Our Holy Hell: The Causes, the Solutions by Aron Loyd - HTML preview

 POSTSCRIPT

 As you know, a severe problem facing us is the energy crisis. I have some ideas that could buy us some time in that regard. Though unfortunately, I am not a scientist. One if the many unfortunate aspects if which is that I don’t know what may have already been tried. My ideas center around the efficient disruption of the water molecule. There are two things that gave me the idea of using water to create energy. The first is that I learned in firefighting training that some fires can burn so hot that, at least initially, they will become explosive when you spray water on them. The second is an experiment I saw where they took a small canister of thermite and placed it on a large block of ice. After the thermite burned a bit, the block of ice blew itself to pieces. Unless there was some other process going on that I don’t know about, this shows that after some of the water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen, there is a lot of energy to be gained from its combustion.

 The first idea I have, there is little doubt in my mind that it would work. The only question would be for how long it would work. It involves injecting hot steam into a preheated furnace that is hot enough to break the water molecule’s molecular bond. Now I know that this would have to be extremely hot, but please hear me out. Over forty years ago the U.S. experimented with nuclear powered rockets. Which they hoped to be able to make operate for six hundred hours. I don’t remember what material they used to house the nuclear material. But it operated at 5600 F. It would be helpful if in the decades since they discovered a material that could withstand such temperatures for even longer. Whatever the cost of manufacturing and periodically replacing the lining of the furnace with such a material would probably be less than the cost to the planet of using oil, coal, gas and nuclear power.

 Also, using such a high temperature for the inside of the furnace may not be necessary. Because 2% of water disassociates into hydrogen and oxygen at 3600 F. (A full two thousand degrees less than the nuclear rocket) I would imagine the percentage of disassociation would go up sharply from there. But even 2% of hydrogen and oxygen combusting might be enough to keep the furnace at the correct operating temperature. After all, the Space Shuttle engines operated at 6000 F. Though that was with six parts hydrogen to one part oxygen that didn’t need to be disassociated first. But with water being two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen, it might burn even hotter. Which could make up for the lack of volume of hydrogen and oxygen and the heat lost in disassociation. On this question, this is one area where my lack of scientific knowledge particularly comes into play. Because even though the steam inside of the furnace would be hot enough, I don’t know if the available hydrogen and oxygen would ignite while being diluted by so much water vapor.

 As far as the percentage of hydrogen and oxygen in the steam goes, if I am right about it rising sharply after 3600 F, it might not hurt much to operate the furnace at three or four hundred degrees hotter. I also don’t know if radiant energy from a parabolic dish can be focused to any degree. But if it can, the rear of the furnace could be set up like the main mirror of a Cassegrain design reflecting telescope. Bringing the focus of at least some of the radiant energy to a point where the steam enters the furnace. Another point in favor of using a furnace is that being ground based instead if being designed to fly, it could be built much more robustly. And keeping the outer parts of the furnace cool could be a main source of the hot steam that would be injected into it. Along with the heat that would be created, it would also create a lot of pressure. Most of which would probably be lost when the hydrogen and oxygen atoms recombined into water or whatever. But however it plays out, there is no doubt that even more energy could be gained from this pressure differential.

 Another approach that could be used is to use something other than extremely high heat to break the water molecule’s bonds. For example, every substance has a resonant frequency that will disrupt it. This brings to mind an eye operation that I saw years ago. They stuck a needle into the side of someone’s eye. From the tip if the needle they emitted the resonant frequency of the lens and shattered it. The pieces of which they sucked up with another needle. Of course, water has a different structure than a lens. But there still should be a resonant frequency that would disrupt its molecular bonds.

 As far as the energy needed to create such a frequency goes, the average car can have a stereo installed that can produce many thousands of watts of power without effecting the performance of the engine. This also brings to mind a machine I saw being used at a candy factory. It used a focused beam of ultrasonic sound to cut toffy bars. Though I don’t know how efficiently that machine produced that sound. Whichever process is used, suppose the steam passed through a curtain of such a resonant sonic frequency before it entered into a furnace as I described earlier. As far as any standing waves go, they should be easy enough to eliminate. This could very well produce sufficient amounts of hydrogen and oxygen from the steam.

 Though instead of having the steam pass through a curtain of sound, it should be more effective to have the steam travel down an appropriately long straight pipe on its way to the furnace. Down the length of which is emitted water’s resonant sonic frequency. It might also be helpful to amplify the decibels of this sonic frequency with some sort of horn. As long as amplifying the decibels in this way didn’t corrupt the purity if the resonant frequency. This pipe could also have resonantly pulsed laser or maser energy shot down the length of it. Who knows, maybe using a combination of these energies could disrupt water’s molecular bonds at a lower power consumption level than either of these energies would require on their own. It would also be helpful if laser or maser energy could be amplified to a higher decibel level in some way as efficiently as a horn does it for sound. Also, a constant combustion may not be necessary. Simply store up electricity for say fifteen seconds and discharge it over a few seconds to supply whatever device is used with enough voltage and amperage to do what it needs to do.

 Another thing is that wherever water molecules are being torn apart or hydrogen and oxygen atoms are recombining, it would probably impart an electric charge. If there is enough of it, then it would be worth the trouble of capturing it. It might also be possible to obtain electricity from the hot exhaust gasses that would be on their way to a boiler through a magnetohydrodynamic process. Thereby increasing efficiency even further. Even though it would of course require more energy, it might be more efficient to obtain hydrogen and oxygen from ice. One good thing about this approach is that being a solid structure, it would be more susceptible to sonic disruption. And because water molecules are less dense in their frozen state, they may be easier to break apart. Even if it should eventually be that the sound is being shot at a frozen fluff of ice particles. Separating the gasses should be easy enough to do. Should it be necessary to do so.

 When it comes to electrolysis, I have some ideas that only a scientist would be able to judge the validity of. Suppose you had some water between two strong neodymium magnets. Would the north and south magnetic polarity have any useful effect on the electrically charged water? Also, if instead of using a direct current, suppose an alternating current was used that operated an appropriate frequency. (probably using a square sine wave pattern) Such an approach might create even more hydrogen and oxygen. But for all I know, the magnetic field might strengthen the molecular bond of the water.

 All of these things of course add up to one thing. Which is gaining unlimited energy from water. Even though this is said to be impossible, given the stakes, it might still be worth the effort to look into. Such experimentation would be less technically difficult or costly than nuclear fusion experimentation. And much more likely to produce positive results. When it comes to what is technically possible, any scientist should know that science can sometimes produce unexpected results. For example, I for one wouldn’t have thought it was possible to use the energy produced by a diesel engine to compress diesel fuel to a point where it could be injected into the high pressure environment of a diesel piston cylinder when it was at the top of its compression stroke. Or there is the guy who makes bullets that, if they hit something hard like a steel plate, they will stay together and punch their way through it. But if they hit something soft like flesh, they will break apart. So just maybe there could be something to the ideas I have given here. Maybe all that is needed is to use them in the right combination. These ideas I have given here are for free for anybody to use. As long as they also use them in a free manner. All I would ask is that I be given some credit where any credit may be due.

 End of Postscript