|
REPLY TO THREAD
|
|
Subject
|
'E' does NOT equal 'MC squared' - FREE ENERGY - 1000 times more out then in
|
|
User Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Font color:
Font:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
The Norton encyclopedia was in its 5th edition, and the “103 cal./gram mole” dissociation energy did not appear to be a typo or misprint, and should have been corrected by that time if discovered. How many books would I have to search to find such a ‘misprint’, especially since I didn’t expect to find the anomaly because of the obvious concealment? Yet, in Physical Chemistry (1965) by E. A. Moelwyn-Hughes of Cambridge (Pergamon Press, London), at page 418, appeared the following:
“The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy The energy of dissociation, De of a diatomic molecule is the difference between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation.”
Notice that the “at rest” state of the molecules, is couched in language that makes you think that the “infinitely separated” atomic hydrogen atoms represents the “excited state” for the element. In layman’s terms, the RQMs simply made the statement that the dissociation and recombination energies had to be the same, because their theories depended upon them being the same. Then they measured the dissociation energy backwards, by measuring the recombination energy, and stating the measurement as if it were the dissociation energy.
The statements are supplanted by a lot of RQM gobbledegook, with a “spectroscopic evaluation” thrown in like some snake oil, because the spectroscope purportedly “can’t lie”. There is also in the same text, at page 417, the following obtuse statement:
“...In kilocalories per mole, De is 109.”
If hydrogen atoms exothermically release energy when they combine to form molecules, the potential energy has been lost by the molecules, yet they attribute the “potential energy” to the hydrogen molecules—backwards—to evade their duty to draw the logical conclusion. This lie is shown by a graph (“fig. 4”) purporting to show the “potential energy of the hydrogen molecule in the ground electronic state.”
This clearly misrepresents, by a Ph.D. in physics of the “Royal Society”, that hydrogen in the “atomic state” is not in a ground state, but in an excited state. In this 1965 physical chemistry text from England, the heat energy generated on recombination of the hydrogen atom is given as 109,000 cal./gram mole, then misrepresented as the “potential energy” of the “ground state hydrogen molecules” which have just formed!
But the “ground state” of hydrogen is the atomic state, with the electron at its lowest level of energy, so the RQMs are hoist by their own petards, since there is no way the ground state atoms could “store” the 109,000 cal./gram molecule. Where, exactly would this energy “reside”? Concurrently, this same figure is falsely equated with the heat generated exothermally when two hydrogen atoms—each in its “excited state”—come together to form a molecule.
Since the heat energy is released on recombination, the molecules lack the potential energy already released. The potential energy of the separate atoms in their ground states, is greater than that of the molecules, because the heat energy is released from the entrained ether and converted ZPR—not from the hydrogen atoms—when they combine to form molecules.
This is hereby unmasked as Orwellian doublethink. Since when is the potential energy of the atom of an element measured from its molecular state? This is exactly like saying that a truck sitting at the bottom of a hill has more “potential energy” than one sitting at the top, because of the energy required to drive it up to the top of the hill!
What a strange way to define “potential energy”. It is like saying an empty gas can has the potential energy of the gas that it takes to fill it up! The unique thing about the hydrogen atom, is that it is “born” at the top of the hill! Its astounding properties lie in its ability to perform as a “doorway” between the ether and the world of more familiar atomic matter.
The relativist statements have been unwittingly accepted as correct, because there is no ether or Zero Point Radiation possible under their theories, and the molecules have to have more energy than the atoms separately, because “E = MC2”. The RQMs have misrepresented and concealed this process in which separate atoms—with lower MASS—possess more “atomic” energy than the molecules! Ha! These facts on hydrogen show that E equals MUCH MORE THAN MC2.
Under relativism and quantum mechanics, “solid” matter is thought erroneously to be the most “compact”, “stored” form of “atomic energy”, because the energy is supposed to be released by the “smashing” and destruction, or fusing together of atoms, which Tesla said was false. It is clearly shown by the atomic hydrogen reaction that Tesla was right and the relativists and Einstein were wrong, because the hydrogen atoms have more potential energy in a separate atomic state than they do in the diatomic molecular state!
This can only be either because when separate, the atoms “gather” energy from the ZPR, and eject it from the ether when recombined! In either case, the energy is not stored by the atoms, and no longer possessed by the molecules after release, unless there is an even greater lie hiding in the relativist bushes. This perverse potential energy fallacy is also a way to confuse the diatomic hydrogen molecules with the nascent atomic hydrogen atoms produced by the hydrolysis of water.
The energy of hydrolysis is equated with the energy of dissociation, and the energy of combustion with the energy of recombination, yet the information presented here shows that by combining the hydrolysis of water, in which atomic hydrogen is produced directly, with the atomic hydrogen recombination process, instead of the combustion process—and perhaps throwing the oxygen away—that at least 10.5 times as much energy as the hydrolytic input can be produced, in still a third astounding hydrogen free energy process.
This is true because the atomic hydrogen process without question releases at least 3.75 times the BTUs by weight, as ordinary hydrogen does in the combustion process. Even the relativists agree that the “energy of combustion” equals at least the “energy of hydrolysis” (even though it is well known that the industrial production of hydrogen by electrolysis is generally 120% efficient).
"IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO BELIEVE, MAKE THE LIE BIG ENOUGH."
|
|
Pictures (click to insert)
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | | Next Page >> |
|
