quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: I guess it's time to come clean. I was paid off by big oil. So was JazzMan, jscott1, Frizlefrak, fiero go fast, Fieromaniac, Marvin McInnis, mrfiero, Blacktree, and anyone else I may have missed. We're all on big oil's payroll. We were placed here with the sole purpose of giving out misinformation to keep people from trying these HHO generators themselves. You might think a Fiero board would not be a high priority, but you underestimate the power of big oil. We have plants everywhere on the internet. What do you think we do with our trillions of dollars of profit?

ROTFLMAO - I almost choked on my lunch

IF-IF this system does improve mileage, it's more likely helping burn the unburned fuel that would be left over from combustion than adding any real energy to the system. It would be acting more like a catalyst to help burn fuel more completely. So it's not so much adding it's own energy to the system but helping convert more of whats already there.

quote Originally posted by Sjuice: IF-IF this system does improve mileage, it's more likely helping burn the unburned fuel that would be left over from combustion than adding any real energy to the system.

I would agree with this except unburt fuel is not why internal combustion engines are so inefficient. Like I said 99% of all the fuel is combusted. It's all the waste heat going out the tail pipe and into the radiator that makes up the missing energy. If you could figure out a way to make an engine run without rejecting any heat, (the adiabatic engine I mentioned earlier) THEN you might have something. But no one has figured out how to build one yet without it melting.

[This message has been edited by jscott1 (edited 04-22-2008).]

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-21-2009).]

Come on, Jazz. Don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel.

And BTW, my Fiero is sponsored by Exxon.

And now on a more serious note: I have hands-on experience electrolyzing water. It takes a lot of electricity, and is slow. I've also played around with hydrochloric acid and various metals (including zinc). And I have to say that the HCl + Zn method is much more effective at generating hydrogen gas than electrolysis. You really don't need to generate oxygen gas anyway, because the air is 20% oxygen to begin with. If your engine needs more oxygen, you just open the throttle a little more. :shrug:

But what do I know? I'm just a stupid theorist.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 04-22-2008).]

Maybe he should read this, we're dealing with a very dangerous substance here!

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

------------------

'85GT Indy clone 4.9 4T60E
'78 Toyota longbed, parts runner
'89 Bonneville daily driver
'87 30' Kit Classic TT, living in it.

[This message has been edited by 87GT_97114 (edited 04-22-2008).]

quote Originally posted by THE REAL Fieronut: I'm asking for EXPERIENCE rather than THEORY! ... The question is NOT, "Does theory say it won't work?" The question is, "Can you show me your EXPERIENCE?" ... There seems to be hundreds of people who are doing this RIGHT NOW. ... I want EXPERIENCE rather than theory.

You seem not to understand what is meant by THEORY in a scientific context. Nor do you seem to understand the difference between anecdotal EXPERIENCE and objective RESEARCH.

When I say that the maximum THEORETICAL amount of energy a wind turbine can extract from the wind is 59.6% of the free-stream energy, the use of the word THEORETICAL does not in any way mean that I'm unsure of the answer. What it means is that the laws of physics dictate that a perfect wind turbine can extract, at most, less than 59.6% of the free-stream energy from the wind. And when I speak of the THEORY of gravity, I am by no means uncertain whether or not an object I drop is going to fall to the ground at a predictable rate.

I've already suggested that, when in doubt, you should do your own research and perform your own experiments. That's what the scientific method is all about, and that way you'll know. But all I ask is that you do the experiments carefully and correctly, and publish your results completely and honestly. "The easiest person in the world to fool is yourself."

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 05-19-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: We are trying to inform you and you reply with insults and insinuations? I can only come to the conclusion based on the number of threads you started and are replying in on this subject that you are one of the scammers. Your ignorance is more than accidental, more than deliberate. And if you aren't a scammer, well, your attitude here makes me just want to say, go ahead and get scammed, you deserve it. Get bent. Cordially, JazzMan

I can certainly understand your thinking as you do. I HAVE posted to 3 threads. One was a link in a different thread that I followed. I posted here and to the O/T forum because I didn't know the correct one. My intention was CERTAINLY not to start a flame war.

