The chemistry is better than alchemy!

[comode]

Hello, 1st message for me on this forum which I was given the link on dailymotion ...

I went through the forum on unit processes, and I unfortunately saw that there were still a lot of people clinging to stanley meyer style inventions and other water cars at any cost.

For some, this is suddenly still debated ... is it true? partially true? how to be sure?

So little historical reminder ... A little before the French Revolution, a man named Lavoisier wrote "nothing is disturbed, nothing is created, everything is transformed" ... It is for these words that we say of him that he is the father of chemistry, and finally the executioner of alchemy ... (in reality, the maxim is borrowed from Anaxagoras of Clazomenes).

Alchemy was not a science. The principle (if we can say) consisted in advancing at random, without knowing what we were doing, and the results were therefore unpredictable.

From Lavoisier, we are able to predict the limits of a chemical reaction (exit the Philosopher's Stone).

The principle will prove true a little later for the thermodynamic enthalpy ... Once again, nothing was created, nothing was lost! Each association of atom (molecule) to an electromagnetic energy of connection, and this energy does not leave nothing, any more than it disappears there ... In a chemical reaction, this energy is released and reabsorbed (endo reaction -exothermic), but never disappears or appears.

A little later, Einstein further extended the principle to nuclear reactions thanks to his formula E = MC², thus giving a mass-energy equivalence. Neither, nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed, even outside the framework of simple chemistry ...

All that to say that today we have solid knowledge in physics which allows us to predict and explain with precision the theoretical result of a chemical and even nuclear reaction ...

And with regard to these works which have all revolutionized the world, to take them into account would be to show a minimum of respect when it comes to talking about a water car or a unit ...

Also I would like to bring some development on certain "technologies", even if it means being set on fire by some ...

Regarding Stanley Meyer, I will start with the conclusion by calling him a crook.

I have read all of its patents - just to know what I was talking about - and it is easy for me to prove what I am saying even has popularized a little ...

I immediately cut short the problems of vacuum energy and other tesla works that are NO NOW cited or even used in Meyer's patents. This is a bogus explanation advanced in some videos to confuse the audience. We often give you the links to the patents in these videos, and we are forced to note that nobody reads them! Read them, the evidence is there, and if you refuse to read the evidence, it's not even worth arguing. Those who think they can use the energy of the vacuum are light years away from understanding what they are talking about.

According to the patents, the creation of energy part concerns only one patent, that of electrolysis. The other patents concern the various recovery, injection and other mechanical considerations.

The principle would therefore be to carry out (normal) electrolysis using electrical pulses emitted at the resonant frequency between the nuclei of hydrogen and that of oxygen. So far, no problem. Where it starts to go like a lollipop is when he says that this process allows electrolysis to be carried out with yields> 100% ... knows, neither in chemistry nor in physics, resonance does not allow to reduce the energy necessary for the passage of a system from a state A to a state B.

For example, let's take a swing on which we push a kid who yells at you "higher! Higher" ... There are 2 ways to communicate to your pendulum (the kid) the energy necessary to swing ...
- By giving it kinetic energy
- By giving it potential energy
Anyone supposed to opt for the 1st option by giving kinetic impulses in phase with the pendulum, so as to reduce the effort (we push it). The second option would be to lift it, rope stretched to the height you want it to reach, then drop it, which would be very tiring with a small fat and fat American on the pendulum ...

In the same way, Stanley Meyer's electrolysis suggests pushing the pendulum rather than lifting it suddenly, in other words, using electric pulses in phase with this pendulum rather than a direct current which will lift it until its peak ...

But what the thousands of stanley meyer fans forget to consider is that the potential energy of the pendulum at its peak is strictly equal to its kinetic energy when it goes down :
0.5 mv² = mgh (m: mass, v = speed of the pendulum at the lowest, g = acceleration gravity is 9.8N, h maximum height of the pendulum, and we have joules on each side of the equation.
Each impulse given to the pendulum is a acceleration, which can also be encrypt in joules, and we can affirm that the maximum kinetic energy of the system corresponds exactly to the sum (we can make the symbol sigma in BBCode?) of the energy introduced into the system in the form of pulse (acceleration). Which makes it possible to write that:

sigma E acceleration = maximum cycnetic energy = maximum potential energy ... In other words, considering the perfect system, if we want to push the pendulum up to 2 meters high, it will take exactly the same amount of energy under form of speed pulses that would not be necessary if one decides to raise the pendulum of 2 meters high in one go ...

