http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_commensurability#Commensurability
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>wrote: > Ok James I admit my ignorance, although I am not a blue collar worker in > the AC field. I also admit my English is less than perfect. I do not know > what you mean with "incommensurable quantities". Are you just supporting > Ed Storms statements about quantities and temperature? I did understand > that, it seems without connection to anything. > However, I have very little experience from production of HHO gas and has > learnt that it does not exist because of what Alan G. explains. I think I > am back to my old believe that the talk about HHO gas is just wishful > thinking or in worst case scam. > Excusable or not my confusion (probably caused by ignorance) is now more > or less eliminated. Good enough for me - thanks. > > To Ed . I did not mean that the LENR process would be improved. My > thinking was that if a 'heat motor' could have very good efficiency like 80 > -90% due to high input temperature and low (room temperature) the LENR > result which you explained previously need to be in a level of five or so > to compensate for the losses due to energy losses when converting the > energy both to the loop back and to consumption. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 > > "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort." PJM > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:44 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The confusion between incommensurable quantities is excusable in someone >> who doesn't know the first thing about physics but not even in a blue >> collar technician that works on household utilities like electrical wiring >> or heating and air conditioning. >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >> >>> Confusion seems to exist between energy and temperature. A very high >>> temperature can be produced using very little energy if the energy is >>> highly concentrated. This is done regularly using lasers and electric arcs. >>> In the case of HHO, the chemical energy released when H2O forms is applied >>> directly to the material where it is released by catalytic action. The skin >>> feels no heat because the reaction is not catalyzed by the skin. >>> >>> This gas would make a poor fuel in an engine because the reaction >>> produces a reduction in volume of gas, with only a temporary increases >>> produced by heating the gas. In contrast, gasoline produces a large >>> increase on gas volume, which is used to move the piston. >>> >>> However, use of such a gas might improve the efficiency of gasoline >>> combustion. More convenient ways exist to do this, which have been applied >>> over the years, thereby making the gasoline engine increasingly efficient. >>> However, I have seen no evidence that LENR can be initiated this way. Even >>> if it could, the heat energy would not be suitable to add much extra push >>> to the piston before the heat was dissipated. The process needs a permanent >>> increase in gas volume, not just a temporary increase cause by increased >>> temperature. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote: >>> >>> Axil, >>> I admit total ignorance of the HHO theory. >>> I have heard about people saying they can reduce gas consumption in >>> autos. It has never taken any commercial format. >>> I have a few questions though: >>> 1. If HHO produce this high temperature, then it sounds to me to be >>> logical that it saves gas in an Otto motor. The gasoline will explode in an >>> instantaneously increased pressure due to HHO increases the temperature and >>> therefore the pressure (compression). Is that how it works? >>> 2. Is it not true that if we can produce any 'heat motor' with higher >>> temperature we will increase COP? At 6,000 C temperature and 20C on the >>> exhaust a heat motor should be competitive with an electrical motor when it >>> comes to COP. >>> 3. If 1 and 2 is correct then a LENR process at COP 2 would be feasible >>> as it at least will have excess energy after feeding its own input. Is that >>> correct? >>> I am OK with a lesson in basics:) >>> >>> Best Regards , >>> Lennart Thornros >>> >>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >>> lenn...@thornros.com >>> +1 916 436 1899 >>> 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 >>> >>> "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >>> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort." PJM >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Why is a HHO flame able to vaporize tungsten and yet will not burn >>>> the skin of your hand. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax4sW3bo_dM >>>> >>>> >>>> The HHO gas stream contains solid crystals of water. These crystals act >>>> like nano lenses that concentrate infrared light in the boundary layer >>>> between a shiny metal surface and a dielectric gas like hydrogen or oxygen. >>>> The science that studies this effect is called nanoplasmonics. >>>> >>>> >>>> The heat energy is confined to the metal surface and locked in(AKA dark >>>> mode) and concentrated their like in a EMF black hole. >>>> >>>> >>>> The metal surface is said to have a negative coefficient of >>>> reflectivity. This keeps the heat from leaving the metal surface. In >>>> this way the heat energy builds up to huge temperatures to the point where >>>> it will vaporize tungsten. >>>> >>>> >>>> The skin on your hand has a positive index of reflectivity; it is not >>>> shiny. The heat from hydrogen combustion is not confined to the surface of >>>> your skin and can escape to the surrounding air. So you will not be readily >>>> burned by the HHO flame. >>>> >>>> >>>> This is a basic LENR effect (aka evanescent wave - >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave) of energy concentration >>>> and focusing. This indicates that the upper temperature limit of the LENR >>>> effect is beyond the temperature required to vaporize tungsten (5930 °C, >>>> 10706 °F) >>>> >>>> >>>> On the other hand, the combustion temperature of hydrogen is only 2,660 >>>> °C with oxygen. Do I need to spell this out any further? >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ceOL83PM24 >>>> >>>> >>>> On the downside, spark ignition of HHO does not use the LENR effect of >>>> the evanescent wave. >>>> >>>> So burning hydrogen in oxygen is only combustion and not LENR. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