I have not insulted anyone, never called anyone any names, nor have I insinuated anything that I can remember. I think I have been very open in stating that I DON'T KNOW if this system is good or not.

While I HAVE stated the IT SEEMS TO ME that the majority of responses I have gotten APPEAR to either be MISinformed or UNinformed, ABOUT THE SYSTEM, I have not mentioned names nor called anyone a SUCKER, as I have been called.

In virtually every post, I have asked for ONE THING--EXPERIENCE.

If that is an INSULT or INSINUATION, my definition of the two is different from yours. If I am IGNORANT, enlighten me. GIVE ME SOME EXPERIENCE!! I have made NO statements that anyone should make or buy one of these systems. I DON'T SELL THEM nor know ANYONE who sells them. I have given links that I have found that show that many people are doing this. I have made NO RECOMMENDATIONS because I HAVE NOTHING TO RECOMMEND.

I found one guy here whom I asked to keep me informed of his EXPERIENCE. I didn't try to change his mind nor encourage him, except to tell him if he wanted to stay away from the OPINIONS and THEORIES on the Forum, he could e-mail me directly.

As for wanting to get scammed, I want just the OPPOSITE. That is why I'm asking for EXPERIENCE--so I will NOT get scammed. If this idea/system is a scam and I find it out, believe me I'll be the FIRST to say so. If I build a system and it blows up in my face or just doesn't work as it is supposed to, I'LL SAY SO. But as of now, I'M NOT MAKING, SELLING or even thinking of doing ANYTHING with one because--NO ONE HAS GIVE ME ANY EXPERIENCE!!!

So by asking for EXPERIENCE....insulted whom? Insinuated what? Wanna get scammed? What do YOU think? Wanna scam someone? HELL NO!!

I'd venture to say that anyone who had a Fiero has been told, "You got a WHAT? Don't you know those things catch on fire?" But you still have one, huh? So most of us here never listen to the ACCEPTED opinion. We do as we please, when it comes to Fieros, anyway. And we EXPERIENCE them. I have 3 Fieros. Can you expect ME to ask for less?
------------------
John

[This message has been edited by THE REAL Fieronut (edited 04-22-2008).]

I just wanted to take this opportunity to say I get tired of seeing the same big sig after every post.

Gotcha the first time.

You're pretty new here so you may not know, but the forum rules (and etiquette!) ask you not to include a sig after every post.

John, that's a nice red Fiero got there... hope to see it just once in the next thread ...
and hope to meet you at the Round-Up in San Antonio in June.

Yipe! Will cease and desist. Didn't realize I wasn't supposed to be doing it.

Not sure about 'Round up...I WANT to do it but I usually work weekends, not during the week and might be out of town that weekend.

John

quote Originally posted by THE REAL Fieronut: Yipe! Will cease and desist. Didn't realize I wasn't supposed to be doing it. Not sure about 'Round up...I WANT to do it but I usually work weekends, not during the week and might be out of town that weekend. John

No problem bro! As for the RU...
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/070299.html

ok let me be the first to say, i honestly only read the first few post and so my post my have already been addressed

but you are talking about the fact that in releasing the hho gas you use more engergy then the hho is worth, but im pretty sure your wrong here, because although yes you are using power to creat it, i think you are forgetting to count the energy produced by the hydrogen.

my theroy is that yes you will get a very small increase in fuel economy, the hho is acting like a fuel and you will burn this insted of gas, but the hho reformer isnt going to create enough gas to power a car engine even at idle, simple as that.

I'm still not going to venture an opinion as to whether or not this will work, but I am amused at the very simplified way people are looking at the "laws" of physics and the set up of this scenario. First off, this is not a perpetual motion machine, as you are constantly adding water (fuel) and therefore energy (matter IS energy). I think that there are WAY too many unknowns to venture good estimates here.