For the electrolysis of meyer, it is the same ... (I no longer have the figures at hand, so the following is by way of example)

If it takes 500 Joules to dissociate an OH chemical bond, you can either directly introduce 500 joules (direct current) to break the bond, or apply 5 times 100 joules in phase with the resonance frequency to obtain the 500 joules necessary to break this molecule. In practice, it is more economical to do 1 time 500J to avoid damping problems and not to lose efficiency due to phase shifts ...
But in NO CASE it will be possible with resonance to break this connection before having brought 500J ...

It is as if we considered that the kid will fall from the swing from 2.5 meters high ... per pulse or not, the energy equivalent to 2m high is the same (except that in practice, you will have more pulse loss due to amortization).

In other words, Stanley Meyer is a liar! its electrolysis is in NO CASE on a unit, and it will not be one meter with its water car without an external energy source ....

Regarding bingofuel, more extravagances ... So pyrolysis of water? electrolysis? photolysis? we can tell what we want on it, it's anything but unlimited, free or ecological ...

As explained above, it is not the way in which one brings energy to a system which determines the energy necessary to obtain a given result ...

And as we saw even above, all energies can be linked ...

I would not repeat a demonstration for all cases, but you should also know that the energy potentially contained in the gas obtained by this process can in no case be greater than the energy introduced into the system to produce this gas , except to degrade something else during the combustion of this gas ...

In this case, I see talking about these forums of carbon monoxide ... and I refer you to my introduction, nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything transforms ... If there is carbon monoxide in the gas obtained (and other carbon chains ) is that we have carbon to create it ... Bingo! the electrodes are made of carbon.
Basically, I can already affirm that except nuclear reaction worthy of a red giant, the carbon of the electrode is consumed if there is only water in this thing ... Then the solid volume equivalence -> gas must be of the order of magnitude of 1/1000, therefore the electrode must degrade very slowly ...

In this way, if the system was perfect and without loss, the energy consumed to produce this gas will be at best equal to the amount of energy introduced to create the gas. + possibly the energy equivalent to the combustion of carbon electrodes in the air, what you will agree is ridiculous ...

In this account, it is better to burn the electrode directly in carbon, we will have much less loss ...

If the bingofuel is so much talked about, it is that its followers never take the time to consider the amount of energy necessary to create it, but neither, no over unity even if the system was perfect. The only theoretical excess can come from the combustion of carbon from the electrode, whether in CH4, C2H6 or CO ... therefore without interest ...

For the pentone, nothing to say except on the enlightened who believe that water is a fuel there or it is only a recuperator of lost energy ...

For the Japanese genepax car, I could not get my hands on any patent that could explain that this car turns on the water ... No official technical explanation and at the limit a lot of guesses, but we have absolutely nothing concrete.
Whoever finds a patent relating to this "invention" please let him know ....

Regarding Tesla, vacuum energy and the like, it is quite delicate in the sense that addicts to free energies mix a little everything ...
There are completely wacky theory that coexists with things that really have nothing to do with what you are told ...

It is a dabat on which I could fill dozens and dozens of pages, so to make it very brief, we can remember that:
- Theories that the conspirators recognize as true were just Tesla's hypotheses. Tesla did a remarkable job, but he was not always right and there are many of his assumptions that neither he nor anyone could ever demonstrate (counter theory they have been).
- one should not confuse the energy of the vacuum which leaves from nowhere and which does not exist with the average latent residual energy which is of the order of 2 or 3 ° K, which is ridiculously shabby. It is impossible to imagine being able to realize a system which would leave a sufficient quantity of the vacuum to be interesting as it is so small ... It is not necessary either to make an amalgam between the energy of the vacuum and that of a hole black ... The energy of the black hole comes from its mass, from matter.

In the absence of a reference, I understand that this last paragraph cannot be of much value since it explains nothing. But it is the same for the conspirators opposite. In the absence of proof or verifiable references from them, I will not tire of producing it either. Find a reference to a serious publication, and I wouldn't say anything without having references to press on the subject.

Finally, there it is...

Without even having a great knowledge of physics, the scientific spirit is often enough to answer certain questions ...

If someone says something, CHECK its sources. Checking, that doesn't just mean that there is a link ... The link, you have to click on it and read it!

In addition, never lose sight of the fact that a proof is a supported argument having an absolute or certain character as long as one respects its initial hypotheses (wiki), which implies that a theory based on unproven hypotheses cannot be taken for real.

