Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Aquygen

message: From the main page, put there by User:Kmarinas86
Page 1
"It is indicated that the creation of the gaseous and combustible HHO from distilled water at atmospheric temperature and pressure occurs via a process structurally different than evaporation or separation, thus suggesting the existence of a new form of water, apparently introduced in this paper for the first time, with the structure (H × H)–O where “×” represents the new magnecular bond and “−” the conventional molecular bond. The transition from the conventional H–O–H species to the new (H × H)–O species is predicted by a change of the electric polarization of water caused by the electrolyzer. When H–O–H is liquid, the new species (H×H)–O can only be gaseous, thus explaining the transition of state without evaporation or separation energy. Finally, the new species (H × H)–O is predicted to be unstable and decay into H × H and O, by permitting a plausible interpretation of the anomalous constituents of the HHO gas as well as its anomalous behavior. Samples of the new HHO gas are available at no cost for independent verifications, including guidelines for the detection of the new species."
Page 2
"2. Experimental measurements on the new HHO gas Under visual inspection, both the HHO gas results to be odorless, colorless and lighter than air, as it is also the case for the Brown gas. Their first remarkable feature is the efficiency E of the electrolyzer for the production of the gas, here simply defined as the ratio between the volume of HHO gas produced and the number of Watts needed for its production. In fact, the electrolyzers rapidly convert water into 55 standard cubic feet (scf) of HHO gas at 35 pounds per square inch (psi) via the use of 5 kWh, namely, an efficiency that is at least 10 times the corresponding efficiency of conventional water evaporation, thus permitting low production costs.  The above efficiency establishes the existence of a transition of water from the liquid to the gaseous state that is not caused by evaporation. By keeping in mind the combustible character of the HHO gas compared to the noncombustible character of water vapor, the above efficiency suggests the existence of new chemical processes in the production of the gas that deserve quantitative studies."
Page 3 - Column 1
"A fifth feature of the gas is that it exhibits a widely varying thermal content, ranging from a relatively cold flame in open air at about 150 ◦C, to large releases of thermal energy depending on the substance to which the flame is applied to, such as the instantaneous melting of bricks requiring up to 9000 ◦C. The measurements conducted by the author at various independent laboratories on the HHO gas can be summarized as follows.  On June 30, 2003, Adsorption Research Laboratory of Dublin, Ohi, measured the specific weight of the HHO gas and released a signed statement on the resulting value of 12.3 g/mol. The same laboratory repeated the measurement on a different sample of the gas and confirmed the result.  The released value of 12.3 g/mol is anomalous. In fact, the conventional separation of water into H2 and P2 produces a mixture of 2/3 HBN2 and 1/3 O2 that has the specific weight (2 + 2 + 32)/3 = 11.3g/mol.  Therefore, we have the anomaly of 12.3 − 11.2 = 19 1g/mol, corresponding to 8.8% anomalous increase in the value of the specific weight. Rather than the predicted 66.66% of H2 the gas contains only 60.79% of the species with 2 atomic mass units (amu), and rather than having 33.33% of O2 the gas contains only 30.39% of the species with 32 amu.  These measurements provide direct experimental evidence that the HHO gas is not composed of a sole mixture of H2 and O2, but has additional heavier species.  Moreover, the HHO gas used in the tests was produced from distilled water. Therefore, there cannot be an excess of O2 over H2 to explain the increased specific weight. The above measurement establishes the presence in HHO of 5.87% of hydrogen and 2.94% oxygen bonded together into species heavier than water, as identified below via mass spectroscopy and other analytic measurements. Adsorption Research Laboratory also conducted scans of the HHO gas via a Gas Chromatographer (GC)"
Page 3 - Column 2
"On July 22, 2003, the PdMA Corporation in Tampa, Florida, conducted InfraRed (IR) scans reported in Figs. 2–4 via the use of a Perkin-Elmer IR scanner model 1600 with fixed point/single beam. The reported scans refer to a conventional H2 gas (Fig. 2), a conventional O2 gas (Fig. 3), and the HHO gas (Fig. 4). Inspection of these scans shows a substantial differences between HHO gas and H2 and O2 gases. In fact, the latter gases are symmetric molecules, thus having very low IR peaks, as confirmed by scans 2 and 3. The first anomaly of HHO is that of showing comparatively much stronger resonating peaks. Therefore, the indicated IR scans establish that the HHO gas has an asymmetric structure, which is remarkable since the same feature is absent for the conventional mixture if H2 and O2 gases. Moreover, H2 and O2 gases can have at most two resonating frequencies each, one for the vibrations and the other for rotations. Spherical distributions of orbitals and other features imply that H2 has essentially only one IR signature as confirmed by the scan of Fig. 2, while OO2 has one vibrational IR frequency and three rotational ones, as also confirmed by the scans of Fig. 3. Inspection of the IR scans for the HHO gas in Fig. 4 reveals additional novelties. First, the HHO scan show the presence of at least nine different IR frequencies grouped around wavenumber 3000, plus a separate distinct frequency at around wavenumber 1500. These measurements provide experimental evidence that the species with 18 amu detected in the GC scans of Fig. 1 is not water vapor, but a yet unknown bond of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms."
Page 5
"In conclusion, the experimental measurements of the flash point and of the scans of Figs. 5 and 6 establish beyond doubt the capability by the HHO gas to have an anomalous bond with liquid fuels, that is, a bond that is not of valence type."
http://www.hytechapps.com/presentation/linked%20files/Hydro%20Tech/user%20added/Santilli,%20International%20Journal.pdf
  Where is the energy non-conservation in all this?
  
