[TheForge] burning water

[Bruce Freeman]

Umm, I think you meant "The amount of energy put in is MORE than the
energy taken out."

>>> osan at netlabs.net 5/18/2006 6:28:46 PM >>>


terry l. ridder wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006, Demon Buddha wrote:

>> And then there was the statement about water being the safest, 
>> cleanest source of energy in the world.
>>
> 
> well in theory it would be. 

	But this theory doesn't hold in the real world, which was my
point. 
The amount of energy put in is less than the energy taken out.  The 
extra energy has to come from somewhere.  It could come from 
hydroelectric, but more liekly it would come from combusting organics.
> 
>>
>> Unless you can generate x units of energy from hydrogen by
>> expending Y units of energy, where x >= y, the statement
>> is not quite the truth.  Other energy inputs will be required.
>>
> 
> you want a self-sustaining reaction. for that you need nuclear
> power, either fission or fusion.

	So far, those are the only ways we know, and even that isn't a
free 
lunch.  Entropy being what it is, you eventually reach a state of 
equilibrium, in which case everything grindds to a halt.
> 
>>
>> Last I checked, conservation of energy remain in effect, which is to

>> say that there are no free lunches.
>>
> 
> would that be tanstaafl or tinstaafl? ;-)
> 

	tin?
_______________________________________________
Manage membership or unsubscribe at:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge 
theforge mail list group photo site is
http://www.photoaccess.com 
Login:  blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com 
password:  anvil
___________