And from the posts I can tell who are mechanics and who are chemists (and who are neither)

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: And BTW, my Fiero is sponsored by Exxon. But what do I know? I'm just a stupid theorist.

My AMSOIL stickers are ghosted in the paint.

------------------

quote Originally posted by 86fierofun: you are constantly adding water (fuel)

Water is not a fuel. It has no latent energy. It takes energy to release the hydrogen...more energy than you get back by combusting the hydrogen. It's just that simple. Q.E.D.

quote Originally posted by 86fierofun: (matter IS energy).

hmm true if the water is 10 feet over the ground at least it contains a small amount of kinetic energy

Off Topic but
Recently a man accidently whilst trying to cure cancer discovered that salt water will burn at about 2000 degrees using radio frequencies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo

If you REALLY insist on playing around with using water in an IC engine, the 6-stroke is offering the best possible solution right now. At least it is theoretically sound as well as practically possible.

http://www.autoweek.com/app.../1023/THISWEEKSISSUE

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-21-2009).]

quote Originally posted by 86fierofun: First off, this is not a perpetual motion machine ...

That's exactly what devices like this are. You are using electrical energy to dissociate water into chemical fuel, which you then burn to power the electrical generator. Round and round and round and ...

quote (matter IS energy)

No it's not, at least not in the context of ordinary electro-chemical processes. Come back when you have perfected a helium-burning (or argon-burning, since it would be cheaper) engine and I will reconsider my position.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 04-23-2008).]

For those actually interested in learning about this system, here is a link to a guy in Austalia who explains the theory AND the system and does NOT give you lots of hype.

I gotta admit (and he makes it plain on the site) he is selling a system and/or parts ($790 for the best one) but he ran a test on a Datsun and increased the mileage over 50% hiway. It was NOT fuel injected but it will give you some idea of what it takes and how he did it. He uses caustic soda and water for the electrolyte--very dangerous stuff--so that turned me off, to some extent. http://www.takeaction.com.au/hoh/default.asp

At least it's EXPERIENCE!

I HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THIS GUY and am neither buying nor selling his product. This is only for info. But it does give some down-to-earth info.

quote Originally posted by THE REAL Fieronut: I have not insulted anyone, never called anyone any names, nor have I insinuated anything that I can remember. I think I have been very open in stating that I DON'T KNOW if this system is good or not.

You insulted me by implying that I don't know what I'm talking about. Like the saying goes: you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.

Now go buy one of those things and learn your lesson.

Oh, and BTW... the airplane WILL fly!

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 04-23-2008).]

quote Originally posted by THE REAL Fieronut: http://www.takeaction.com.au/hoh/default.asp

A direct quote from the above source:

"6. When combusted in the absence of any other gases, [HHO] creates a perfect vacuum."

This requires that there be no mass remaining after combustion. Just another amazing property of HHO!!!

quote At least it's EXPERIENCE!

Once again, you are confusing EXPERIENCE (anecdotal reports) with real scientific research and experimentation. One of the hallmarks of true research is that any other independent researcher be able to duplicate the experiment and achieve identical, quantifiable results.

Here's one way to think of it. After I change the oil or wash my Fiero, it always seems to run smoother, quieter, better for a few days. That is truly my EXPERIENCE. Is it really happening? No. Is my EXPERIENCE measurable and repeatable? No. It's all in my head, and the phenomenon is so common that research psychologists even have names for different aspects of it, "Cognitive Dissonance" and "The Halo Effect." The result I expect is the result I'm most likely to EXPERIENCE.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 04-23-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: You insulted me by implying that I don't know what I'm talking about. Like the saying goes: you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink. Now go buy one of those things and learn your lesson. Oh, and BTW... the airplane WILL fly!

