Can Sound Waves Boil water at overunity efficiency with specific frequency of sound?

[ElvisLive]

DRAT!!!! You are SUCH a liar - say you're leaving and then come back!!!:bugeye:

OK, since you obviously aren't bright enough to figure it out, I'll explain how the second law applies and do it in VERY simple terms so that you can take it someone who will then break it down into single syllables for you. Maybe then you can get it.

The fact that it requires an external fuel source at all proves it isn't a over-unity device. A true over-unity device (which cannot possibly exist anyway) would produce enough energy to KEEP itself running in addition to producing an excess of power which could be drawn off.

Now go and get back under your rock!!!

Admit it, you missed me retard. Your response is still sub human yet refreshingly less obnoxious due to the fact that you at least tried to answer the question but failed again.

"A true over unity device"? And you don't see the magical thinking and thought control in your statement?

(On a serious professional note - your personality is of one that has been exposed to high levels of mercury. EDTA is the molecule we use to treat that.)

Let's try this since you are attracted to loud noises, moving light and bold colors like a bug or a person that suffers from mercury poisoning.

(note - I used 67 of your retard smilies you communicate with but was limited to three so had to delete them. Just pretend they are there. F'ing photon conservation society is holding down the man.)

SECOND LAW DOES NOT APPLY!
IT IS GREATER THAN 100% EFFICIENT!

Helpful?

Einstein rightly stated a gallon of water had enough energy to run a train around the Earth 100 times. That would be more energy than I use in a lifetime. I piss that much water in two days time and you can have all you want free. If it is a fake free energy train powered by piss I am willing to agree to the term "piss off fake energy".

So now that we agree that a car engine can run on a few ounces of cheap fuel for 40,000 miles using an atomic conversion of the mass, I would say that the car is more efficient than it was when it ran on gas at %25 efficiency.

I estimate it would take 2000 gallons of gas verses 1 cup of noble gas to drive 40,000 miles.

Since a gasoline engine is roughly 25% efficient, 2000 gallons x 16 cups = 32,000 cups of gasoline.

- verses -

1 cup of noble gases.

My car just became 32,000% more "piss off fake energy" efficient. I can live with that.

Oops! I just went over the magical number of 100% [Inset your freak out here]

You can't seem to understand that there is a difference between a chemical rocket and an atomic rocket. The amount of work in verses the amount of work out is over your head? That is the definition of efficiency I am using - deal with the reality of it.

All you can do is recite some irrelevant seconds law like a broken record player written by men describing steam engines and fire before electric lights and automobiles and atomic energy. You really need to free your mind and turn on the lights of the 21st century.

"If you argue for your limitations, you shall have them." - Seagull

 

[Read-Only]

Admit it, you missed me retard. Your response is still sub human yet refreshingly less obnoxious due to the fact that you at least tried to answer the question but failed again.

"A true over unity device"? And you don't see the magical thinking and thought control in your statement?

(On a serious professional note - your personality is of one that has been exposed to high levels of mercury. EDTA is the molecule we use to treat that.)

Let's try this since you are attracted to loud noises, moving light and bold colors like a bug or a person that suffers from mercury poisoning.

(note - I used 67 of your retard smilies you communicate with but was limited to three so had to delete them. Just pretend they are there. F'ing photon conservation society is holding down the man.)

SECOND LAW DOES NOT APPLY!
IT IS GREATER THAN 100% EFFICIENT!

Helpful?

Einstein rightly stated a gallon of water had enough energy to run a train around the Earth 100 times. That would be more energy than I use in a lifetime. I piss that much water in two days time and you can have all you want free. If it is a fake free energy train powered by piss I am willing to agree to the term "piss off fake energy".

So now that we agree that a car engine can run on a few ounces of cheap fuel for 40,000 miles using an atomic conversion of the mass, I would say that the car is more efficient than it was when it ran on gas at %25 efficiency.

I estimate it would take 2000 gallons of gas verses 1 cup of noble gas to drive 40,000 miles.

Since a gasoline engine is roughly 25% efficient, 2000 gallons x 16 cups = 32,000 cups of gasoline.

- verses -

1 cup of noble gases.

My car just became 32,000% more "piss off fake energy" efficient. I can live with that.

Oops! I just went over the magical number of 100% [Inset your freak out here]

You can't seem to understand that there is a difference between a chemical rocket and an atomic rocket. The amount of work in verses the amount of work out is over your head? That is the definition of efficiency I am using - deal with the reality of it.

All you can do is recite some irrelevant seconds law like a broken record player written by men describing steam engines and fire before electric lights and automobiles and atomic energy. You really need to free your mind and turn on the lights of the 21st century.

