Arnold Krille wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 5. August 2008 schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
>
>> Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:01:55PM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>>>
>>>> In most places water is fairly easy to come by as you only have to wait
>>>> for the rain or go to a lake/ocean whereas electricity is slightly more
>>>> complex to attain and usually requires payment for the privilege.
>>>>
>>> Are we living on the same planet ? In most places water supply will
>>> become as big a problem as petrol supply.
>>>
>> Not once we melt the arctic and the antarctic. Then we will have lot's
>> of extra water all round ;-)
>>
>
> Scientists aren't sure of that! Because ice has a lower density then water,
> one volume-unit of ice is bigger than the same volume-unit of water. So if
> the ice-caps melt and there is no ground underneath, just ice and water, it
> might very well be that the sea-level goes down instead of up!
>
>
Oh, so all this talk of rising sea levels and islands in the pacific
already going under water is just being wasting time?
>> Anyway I don't see this issue as I live in a tropical part of the world
>> and have a big river 10 minutes walk away. Also the Ocean is only 2
>> hours drive away.
>>
>
> Try to explain that to people in the middle of Africa, in the tundra, in the
> Chinese landsite, heck, even here in germany there are regions that are
> really dry compared to "big river 10 minutes away".
>
>
Not really interested in that as I'm sure they will find alternatives
that are better suited to their environment.
> And you will notice that the water of the ocean is _not_ suitable for these
> alternative engines per se. It needs to be cleaned and de-salted...
> That is another reason why melting the icecaps doesn't help with the
> water-needs: the water we get is salted.
>
>
That's what is amazing about this circuit. It doesn't matter what
salinity the water is. In fact having some salt in the mix might even
make for more powerful explosions.
>>>> If you can burn water directly without having to extract the hydrogen
>>>> first
>>>>
>>> But you can't since it is already 'burned'. It's the 'ashes'
>>> of burning hydrogen.
>>>
>> ahem, A water molecule is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.
>> Therefore separating the parts gives us two whole hydrogen atoms to
>> excite and extract energy from. I have read that Hydrogen is
>> approximately 10 times more unstable than gasoline and therefore you
>> need less of it to create the same amount of explosive force.
>>
>
> Yes. And splitting H2O to H2 + O takes at least as much energy as you get from
> bunring the H2 to H2O! That is a fundamental law of the universe we live in!
>
No one is denying that law. What has been found is that there is more
than one way to leverage the amount of energy required and it can be
done with very little current if the right circuit is used.
-- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-devReceived on Tue Aug 5 20:15:17 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 05 2008 - 20:15:17 EEST