So don't see any evidence in this post, just explanations.

[jonule]

hypotheses, without +.

The principle will prove true a little later for the thermodynamic enthalpy

ok, are you leaving school? which ?

Regarding Stanley Meyer, I will start with the conclusion by calling him a crook.

okay, it starts well, hello!
like pantone, with a trial you want to put him in prison? useless it is already sanitized in 1998, working on the cold fusion, therefore pain lost.

I immediately cut short the problems of vacuum energy and other tesla works that are NO NOW cited or even used in Meyer's patents.

false: it uses the tesla switch for example, chareg pumping system which allows it to increase in power. (search on this site). as well as others that I can show you but you will have to be polite this time, no, but.

All that to say that today we have solid knowledge in physics which allows us to predict and explain with precision the theoretical result of a chemical and even nuclear reaction ...

who that "we"? do you work in nuclear? What does "solid" mean?

Where it starts to go crazy, is when he says that this process allows electrolysis to be carried out with yields> 100% ... We know that neither in chemistry nor in physics resonance allows to reduce the 'energy required for a system to go from state A to state B.

ditto cold fusion and "hydroplasmol" research, especially the course on synergy.

in short: you pay attention to your scale but not what is infinitely small and large. otherwise it is that you are sure of everything, that we invented and discovered everything in 200 years and that there is only the nuclear power plant to enlighten us in life ... no no.

you show it well by taking the example of the pendulum
just one example: when you push the kid, a gust of wind pushes him even further! would it be a sur-unitary push on your part or it is that you had not seen the wind because it is invisible? no it is not necessary to go back to school, but to be a bit more observant than what you are given to eat.

it is much more effective than a direct current to break a bond, look at the tumultuous current of water and you will understand perhaps, that the waves of a current are more powerful than a flat lake. there is + a way to bring 500 joules by waves, waves.

for the power of a gas, if, the H2O molecule by breaking by ionization (in particular) can form hydrogen, dihydrogen or parahydrogen: they do not have the same power and can be formed successively by charge ( see joe cell).

anyway we are not looking for a unit system, just to save some fuel! for the energy, it is that of the alternator, I run on recycled oil (filtered 100% free), and if your car is going downhill, the alternator will provide the necessary energy, we bet? like recovering braking energy, did you think about it in your energy conservation?

In this way, if the system was perfect and without loss, the energy consumed to produce this gas will be at best equal to the amount of energy introduced to create the gas + possibly the energy equivalent to the combustion of the carbon electrodes in the air, what you will agree is ridiculous ...

that's good, you think about it but it's too rude, you have to be inisist ;-)

the pantone: glad you think we can recover lost NRJ and re-inject it into the engine
genepax: yes I think there is a patent on it
tesla: who do you think you are?

I learned physics in college when I was a student, and nothing that I know today! strange isn't it?
for my part, a scientist is not dedicated to thinking about life, but rather focused on his car and his playstation ...
concerning the scientific spirit: some make bombs with explosives, others fireworks. hypothesis, synthesis, only serve to lay reports that say that GMOs are not bad for health after 3 weeks.

that's good, but you have to keep looking!

[Christophe]

Ah I was sure that Jonule was not going to like this subject ... yet full of common sense ...

[tigrou_838]

after reading the two previous messages,

I feel that it will heat the neurons between jonule and comode.

[Christophe]

Yes, it's not convenient, is it?

[Bibiphoque]

Hello,
For Meyer, it seemed to me that I had read that he had used not only a resonant cavity but also tungsten electrodes ..... thoriated, which adds to his system a source of radiolysis.
@+

[Christophe]

Radiolysis?

This is the first time I hear this term ...

Is it decomposition by electromagnetic "bombardment"?

[Capt_Maloche]

Hi comode

Everything you say about the laws of energy conservation is true ... on a macroscopic scale.

But the link is still not made with Quantum, which makes some researchers think of the existence of "something else" such as parallel dimensions, string theory (according to the middle)

The origin of gravity and the source of a magnetic field (spin of electrons) are not yet very clear, we know how to model them, put them into equation, but the basic phenomenon remains (unless I am mistaken) misunderstood

in any case, in this area, I will remain humble, the subject is too strong for me, however: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9canique_quantique

One can only determine the state of a quantum system by observing it, which has the effect of destroying the state in question. However, once known, it can in principle be recreated elsewhere. In other words, duplication is not possible in the quantum world, only it is a reconstruction in another place, close to the concept of teleportation in science fiction.