"If you argue for your limitations, you shall have them." - Seagull

Very sorry excuses for REAL science! You've done little here besides expose your huge gap of understanding physics. And you still cannot substitute your own flaky definition of efficiency for the real one. If we all started doing that, scientists would not be able to communicate between each other - much less produce meaningful work if any or all definitions were nothing more than what each (rather stupid) individual wanted them to be,

And you are a LONG way from even understanding what true over-unity wold be (if it could exist - which it doesn't).

 

[leopold]

Admit it, you missed me retard. Your response is still sub human yet refreshingly less obnoxious due to the fact that you at least tried to answer the question but failed again.

"A true over unity device"? And you don't see the magical thinking and thought control in your statement?

(On a serious professional note - your personality is of one that has been exposed to high levels of mercury. EDTA is the molecule we use to treat that.)

Let's try this since you are attracted to loud noises, moving light and bold colors like a bug or a person that suffers from mercury poisoning.

(note - I used 67 of your retard smilies you communicate with but was limited to three so had to delete them. Just pretend they are there. F'ing photon conservation society is holding down the man.)

SECOND LAW DOES NOT APPLY!
IT IS GREATER THAN 100% EFFICIENT!

Helpful?

Einstein rightly stated a gallon of water had enough energy to run a train around the Earth 100 times. That would be more energy than I use in a lifetime. I piss that much water in two days time and you can have all you want free. If it is a fake free energy train powered by piss I am willing to agree to the term "piss off fake energy".

So now that we agree that a car engine can run on a few ounces of cheap fuel for 40,000 miles using an atomic conversion of the mass, I would say that the car is more efficient than it was when it ran on gas at %25 efficiency.

I estimate it would take 2000 gallons of gas verses 1 cup of noble gas to drive 40,000 miles.

Since a gasoline engine is roughly 25% efficient, 2000 gallons x 16 cups = 32,000 cups of gasoline.

- verses -

1 cup of noble gases.

My car just became 32,000% more "piss off fake energy" efficient. I can live with that.

Oops! I just went over the magical number of 100% [Inset your freak out here]

You can't seem to understand that there is a difference between a chemical rocket and an atomic rocket. The amount of work in verses the amount of work out is over your head? That is the definition of efficiency I am using - deal with the reality of it.

All you can do is recite some irrelevant seconds law like a broken record player written by men describing steam engines and fire before electric lights and automobiles and atomic energy. You really need to free your mind and turn on the lights of the 21st century.

"If you argue for your limitations, you shall have them." - Seagull

read-only,
give it up dude. can't you see what you are arguing with?

 

[ElvisLive]

Very sorry excuses for REAL science! You've done little here besides expose your huge gap of understanding physics. And you still cannot substitute your own flaky definition of efficiency for the real one. If we all started doing that, scientists would not be able to communicate between each other - much less produce meaningful work if any or all definitions were nothing more than what each (rather stupid) individual wanted them to be,

And you are a LONG way from even understanding what true over-unity wold be (if it could exist - which it doesn't).

So the "(rather smart)" people that wanted it to be impossible to to get more work out than put in came up with a definition to hide behind along with some word games that made it impossible?

Let's try this. Suppose I break it down into joules or BTUs.

If I put put 100 BTU of heat in and get 200 BTU of heat out would that be 200% efficient by your definition and impossible?

Step into my lair.

 

[ElvisLive]

Most of this post is nothing but pure bunk!:bugeye: And electrons play NO part in cavitation. Forget your ignorant, stupid youtube videos and read ( and actually STUDY!) some genuine scientific literature. Anything - anything! - is possible in those asinine videos and half the people making "scientific" videos are simply pulling you leg - and the other half are outright lying through their teeth.

As to "getting something from nothing", it goes WAY beyond chemistry and applies to any field you care to name. That was just simple uneducated ignorance speaking when you made that statement. And you are the one who has "magical thinking" - a very HEAVY dose of it!

You are an fraud that should be banned. You just keep getting your belligerent ass handed to you.

Last time I checked, photons and electrons were both quarks

Institute of Applied Physics

Boosting Sonoluminescence
.physik.tu-darmstadt.de/~hofu/paper/boosting/

Single bubble sonoluminescence has been experimentally produced through a novel approach of optimized sound excitation. A driving consisting of a first and second harmonic with selected amplitudes and relative phase results in an increase of light emission compared to sinusoidal driving. We achieved a raise of the maximum photo current of up to 300% with the two-mode sound signal. Numerical simulations of multi-mode excitation of a single bubble are compared to this result.

 

[Read-Only]

read-only,
give it up dude. can't you see what you are arguing with?

I'm just at that point, Leo.

Yes, he's nothing but an ignorant troll. Not worth wasting any more of my time on. And perhaps if I leave him alone, he'll starve to death for attention and die.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Don't waste your time, RO. This troll won't last long..they never do.

