generated chemical reaction, as the "cycle" just
keeps going on, perpetually, as ever.

Right?


Bill
-- Fermez le Bush

Ditto!

--
Mackie
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Water is water. You get are isotopic substitutions and hydrogen spin
isomers. Everything else is the beast itself.

Water is water . . . the beast itself.

If all science were so dumb, so dim, so devoid of wonder as that, there
would be no science.

Moving on then to something other than than that dull thud of the
wooden head knocking against the floor of present minimal knowledge . .
..


"dlzc" wrote in message
ps.com...
I was trying to provide sources of H2O that could not involve lightning
(or current flow). You could ignite (via current flow, among other
methods) methane in the presence of oxygen, and produce water.

As to whether this is "new" water, depends on the source of the methane
and oxygen. I would not be surprised if it did not form up in solar
wind, if it was not produced directly on the Sun's surface. If they
can find H2O there...

Of late, I've been reading Michael Faraday. I'm a great fan of the
fundamentals, and enjoy getting back to them, unlike your old Uncle
"Scarface" Alphonso there, who can keep all these irrelevant
complexities of his, from the plethora of minutiae constantly
exploding from his brain, to one end only: one more needless proof of
the Second Law of Thermodynamics: intellectual entropy.

Sometimes one must get back to the beginnings, toward simplicity, to
the fundamentals upon which all else either stands or falls, depending
on the capacity of those basic assumptions to answer the same old basic
unanswered questions that are always--due to a lack of thought--being
answered, "Idiot!" Because it takes one to know one, teacher (Scarface
Alphonso) flat out doesn't know the answer--he only knows so much as he
already knows, but never anything new because he doesn't dare to think.

Let's talk about the kind of "idiots" who, without a second thought
(never mind the first) are willing to accept without question the
latest dogma presently being taught that most, if not nearly all the
water now present on earth came here by way of comets.

From what?????

From comets, they say. But from the schtupping comets?

With a straight face, this is what they are teaching these days,
because they can't get their thinking out of that grade school science
box of the "water cycle". Well, roll over Immanuel Velikovsky and send
Erich von Daniken the news! Why don't they try and teach us that all
the earth's water was shipped here parcel post via the UFOs? It would
make just as much sense.

Let's get back down to earth, to the fundamentals here for a second.
Let's get all the way down to that primitive battery Mr. Faraday found
it so very much fun to play with, day in and day out. Faraday got no
less than the biggest kick out of watching how the copper from the
copper plate could somehow migrate through the acid solution to form a
copper coating on the zinc plate, and by so doing create an electrical
current between the two plates!

"Such elementary idiocy!" So would Mr. Smarty Pants, the Uncle Al
among us exclaim as he dwells with his hair all a-curl in the million
glittering bobby-pins holding his permanent wave of cerebral
multi-complexity, whereof he still doesn't *understand* the first thing
about all the things he knows. He knows how to know, which is ever so
easy; he only need read, and listen to his professors like a good boy.
He cannot think critically about what he knows, and cannot deal with
anything that is not already known. Anything new in the sight of Uncle
Al is "idiocy!" You want to talk about an "idiot"? Forget it! Even
an idiot is wiser than that.

Here is the sort of out-of-the-box thinking that is far too risky for
the educated idiot who will not dare to know more than what he's been
taught . . .

Quite possibly (note the care I take here, allowing that I could easily
be in error), you would not rightly be able to say that all electrical
activity is chemical--but conversely, you just might be able to say
(again note the qualification) that all chemical activity is
electrical.

That being said, it nevertheless depends on your definition of the
"chemical". When a magnetic field in motion is seen to induct
electrical current into a coil of copper wire, it can only be doing
this by altering the chemical status quo of the copper molecules in the
wi it must polarize every molecule. We know it does that because
now, the copper coil with the current running through has for itself a
magnetic field! If it is 'magnetized' it is therefore polarized. Every
electrical current emanates a magnetic field around the conductor. Do
you call that a "chemical reaction"? When you electrically polarize
the molecules in a conductor, has something "chemical" happened? Is
electrolysis of water a chemical reaction? Are these two things really
the same? If so, then we can argue against my initial hypothesis
stated above to say, "All electrical activity is chemical--without
qualification." Why? Because copper is a chemical element which is
being affected in such a way that it reacts, it changes its state to
one of polarization. That is the reaction of a chemical element, it is
an elemental chemical reaction.

But now, what about the second part saying, "All chemical activity is
electrical"--what about that? If all chemical activity, at the very
least involves polarization (ionization?) of molecules (and nevermind a
more sophisticated electronic displacement, flow, and compound bonding
of/by electrons); if all polarization/ionization of molecules is found
to emanate either a magnetic or electro-static field, then we have no
choice but to say, "Yes! All chemical activity is electrical."

Since I am not a scientist, it may be that my vast ignorance of the
subject has once again made a merry fool of me, as someone stands up to
shout, "Of course, you idiot! What you have just "hypothesized" has
long been accepted as basic scientific fact." So I am an idiot for
having figured it out on my own, without the pencils and the books, and
all the teacher's dirty looks? Let's move on . . .

