[quote="curtis73
Let me take these in order...
First of all, the law of conservation of energy is not a bill that was signed into law by the government.
Who said it was a bill? Its a scientific proof.
Last time I read about it , it was a theory not a proof. [/u] It has nothing to do with narrow minded philosophy,
It has everything to do with it[/u] its just something that is proven billions of times a day in every chemical reaction that takes place in the universe.
It only takes one scientific proof to dissmiss a theory[/u] If you believe that you can get more energy from nothing then you mustn't have "aces" very many classes.
That's because I'm open minded in the name of science[/u]
Secondly, you make the analogy of splitting atoms and then try to compare it to combusting molecules...
If you're confused, I'll type it more slowly for you[/u] however, since you give that example, we'll use it. Splitting an atom does give off incredible energy.
Ask that to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .[/u]The energy is stored kinetically by the steady state of inertia holding the electrons in orbit around the nucleus. If you break that up, the energy that was holding mass in steady state is now available to the surrounding space. BUT, putting an atom back together takes just as much energy as you get when you split it. The law of conservation of energy still applies.
Who said it doesn't?[/u]
Next, you try to compare physically mining oil with the amount of energy it supplies. That's like asking if it burns an extra 5 gallons of gas if we use a vehicle to transport a 5 gallon can of gasoline.
That is exactly what I ask, just being sarcastic[/u] The law of conservation of energy applies ONLY to the energy involved in the reaction. When you're in your chemistry classes which you "aces" you don't calculate the energy your body expended walking to get the flask in which you do your experiment.
Actually you should to be perfectly accurate but since it is so small it is usually neglected[/u]
You also speak of Acethylene gas. I think you mean Acetylene since the term Acethylene refers to an acid block in Amino and Keto acids and never exists as a singular construction, nor as a gas.
What are you talking about?[/u] Acetylene gas is no magic. In the presence of water (H
[size=7][/size]2
O) and Calcium Carbonate (CaCO[size=7][/size]3
) it would be possible to create Acetylene gas (C[size=7][/size]2
H[size=7][/size]2
) but not without help from a catalyst. Left alone you get weak carbonic acid.... BUT STILL, the law of conservation of energy applies. Even if you add a catalyst and magically get Acetylene, you haven't magically CREATED any energy.
Exactly like the water molecule, you use current as catalyst to separate the hydrogen to oxygen[/u]You've simply taken energy that used to hold one molecule together and placed it in a DIFFERENT molecule's bond. The fact that Acetylene carries more energy than calcium carbonate is because part of that reaction requires heat.
Exactly[/u] You add energy in the form of heat (whether by an external heat source or from the surrounding atmosphere) and that energy becomes locked into the molecular bond. That is why when you burn Acetylene, you get (no surprise) HEAT.
Lastly, you need a HUGE current of electricity to separate hydrogen from oxygen in enough volume to support combustion.
This is ABSOLUTELY , POSITIVELY FALSE, do that "joe cell" experiment and you'll see why. All I used is 12V car battery and I produced so much hydrogen in 1 minute, that I made several explosions that would scare your neighbors.[/u] Those cute little experiments you do in High School Chemistry where you get little bubbles of gas from the cathode and anode are just adorable. So, you make one or two cc's of gas every minute using 100mA and 9V. Now extrapolate that against an engine spinning at 4000 rpms displacing 3.0 liters at 90% VE. For every revolution, it ingests 1.35 liters of volume. At 4000 rpm, that is 5400 LITERS PER MINUTE. That's 5.4 million CCs By very conservative estimates, that means you would need about 20,000 amps at 100V to support that kind of electrolysis.
I told you, do the cute little experiment yourself using 12 V car battery and concentric stainless steel cylinder and you will see how absurd that 20,000 amps that you are saying. Your 20,000 amps is beyond exaggeration[/u]
As soon as you come up with a way to safely electrolyze 5.4 million CCs of H[size=7][/size]2
and O[size=7][/size]2
, as well as find an alternator and wiring capable of supplying 20,000 amps, give us a call.
