> I believe the secret to hydrogen on demand is teasing the
> hydrogen-oxygen bonds apart using resonance.

A reasonably good way of looking at atomic bonds for this purpose is 
to consider them as holes which massive objects fall into. Potential 
energy is liberated by the fall. Breaking the bond is equivalent to 
getting them out of the hole.

While you may be able to conceive of various mechanical schemes with 
ramps and springs and rolling masses to liberate any given mass from 
its hole, this is very very liable to be misleading as such tricks 
usually are just that, with energy being added somewhere along the way 
either inadvertently or by a trickster trying to make it look like the 
system works.

Given eg 1000 x 10 kg bowling balls in 2 meter deep holes, even if the 
holes have nicely rounded slopes into them, no amount of springs etc 
are going to get the balls out without applying energy from somewhere 
else.

Many of the people who get enthusiastically involved in such 
apparently promising schemes do it because they do not appreciate the 
basic physics involved. The above model is not perfect but it's a good 
enough one to show why water is unlikely to be able to be used as a 
fuel and why "resonance" may liberate the occasional ball/hydrogen 
atom BUT overall will not produce net energy gain.

"The laws of Physics" AS WE KNOW THEM are exceptionally clear on this 
process from a chemical point of view. There *MAY* be other means such 
as new laws as yet undiscovered new non-chemical paths (such as "cold 
fusion" is trying to find, so far forlornly) BUT this will not be 
achieved within the existing system.

Undiscovered laws of Physics may (and almost certainly do) exist BUT 
they are either almost certainly either near at hand and swamped by 
other factors which make their existence irrelevant for practical 
purposes OR need conditions to work in that do not exist on our 
planet's surface for whatever reasons.

One candidate is (according to me) so called dark matter(DM). DM pops 
up (or fails to pop up but is there) all over space and people have 
been pursuing it for decades. An alternative is that the rules of 
space time are not so clear cut as we think and that under appropriate 
conditions gravity behaves badly - very badly. Such a concept is 
highly heretical and probably not true, but it's certainly a 
candidate, establishment thinking not withstanding. There is no known 
reason why gravity should behave consistently everywhere (as we cannot 
explain how it works when it does work as expected) and if it did 
happen to behave quite differently in regions of space time that are 
sufficiently different to what we see in our immediate neighbourhood.

And, while you may hope that this argument can be extended to 
obtaining hydrogen from water by 'resonance', I regretfully suspect 
that, even though I'd love it to be true, there's more chance of our 
seeing 10,000 kg of bowling balls rolling quietly past on any given 
occasion.


        Russell
        "All models are wrong. Some models are useful"

PS Tacoma Narrows Bridge

One of my fascinations.
In that case the bridge represents the bowling balls at the TOP of 
their holes, protected from rolling in by small fences. Their 'desire' 
to fall in is obvious enough but the restraints are thought to be 
enough. If a suitable wind blows too and fro with an unfortunate 
period, such that the balls are rolled back and forwards against the 
small fences, a point may be reached where the fences are breached and 
'down they go'. Getting them out again is about equivalent to 
reassembling the bridge.



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist