Millions of watts generated from the water?

[elephant]

The article cited by Janic,

http://www.enerzine.com/603/10894+la-re ... ntox+.html

is much too long to copy here, but actually very interesting.

[moinsdewatt]

to complete with this other article
http://www.enerzine.com/603/10894+la-re ... ntox+.html
The hydrino is not new, but its mastery was not acquired. So it seems that in this case it is here.

They haven't proven anything at all. They claim to have done something that no one but them can do again.

And the hydrino is pure humor.

[Remundo]

Less than Watt, you can only be annoyed on this subject ...

The title is the opposite of your principles

[Janic]

minus dewatt hello

They haven't proven anything at all. They claim to have done something that no one except them can remake.

I personally have no competence (but you maybe?) to say if it is a simple claim, a joke or what do I know. The article quotes scientific referents and talks about the independent reproducibility of the phenomenon. What is it really like? I was not personally invited to check it and I remain with the information for what it can be worth. The future will say if it is concrete or wind, but the a priori have muzzled many disturbing discoveries for the systems in place (those that Quanthomme reports for example!)

And the hydrino is pure humor.

Do you have the qualifications and skills necessary to judge this?

[Grelinette]

This interesting debate is similar to that of the Rar-energie project (https://www.econologie.com/forums/rar-energia-t12783.html) and other Bessler wheels:

On the one hand, there are scientists who say that they have found a revolutionary physical or chemical principle that brings immeasurable hopes for humans in terms of energy production.

On the other there are fundamental and laws of physics in force which are generally in total contradiction with the so-called revolutionary principles announced.

Between the 2, there are more or less scientific and incomplete announcements giving the beginnings of explanations, but it is clear that for each of the revolutionary projects announced, no scientific and complete demonstration has been made public, or even accomplished. .

That said, it would be presumptuous to say that science and certain fundamentals can no longer evolve or be questioned on certain points.

"The staircase of science is Jacob's ladder, it ends only at the feet of God. "(Albert E.)

[moinsdewatt]

It 's been since 2008 that Randel Mills claims his energy from hydrino
the article of Oct 21, 2008 in the NewYork Times: '' Blacklight Power bolsters its impossible claims of a new renewable energy source '
http://www.nytimes.com/external/venture ... 99377.html

So the guy can hardly be convincing since he has been paddling for 6 years.

[Ahmed]

Grelinette, I formally dispute the validity of your assertion:

... there are scientists who say they have found a revolutionary physical or chemical principle and bearer of immeasurable hopes* for humans in terms of energy production.

What the world is currently suffering from is an excess of energy resources and their use which goes against the maintenance of life on earth, the discovery of new inexhaustible sources, far from being a hope or a solution , can only hasten the current disaster.

* It is me who underlines.

[Grelinette]

Grelinette, I formally dispute the validity of your assertion:

... there are scientists who say they have found a revolutionary physical or chemical principle and bearer of immeasurable hopes* for humans in terms of energy production.

What the world is currently suffering from is an excess of energy resources and their use which goes against the maintenance of life on earth, the discovery of new inexhaustible sources, far from being a hope or a solution , can only hasten the current disaster.
* It is me who underlines.

Ahmed, I formally contest the merits of your dispute: certainly man wastes, and at the same time pollutes his environment, but the problem (s) posed by the main sources of energy currently used are,
on the one hand, the proximity of their drying up,
on the other hand, their very polluting nature and generate a lot of waste difficult to treat, even indestructible,
finally, to be very unequally distributed on earth.

When scientists announce that they have found a new source of energy bringing hope, I see at least an opposition to these 3 points (limitation, pollution, inequality).

In addition, the abundance of a new source of energy easy to exploit, "could" destroy (reduce) the inclinations of some to monopolize, for their sole benefit and interest, this source within everyone's reach (in theory at least!).

We move away from the initial subject and we slide to another more philosophical subject ... Besides, to take a new quote from Albert Einstein which brings water to your mill: “The possession of marvelous means of production did not bring freedom, but worry and famine. "

(Ps: The quotes of this dear Albert Eistein are really more and more topical. We could debate them in a new post).

[Ahmed]

My point of disagreement is not about waste, but rather about the current extreme efficiency of the use of energy which, in addition to its indirect consequences (which you mentioned), exerts a massive destructive effect.
This last effect would not be modified in any way if one or more substitute energies not exhibiting these "side effects" appeared.

[sen-no-sen]

Besides, to take a new quote from Albert Einstein who also brings water to your mill: “The possession of marvelous means of production did not bring freedom, but worry and famine. "

Albert Einstein's quotations only confirm Ahmed's remark.

but the problem (s) posed by the main sources of energy currently used are, on the one hand, the proximity of their drying up, on the other hand, their very polluting nature and generating a lot of waste difficult to treat, even indestructible,
finally, to be very unequally distributed on earth.

This is only the emerging side of the problems.
We must not omit the indirect danger which presents an equally high potential for destruction.
The reason is what we call "the effect of the red queen" which I have alluded to several times and which is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics: The more a society spends energy and the more it modifies its environment, the more it is modified, the more this society has to spend energy to adapt to the change that has caused, and those until criticality threshold (collapse).

If we developed a clean energy, almost unlimited, and easily exploitable (solar is very "clean" but presents some difficulty in its exploitation) such as the followers of the "free energy" dream it would lead to environmental modifications which could not be contained because we don't stop progress.
the outcome would be the collapse of our society and biotopes.

Now, if we take the example of the subject, ie the hydrogen / oxygen separation by a process requiring a final gain greater than the initial bet, that would be catastrophic!
Water is the source of life, its exploitation for industrial purposes would therefore cause two perverse effects on the deadly outcome: an all-out modification of our environment through the dissipation of energy on the one hand and scarcity from the most basic source on earth: water!

Fortunately for us, the mountain will give birth to a mouse!