 

[Read-Only]

Don't waste your time, RO. This troll won't last long..they never do.

You're right too, Mac. I'm finished with the dummy. (May he NOT rest in peace.)

 

[phlogistician]

Last time I checked, photons and electrons were both quarks

Woah, my physics is rusty, but electrons carry the 'elementary charge', same as a proton, but a proton has internal structure, and is comprised of quarks with fractional charges that partly cancel each other out to make the 'elementary charge'. So far, we have not detected any internal structure relating to electrons.

Quarks have mass, photons only momentum, er, what else? What does it matter, Elvis is mistaken. Perhaps he should 'check again'.

 

[Read-Only]

Woah, my physics is rusty, but electrons carry the 'elementary charge', same as a proton, but a proton has internal structure, and is comprised of quarks with fractional charges that partly cancel each other out to make the 'elementary charge'. So far, we have not detected any internal structure relating to electrons.

Quarks have mass, photons only momentum, er, what else? What does it matter, Elvis is mistaken. Perhaps he should 'check again'.

You are correct and I started to post that myself (along with a couple of other points). But I figured it would only be feeding the troll and he would come back with even more nonsense. He needs to die of starvation.

 

[fedr808]

I actually made a car run on water, it's called an HHO generator. I did it for a school science project. It's pretty old though, and it's not "hush hush"

Big whup, i can buy kits on sky mall for 199 dollars that do it.

And also they come with colorful pictures

 

[ElvisLive]

Woah, my physics is rusty, but electrons carry the 'elementary charge', same as a proton, but a proton has internal structure, and is comprised of quarks with fractional charges that partly cancel each other out to make the 'elementary charge'. So far, we have not detected any internal structure relating to electrons.

Quarks have mass, photons only momentum, er, what else? What does it matter, Elvis is mistaken. Perhaps he should 'check again'.

I did and I was wrong and can admit it unlike some. Thanks for the push back that was not insulting to both of us.

The point I was trying to make is that sonofusion emits light and the electron is affected by the force carrier particle of the electromagnetic force which is the photon.

So for read-only to state "And electrons play NO part in cavitation" would be
incorrect and laughable at a particle physics level. It would be like claiming water has no part in life at a biological level.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Elvis = do you make breakfast machines too?

I really want one

 

[ElvisLive]

Elvis = do you make breakfast machines too?

I really want one

Can you make something besides 1660 catty one line sarcastic remarks?

I don't want one.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Let's try this. Suppose I break it down into joules or BTUs.

If I put put 100 BTU of heat in and get 200 BTU of heat out would that be 200% efficient by your definition and impossible?

Step into my lair.

Given a tank of petrol I can put in only a few Joules of energy in the form of a burning match and get out billions of Joules of energy. Is me setting fire to a car therefore over unity efficiency? Nope. Because the efficiency is a measure of how much of the total available energy is turned into 'useful' energy, which in the case of a car is kinetic energy getting you somewhere.

A car is 25% efficient because 25% of the energy in the petrol ends up as kinetic energy in the motion of the car. Our bodies are about 30% efficient because 70% of the energy in our food is wasted as thermal energy. When I run, I begin to sweat because for every 3 Joules of kinetic energy my muscles put into me moving they create 7 Joules of heat, which I must get rid of or my body chemistry breaks down and I die.

If you have a car which has some kind of atomic reactor, ie you put in some heavy water rather than petrol you don't measure its efficiency by the amount of energy the fusion of heavy water gives compared to the amount burning petrol gives, you measure its efficiency by the ratio of the amount of energy the heavy water has available in totall compared to how much of that becomes kinetic energy in the car. If a cup of heavy water has a total energy content of 1 trillion Joules but only 1 billion of those ends up as motion in the car then its efficiency is 0.1% (1 in 1000, I use the American notions of billion and trillion). Its irrelevant that a petrol based car can turn the 1 million Joules in a cup of petrol into 0.25 million joules of kinetic energy (ie a 25% efficiency). Utterly irrelevant.

The 'atomic car' might be dealing with amounts of energy which are much higher or energy sources which are much more compact, but the definition of efficiency is the ratio of useful energy to total input energy.

Suppose to get to 100mph you need to put in 1 million Joules of energy to your car. A petrol engine will need an amount of petrol which contains 4 million Joules of total energy, if its 25% efficient. Let's suppose that volume of petrol is 100ml (honestly I have no idea, its a thought experiment). The remaining 3 million is lost as heat, unburnt carbon molecules, unpleasant nitrogen based combustion products and noise. If an atomic car needs 100 million Joules, which is contained within 1ml of heavy water that doesn't mean the atomic car is 100 times more efficient because its fuel is 100 times smaller but infact it has an efficiency of 1%, because its input fuel has 100 million Joules of which only 1 million end up as useful energy. So its efficiency is 25 times LESS, despite it using 100 times less volume of fuel. Infact, the volume of the fuel is IRRELEVANT. It all comes down to how much energy is exchanged from fuel to useful.