  As long as there is a reduction of m in E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² .. then
  there must be some way to release energy from matter.  Finding 
  the better sources of internal energy is like finding better
  ways to tap into the atom.  If this phenomenon is real, it
  does not in anyway make fission, fusion, and chemical reactions
  impossible.  Nor would it violate any physical laws, but it does
  violate some ideas of nature.
  
  If you can create 8.98755179*10^16 joules out of 1 kg of matter
  (1 kg * c^2), what you did was to convert 1 kg matter into its
  massless "enlightened" equivalent.  That is no perpetual motion
  machine, for resistance and waste heat will eventually drive out
  the usefulness of those 8.98755179*10^16 joules.
  
  It is impossible to get an infinite amount of energy from a finite mass.
  
  Consider a unlit match, an arsonist, and a house.  At first, this
  system is relatively stable, but alot of energy has been used to make
  the materials of the house.  Additional a relatively small amount of
  -additional- energy has the potential to release energy conserved
  inside the house's materials.  Since all the arsonist has to do is
  light the match and throw it onto some flammable part of the house, he
  gets an energy release greater than the energy input from the last
  step (the other steps were done by the trees, powerplants, etc, which
  have chemical energy stored due to their transformation from other
  materials).  As long as the output of usable energy is less than the
  work done by men -and nature-, we are sane.  Most of illogical
  debunking of so-called free energy claims only consider how much
  energy man has to do, where in reality, we must consider how much energy
  is stored in the material that we are manipulating and the activation
  energy required to relase energy inside the contents as useful thermal
  energy.  If a power plant used more electricity than it produced,
  it would be fruitless to have it running, unless of course, if we are
  doing research.
  
  ...After the fire, the house consquently loses mass, not just because
  of escaping soot, but also because of E=mc^2.  This does not defy the
  second law of thermodynamics.  In fact, it follows it, with an increase
  in entropy, since vast amounts of radiation are produced during this
  process which escapes from our "tool box" and into places where we
  cannot extract it (such as intergalactic space).
  
  In fact, with a consumption of 4.26*10^20 Joules in 2001, if just 1%
  of that energy is converted into radiation that escapes into outer
  space, then the world would have lost 47.4 kilograms through
  E=mc^2 by human use of electricity alone!
  
  http://www.google.com/search?q=4.26*10%5E20+J+%2F+c%5E2
  
  We still have trillions of kilograms of matter left.  All we need is
  the imagination to find new ways of converting matter into radiation,
  such as fusion.  I feel that it will get better than this as it is
  with the hydrino, and after all, if you are a hydrino proponent,
  you'll be attracted to the idea that hydrinos do not defy the law of
  conservation of energy, that is because they follow E=mc^2, which is
  something that mainstream physics must follow as well, and something
  which all crackpot physics does not follow.
  
  To the phrase "you can't get more energy than you put in", I will
  respond with the obvious: Humanity is not the only one putting energy
  in it - the sun produces a lot of the chemicals that we see on earth, for
  without them, these chemicals would not form on earth, and these
  chemicals are the result of the sun's work, so therefore, we only need
  to do enough work to release the energy from it's container (i.e. the
  activation energy).  With this, I can dismiss the errant
  fallacy concerning conservation of energy which is often used debunk
  the so-called free energy claims.
  
  That said, for "Aquygen" to have a solid theoretical foundation, its
  proponents must ultimately explain where their energy comes from, for
  example, by demonstrating that there is a loss of mass during the
  process, and better yet, explain how this loss of mass occurs.  Even
  better than that, they could try explaining how this energy could be
  returned again, to bring it back to the previous state.Kmarinas86 23:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

message: This is the most ridiculous decision I have seen on here. Note Alien Autopsy (a hoax) and Tylenol (a brand name product) are both included here. I think Wikipedia loses credibility by removing a topic which clearly has a lot of interest. The debate alone should make it worthy of inclusion! This product is highly controversial, and suppressing the article is not an intelligent course of action. 
User:Vaughanwj 20:00, 19 August 2006 (CST)
:If I want to know about something I don't understand I go to wikipedia to find out what it is. What is going on here?!? cyclosarin 11:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aquygen]]