Ring...ring..ring....ding...dong...anybody home?[/u]
Also, just for your reference with current technology; a 20,000 amp/110v alternator is currently in use manufactured by GE/Whitworth. It weighs 63 tons, is nearly 20 feet long and 16 feet in diameter, and requires the equivalent of 2000 hp.... proof that it takes power to make power
Do you really trust these giants that make you pay for power?[/u]. Even if you didn't lose a single millijoule of energy to friction, heat, noise, light, anything... you would have just made a perpetual motion machine and people would label you as either a genius or satan... or both.
I hope they'll label me a genius, but the truth of the matter is a lot of great minds have known about it but power and greed had repressed these findings...[/u] But, as soon as you lose one millijoule to friction, heat, or light (let alone borrow some of that energy to move a car) it is not feasible. Its measurable, its fact, and I get really tired of explaining this most elementary topic to people who refuse to look at it with a logical mindset.
I'm looking at it with logical mindset, and so far I see you're not using yours. [/u]
ENERGY IN EQUALS ENERGY OUT, PERIOD. Its not a goverment conspiracy.
But it is a conspiracy. Do not dismiss that or you'll be a fool[/u] It doesn't matter if its splitting an atom then putting it back together, breaking up water and then combusting it, or shooting a rocket to the moon, you cannot create or destroy energy. It goes somewhere.
I agree You also say that there is magical energy stored in the Hydrogen. There is NO energy stored in hydrogen that we can access without splitting the atom. We get energy by combusting it with oxygen which is an exothermic reaction. The potential energy with hydrogen is not with the hydrogen, its that it gives off energy when it combusts (joins with oxygen) There is NO MORE ENERGY IN A SINGULAR HYDROGEN ATOM THAN THERE IS WHEN ITS COMBINED WITH OXYGEN AS WATER.
Think of it this way. Let's say you have two magnets stuck together just like hydrogen and oxygen. Pulling them apart requires X amount of force. When you return them together, you don't get anything more than X in return. Pulling them apart requires the same amount of work as you get back when you return them together. Another analogy (which is used in demonstrating chemical reactions all the time): Lets say there is a sidewalk, then a curb that is 1" higher, then its 6" down to the street. The sidewalk represents the potential energy present when hydrogen and oxygen gas are present together. The curb is Ea or activation energy. For this analogy, the curb represents the spark plug. The street represents the combusted exhaust.
Okay, you're going off the rocker here....stay focus[/u]
So, you're walking on the sidewalk and lets say you're 150 lbs. In order to step up to the curb (begin combustion) you have to exert greater than 150 lbs of force to raise yourself 1"; lets say an extra 5 lbs for a total of 155. Then, as you step down to the street (combustion) you are releasing more than 150 lbs of force as your weight hits the street, let's say 200 lbs of force hits the street. In the case of you walking, its inertia and kinetic energy. In the case of combustion, its exothermic chemistry. Now, if you want to reverse that process, you have to exert 200 lbs to the street to raise yourself up to the curb. There is no way around it. If you remain on the street, you've gained 50 lbs of force to use as energy, but with water electrolysis, you have to keep stepping back up on the curb to return the water to its higher state of energy. With things like gasoline, you have an endless supply of fuel at a high energy state; like having 500 people on the curb. You keep burning fuel (people keep stepping off the curb) until you're out of people. Then you have two choices; ask the people to step back up on the curve (turn your exhaust back into fuel which takes as much energy as you get from burning it) or just get new people (refill your tank with fuel that is already at the higher level of energy.)
Have you taken your daily dosage of psychiatric pill yet?..lol[/u]
Asking a car to take liquid water, electrolyze it into componenet gasses, and then combust it back to water is the same as putting exhaust gasses in your tank, asking your car to turn it back into gasoline, then burn it. If that were the case, we wouldn't ever have to put water in our tanks at all... just return the combusted water vapor mixture to the tank and re-electrolyze it.
Finally! some great idea[/u]
Heck what's next... lets have a car just burn humidity from the atmosphere? Be a little low on power in the desert
I knew you it! You are not a hopeless case afterall 
[/u][/quote]