Mind you, this is a pretty complicated topic. That's why here in the UK they don't teach the concept of energy efficiency till you reach the heady heights of 7th grade.

 

[Read-Only]

Mind you, this is a pretty complicated topic. That's why here in the UK they don't teach the concept of energy efficiency till you reach the heady heights of 7th grade.

HEH! That's one of the most subtle put-downs I've seen in quite a while - direct and to the point!

It's also worth noting that by the time a student leaves the 7th grade they also understand that people cannot just make up any definition for an established process/parameter/equation that suits their silly fancy. Gotta play by the rules or there is NO ball game at all.

 

[ElvisLive]

Given a tank of petrol I can put in only a few Joules of energy in the form of a burning match and get out billions of Joules of energy. Is me setting fire to a car therefore over unity efficiency? Nope. Because the efficiency is a measure of how much of the total available energy is turned into 'useful' energy, which in the case of a car is kinetic energy getting you somewhere.


It all comes down to how much energy is exchanged from fuel to useful.

Quote edited for the purpose of conserving photons and preserving the civility of the human race in an attempt to make this conversation more efficient while conceding the conversation could never be 100% efficient.

I understand the definition of efficiency in the terms that you are working with. Maybe you answer this question and then we would have a real conversation. Otherwise, what exactly is the purpose of this forum?

Suppose I have 1 gallon of gas made of deuterium and carbon and I throw your match on it and it burns releasing X amount of energy. Then I take that same gallon of gas and and fuse it using hydrogen bomb technology and it releases Y amount of energy.

The difference between the two is a chemical reaction verses an atomic reaction. What or how would you describe the difference of efficiency on the thermal release of energy between the two reactions?

Wouldn't it be acceptable to state that the atomic reaction is X amount more efficient?

I just watched some videos of Dr. Puharich describing his water car technology he invented and patented back in the 70's. He does use the term 100% efficient and if you know anything about Dr. Puharich, you know that he was a pretty smart guy that had the ability to think outside the box.

EDIT -

And just to keep simple enough for all you 7 grade graduates and above, I would add to that we are talking about sonofusion. Fusion is the conversion of mass into atomic energy. The water is an external fuel source and so second law does not apply.

So since we are NOT talking in terms of perpetual motion, perhaps we could use the terms that are commonly used and accepted when describing the efficiency of the technology discussion at hand.

 

[ElvisLive]

HEH! That's one of the most subtle put-downs I've seen in quite a while - direct and to the point!

It's also worth noting that by the time a student leaves the 7th grade they also understand that people cannot just make up any definition for an established process/parameter/equation that suits their silly fancy. Gotta play by the rules or there is NO ball game at all.

Most 7th graders know the difference between and open and closed system and use the terms appropriate for the system being discussed. It is also worth noting that most seventh graders could realize this and see that it is in fact you that has "just make up any definition for an established process".

As always, your ignorance is as profound as your belligerence. If you think that you are going to reframe the argument in an attempt to hide the fact that you cited second law for an open system with an external fuel source and that electrons play no role in cavitation, you are wrong as always.

Subtle enough for you? Here are some free smilies to compliment the pedantic banter you use to hide your inability to read at a 7th grade level.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Can someone explain to me what cavitation is? The only time I've ever heard that word used was in a documentary about the guy who invented the screw propeller for boats. In his original design..the screw looked like a classic Archimedes screw with four or five turns. They experienced a problem, where the boat would not go any faster now matter how much power they applied. By accident, the screw broke into, and only a small portion was left (looking much like a modern screw). The boat immediately lunged forward with new speed. It was said that cavitation was the problem. From what I understand, the screw created many small bubbles, so the screw was pushing against air instead of solid water. What exactly is cavatation? and how does it apply here?

 

[ElvisLive]

Can someone explain to me what cavitation is? The only time I've ever heard that word used was in a documentary about the guy who invented the screw propeller for boats. In his original design..the screw looked like a classic Archimedes screw with four or five turns. They experienced a problem, where the boat would not go any faster now matter how much power they applied. By accident, the screw broke into, and only a small portion was left (looking much like a modern screw). The boat immediately lunged forward with new speed. It was said that cavitation was the problem. From what I understand, the screw created many small bubbles, so the screw was pushing against air instead of solid water. What exactly is cavatation? and how does it apply here?

Dude..If I came up with this idea, I would be using 100 dollar bills, to light the 100 dollar bill I use to light my Cuban Cigars with.

I just like playing with woos.

Why don't you go play with yourself. I don't think you are mature or intelligent enough to be trusted with matches just like your fellow dependtards that can't read or think at a 7th grade level.