Thus far, no one has addressed the meat of the argument, in which it is
shown that nobody disputes the fact that lightening is the necessary
energy source for the production of the earth nutrients, nitric oxide
and nitrogen dioxide from the atmosphere, by process of breaking down
carbon dioxide and forming a new compound bond of oxygen with nitrogen.

And so who among you is ready to explain just how the lightening is
able to accomplish that? And what's more, answer this question: if
this can be done by lightening with nitrogen and carbon dioxide--why,
pray tell, cannot the same be done with solar wind driven hydrogen
mixing in the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, to create the lightening
in the first place; with water, free oxygen and ozone (from helium) as
the by-product? In other words, by a reverse electrolysis of water.
Uncle Al knows so much, let him explain it--or forever hold his peace
as the well-known "idiot" I, for another, have always known him to be.

Yes, and while he's at it, let him, for once, *think*. Let him think
on this: as to this process of lightening created nitric oxide, when
the carbon dioxide molecule is broken, what happens to the carbon?
Idiot that I am, you can bet I have my own ideas, as most proper idiots
do--but what about Al? Let's hear it from him, first before I go
sticking my idiot neck out again. This is something he should know,
since with this we are dealing with the known, so if he knows anything,
really on this subject, this should be a piece of cake. What happens to
the carbon?

And what about Al? I say he has strayed too far from the fundamentals,
or has haughtily ignored them as primitive and irrelevant to his
personal, highly perverted purposes of always coming off looking like
the smartest boy on the block. And while he's been so busy ignoring
the basics that come with a study of the history of science, he doesn't
bother to think in terms of such mundane old things as e.g., "specific
heats". Think of the specific heat of hydrogen as opposed to that of
carbon dioxide, nitrogen and oxygen. That sun-spewed hydrogen has got
to be some mighty cold stuff coming 93,000,000 miles through space into
the atmosphere of Earth to mix with these other gases common to the
ionosphere. We know that it is the collision between warm and cold air
masses in motion which is the cause of turbulence behind a
thunderstorm, hurricane or tornado.

But what he haven't thought to take into account is a cold air mass of
solar wind borne hydrogen coming into collision with the warm air mass
of earth's atmosphere. I mean, is somebody going to tell me, and
everybody else, that a result of the mix is not lightening, and
furthermore a chemical destruction of the carbon dioxide molecule, a
freeing of the oxygen into a new bond with hydrogen--and what about the
carbon, Al, where did that go?

What could be more elementary?

What?

Meanwhile, if you'd care to hear one highly uneducated guess, here is
mine . . .

If it is assumed, as per the natural production of nitric oxide, that
*heat* and not electric current or charge from lightening is the
relevant factor, then that explains the same process in the production
of nitrogen dioxide from the internal combustion engine.

Well that is just fine and dandy! It only goes to show what is
happening in the atmospheric synthesis of nitrogen compounds which
occurs as a by-product from heat of the primary reaction: the
lightening created as a charge arcing between an extreme polarity of
specific heats--and we do know, don't we that much lightening is
entirely airborne, having no grounding with the earth? Yes, there may
well be the kind of airborne lightening charge that comes of
solar-source space-borne hydrogen (and helium) in collision with
earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide.

I should venture to say that were this to be attempted experimentally
in the laboratory, where hydrogen gas is cooled to the temperature it
is known to maintain out there in interplanetary space, then injected
into a chamber containing nothing but the air of planet earth as it is
found (in both temperature and density), not in the ionosphere (come to
think) but in the troposphere . . .

Just how far back from that chamber do you suppose you might want to
get in that laboratory before you pulled the switch to find out if ol'
Mackie is just all wet with this water theory of his--or not?

In conclusion then, what about "heat"? Michael Faraday says it's
*electrical*! He says, "Watch this!" He takes the wire coming from
the copper plate and touches it to the wire from the zinc plate--FIRE!
He explains it by saying that the acid in the battery is "burning" away
the copper--all the time, that acid is *burning* copper from the plate,
and to prove that it is burning, he puts the wires together to show us
the spark from the otherwise invisible fire going on in the battery.

So, you can talk in your fancy postmodern 21st Century terms but
ultimately, according to Faraday, it makes no difference. Electricity
is fire, is heat, and vice-versa; it's just that the one is more
ordered, more refined in its generation than the other. When a pine
log is exposed to heat borrowed from another source of fire, it's being
put into the electro-chemical process of oxidation, and as it bursts
into flame, we are seeing nothing more than a very chaotic display of
electric charge. Every fire is chemical activity, every form of
chemical activity is electrical: every fire is electricity. See the
thunder and lightening that comes with a forest fire, a volcanic
eruption; and the rain that falls with the detonation of a nuclear
bomb.

It's all the same. And Einstein was so right to believe that, and work
toward proving it, right on up to the end.
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Do You Like Stinky Girls?"
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com/
Poetry?
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
Politics?
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
Music?
http://jpdavid.blogspot.com/
A Punk Rock Nancy Drew?
"It's like butter." Linda Richman