Theoretically developed in 1993 by CH Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. Wootters in the article Teleporting an unknown quantum state by dual classical and EPR channels, of the Physical Review Letter, this reconstruction was carried out experimentally in 1997, on photons, by the team of Anton Zeilinger in Innsbruck, and more recently on hydrogen atoms.


Some paradoxes
These “paradoxes” question us about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and reveal in certain cases to what extent our intuition can prove to be deceptive in this domain which does not come directly from the daily experience of our senses.

This paradox highlights the problems of interpretation of the postulate of reduction of the wave packet.

Schrödinger's cat.
EPR paradox and experience of Alain Aspect
This paradox highlights the non-locality of quantum physics, implied by entangled states.

Marlan Scully's Experience
This experience can be interpreted as a demonstration that the results of an experience recorded at a time T objectively depend on an action performed at a later time T + t. According to this interpretation, the non-locality of entangled states is not only spatial, but also temporal.

However, the causality is not strictly violated because it is not possible - for fundamental reasons - to demonstrate, before the instant T + t, that the state recorded at the instant T depends on a subsequent event. This phenomenon cannot therefore give any information about the future.

Contrafactuality
According to quantum mechanics, events that could have happened, but did not happen, influence the results of the experiment.

These extracts alone give us a small idea of ​​our "ignorance" in this area, especially when we know that the macroscropic world (the one we observe) in which we evolve necessarily depends on the quantum world

so?

I think there are a few doors to open
of course, a lot of mounting on all of these forums are doomed to failure, but hope remains, who knows, luck?

[Tagor]

Hello,
For Meyer, it seemed to me that I had read that he had used not only a resonant cavity but also tungsten electrodes ..... thoriated, which adds to his system a source of radiolysis.
@+

I am not a specialist in handling meyer
but it seems to me that there is a big confusion

for the resonant cavity it is almost on that it plays
in case all the manipulation that tickles official physics

cf: th moray, ed gray, j keely, hydrosonic pump, sonoluminescence, testatica ... etc

[comode]

Lol Joule, no more hypotheses ... I have only popularized some great principles of thermodynamics and chemistry ... If you read my last sentence, I said that I shouldn't take that as proof in addition ... The baseless hypotheses, you will find 2 per line over the entire length of your post ...

for my part, a scientist is not dedicated to thinking about life, but rather focused on his car and his playstation ...
concerning the scientific spirit: some make bombs with explosives, others fireworks. hypothesis, synthesis, only serve to lay reports that say that GMOs are not bad for health after 3 weeks.

And that explains everything ... With a reductionist vision like this one, you're not going to go far! I think it is not even necessary to answer there ...

Capt_Maloche

I don't think physics is reaching its goal either ... I don't think we've discovered everything, explained everything or even dismissed everything that was impossible ...

For example, cold fusion ...

Personally, I am one of those who do not believe in it. However, I do not reject it in the name of my beliefs. If overall the experience is very difficult to reproduce, I think that there remains an important field of research in this field and this theory deserves that we dwell on it a little.
If one day, someone brings the proof, in the purely scientific sense of the term, that poses no problem to me, I am ready to change my mind. If they are wrong, hey they are wrong and that's it, it doesn't deserve that we throw them rotten tomatoes ...

On the other hand, that a gugus arrives and balances us "I have invented a process which works on the cold fusion and which allows me to have an unlimited source of energy" (what we see every day on the web), I run to buy a truck of rotten tomatoes ...

Indeed, we are talking about something so specific that even scientists with fairly large budgets cannot be sure that it will reproduce it ... It is so tiny that even our most efficient sensors are barely able to detect it ...
In the field, the most advanced research highlights fluxes that some tens of neutrons which could possibly testify to a phenomenon of fusion ... Something delicate to assert when using electrodes made of heavy metals, metals often radioactive by nature ...

So between a scientific community fed by public funds which is working as best it can to try to reproduce with all the difficulties of the world an experiment whose detection of results is problematic and fun who pretend to make in their garden and fingers in the nose an inexhaustible source of energy on this principle ...

Finally, it is always the same problem with the inventors of Sunday ... They are alchemists, not scientists, hence the title of my subject ...

PS: no alchemist in the world 'ever found what he was looking for ... Some people discovered things, but always things that had nothing to do, and often by mistake ...