gre

I've thought about this before, and I wondered if 3D space would even exist without mass.

Lol.. I had a friend with the last name "Doer".. I told him if ever had a son to name him "Willie"

This is a funny and ironic statement... Because the whole reason he's here is because he probably read some conspiracy theory story wrt physics. Though some physicists are extremely closed minded, 'overly open minded' is much worse (because you'll believe every story that you read)

Maybe they do exist, but can't be measured.

Here's an answer from another forum Q: A: swansont, is this acceptable?

Which of my assumptions and calculations are wrong? I figgured it made sense because the end result 1.23 V. Thanks in advance. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI'm lost. Can you explain what I did, in the previous calculation?

Here's what I did. According to Faraday law: 107.205 Amps in a cell over one hour should generate 73.338 Liters of (2 moles H2 and 1 mole O2) at 100 percent efficiency (at 25C 101.325 kPa) Then I tried using the "Gibbs Energy of Formation" to double check the Faraday efficiency. With information from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/electrol.html At 25C and 101.325 kPa the change in Gibbs Energy of formation is 237.18 kilojoules / mol ... Which I assumed meant 237.18 (kJ / mol) of electrical input energy is required to convert 1 mole of H2O into 1 mole of H2 gas and a 1/2 mole of O2 gas (at 25C and 101.325 kPa) at 100 percent efficiency. So with the above Faraday calculations: 107.205 Amps continuous for 1 Hour will create 2 moles of H2 and 1 mole of O2 gas (3 moles total), which has a volume of 73.338 Liters. Then I assumed if I multiply the Gibbs Free Energy of formation (energy used to create 1.5 moles of gas) by 2, I should have the actual energy required for 3 moles of gas (at 100 percent efficiency, in the above conditions). 237.18 kJ * 2 = 474.36 kJ Convert 474.36 kJ to Watts: 474360 Joules / 3600 seconds = 131.7666 Watts Then I put Faraday and "Gibbs" efficiency together.. 131.7666 Watts = 107.204 Amp * Volts So, V = (131.7666 W) / (107.204 A) V = 1.23 Volts Is this right?

This isn't a homework question, I'm just curious. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI was going by this information: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/electrol.html Which seems to imply the deltaG is "Electrical Energy Input" Is that right?

Hello, Is the Change in Gibbs free energy of formation in electrolysis (of water) the same as "the minimum electrical input energy" required to disassociate 1 mole of water? Thanks.

It is very strange most science minded people immediately jump to conclusions about this guy's claim. They don't even claim to be producing more energy than the device is consuming... But the point it is.. Who cares? If this method really works (even if it isn't energy efficient at all), it's probably a brand new way to disassociate water... Right? Also, I'm not saying the experiments shown are definitive proofs, and I agree there definitely needs to be peer review. But I think the news clip should be thought of as credible, unless you think the whole science department at Penn State was scammed. I don't know.. Just seems like there should be more interest than there is... What would be required for you to be interested in this claimed "technology"?

Well, despite all the reason why this phenomena 'shouldn't occur' ... It should be pretty hard to argue the experimental verification in this video.. http://www.wkyc.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=articleplayer&maven_referralPlaylistId=playlist&maven_referralObject=690385132 What do you guys think? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnother credible link, imo http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-burning-water.html And a discussion on the phenomena on a Chemistry forum (If anyone is even interested) http://hypography.com/forums/chemistry/15804-kanzius-effect-rf-induced-flame-saltwater.html I'm surprised there isn't more interest in this... Why could it be happening if 'known science' says it "shouldn't happen". Strange...

Gotcha, so what effect does this have on sub atomic particles exactly? If it's strong enough, does it make them increase in size a little, weaken bonds, etc?

Since the force of gravity is tugging on the object in all directions, would an object be larger, than on earth's surface?

What would the gravity be like in the center of the earth? Would it make objects stretch out in all directions?

Ah.. I see. So "random field fluctuations" might as well be considered random temperature fluctuations. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo, what is the (microscopic?) "temperature" (from 25C) required between two water molecules to ionize them into H3O+ and OH- ... or am I still lost?

Are there any theories out there that relate 'time' (and maybe gravity as well) to the rate of the expansion of the universe?

Tesla, was a very skilled inventor... I don't think anyone will argue that. But everything you posted is heresay, not proof. Remember, you are posting on a science forum.. Did anyone replicate Tesla's earth quake resonance machine? Or his 25 mile radius earth battery (or wireless energy), wireless electric car, or his flying machine? Exact replication are the proof required for his claims, and I don't think there are any. Almost every single thing written about Tesla on the Internet is written by some fanatic Tesla fan... (This isn't proof!) Which is unfortunate because it give the guy a bad name in the science community (imo).

Doesn't this require some form of energy? How about just in a test tube.. not the entire world.. What would happen? Would the solution reach a certain temperature, then then stop, would the solution would evaporate? By good info, I mean all the details, which I'm pretty sure Wiki lacks..

So where does the energy come from in self-ionization? Wouldn't the water need to be "moving" a little bit for this to occur? What would happen in the equilibrium reaction was stopped (and OH- and H3O+ didn't change back to H2O), or the opposite. Yep, I've noticed, any search on google for "zero point energy" is pretty much pointless.. Then the good information you have to pay for.. Very frustrating!

Does polarized RF occur naturally?

Are the random electric field fluctuations that cause water to self-ionize considered zero-point energy? Also, does self-ionization require the same amount of energy that is normally required to convert H2O -----> H3O(+) + OH(-) which is 79.9 kJ / mol (at 25C). Thanks.

Oh, really? Prove it.

But they don't create gravity or curve space-time by themselves?

This is bugging me, now .. Lol ... Why can't someone just create a (partial) vacuum, and measure the permeability/permitivitty in it?

Oops, I meant different velocities. I thought you were implying that mass at a certain size behaves differently in gravity .. I.e. won't fall at the same velocity as a smaller mass.. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo could you say photons contribute to gravity, but don't react to it? I'm confused.. Here is quote from someone on another forum..