Horace > >> You will find that 570 kJ/kg, is close to the bottom line. Assuming conservation of energy,
> >I disagree, as do the researchers of the report cited > >yesterday and others who are actively working on this. I > >hope to get around to typing in some of their findings later > >today. You are trying to pigeon-hole this into existing heat > >engine technology. It won't fit. > I'm not trying - conservation of energy fits any technology ALL BY ITSELF unless that technology provides free energy. Again, Horace, you are invoking 'conservation of energy' where it does not apply. Total energy content can include much more than *combustion* energy (chemical energy), or oxidation potentials, etc. Can't you see that? If you were to set up an experiment, like at they did at Sandia, where they use a bunch of brittle ceramic blades set in circular arrays, and then they fracture the center piece by using say one kJ or energy... BUT this small explosion sets up a shock wave from one mechanical failure, and then works it way quickly out to the circumference, releasing 1000 kJ of net energy, then is energy conserved? The answer is yes, it is conserved because, even though we had ZERO net energy, so-called, at the start - in the fully oxidized ceramic - we did not account for the *strain energy* held in the brittle material. This simply does not show up in a kJ/kg accounting of chemical energy. The strain energy involved in breaking hydrogen bonds of solids like clathrates is on a par with chemical energy found in combustion, but it is NEVER accounted for in BTUs because that figure is based solely on chemical energy.... Now do you get it? Jones Not to mention, the technology I am describing might indeed provide some free energy via the Casimir force (or the beta-aether) which is arguably the force holding all of those stiff hydrogen bonds in place in a clathrate lattice which has a "particulate" of a certain size, which is the size where the Casimir is optimized. My hypothesis is that this exact size in known to science, and is what we call the *Forster radius.* If we can maintain ice or clathrate particulates at this exact size, then their brittle mechanical failure, coincident with a chemical explosion, will indeed provide what you are calling an apparent violation of conservation of energy. The energy is there, however, from the start but it is energy which we are not used to accounting for in thermodynamics. More later...