I have never said ANYONE does not know what they are talking about. In fact, just the opposite. I HAVE BEEN told I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I've been called a SUCKER for even wondering about this system. Was I insulted? Maybe, but it obviously GOES with the territory. Remember Edison's response to the reporter who asked him how it felt to fail 10,000 times while trying to invent the incandescent light. Was he insulted? Nope. He is reported to have said, "On the contrary, I DISCOVERED 10,000 things--that don't work." Well, I think I've been told MANY times about WHAT WON'T WORK. But I truly do not feel insulted. Only more curious.

I have said that the majority of posters did not research the subject as much as I did. If that is an insult, I apologize for stating fact. I DID say that I preferred EXPERIENCE to theory and that only one person here had actually EXPERIENCED this system. That again is FACT, not insult, as far as I know.

As I understand it, the THEORY is that this system CANNOT work because of certain immutable laws of physics. The FACT is that DOZENS of people are SEEMINGLY making it work IN SPITE of those laws. Or maybe because of some other law not stated. I DON'T KNOW!

As for making a horse drink....not sure what that has to do with HHO unless the horse can somehow FART HHO after drinking the water. I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT WORK!

And now, my friends, I will post no further on this subject. If I finally decide to buy or make one of these and put it on one of my Fieros, frankly, I'll think twice about reporting it here because, if it WORKS, virtually no one will accept my findings because I'm not a scientest. And if it DOESN'T work, I'll be made fun of for trying.

SOOOOOO....hasta la vista, Baby!

John

[This message has been edited by THE REAL Fieronut (edited 04-23-2008).]

quote Originally posted by jscott1: Water is not a fuel. It has no latent energy. It takes energy to release the hydrogen...more energy than you get back by combusting the hydrogen. It's just that simple. Q.E.D.

Well, they are claiming that the water will turn into fuel.

quote Originally posted by Fieromaniac: hmm true if the water is 10 feet over the ground at least it contains a small amount of kinetic energy

May I suggest going to your library and checking out a book on quantum mechanics? It will give you more insite into all the quarky ways you can obtain energy. It plays a pretty big role in understanding chemistry.
http://www.worsleyschool.ne...files/emc2/emc2.html

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: That's exactly what devices like this are. You are using electrical energy to dissociate water into chemical fuel, which you then burn to power the electrical generator. Round and round and round and ...

Perpetual motion is getting energy from nothing. This set up is not a continual loop, you have several supplies and outlets that don't go to each other. Gasoline AND water are added and you get heat, mechanical motion, and other forms of energy out, none of which loop to each other. Granted there is electical energy taken from the combustion energy that is used to make the HHO and fed back into the combustion, but that is only part of the process. It does not qualify as a perpetual motion machine (at least not without knowing other information like the ratios of the energy in and out).

And matter is energy. That is the reason for energy gained/lossed from chemical reactions. The mass does change (however small it may be).

When evaluating systems, it is important to look at the whole system, not just part of the picture. Again I'm not saying this will work or not, mostly because there are way to many freekin assumptions that would have to be made in order to arrive at that conclusion. I guess right now I see it pointless to be debating this when there are so many unknowns.

First off I'ld like to see experimental data on the difference between the reactions of gasoline and air, and gasoline and HHO, never minding the rest of the system. Then start adding in the other components to see how the system will balance out.

I am a little turned off on the whole idea from the way these people come accross. I read some australian news thing about a guy who was supposedly poisened over this stuff, and they had a video of his work in action while he was still alive. Or maybe it was pictures, I don't remember. It was neat to see the water bubble so quickly, but who knows, it could have just been boiling. Anyways, the guy came accross as a huge conspirisy crazy.

But, I still won't say it's not possible, untill more specific information about the process is known.

quote Originally posted by 86fierofun: And matter is energy. That is the reason for energy gained/lossed from chemical reactions. The mass does change (however small it may be).

I'm afraid you're very,very mistaken. Please provide a link to a credible scientific source that supports your assertion.

Edit: Redacted pending review of the scientific literature.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 04-24-2008).]

This has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, but more on the Energy is Matter question...




Energy and matter are equivalent.

Energy IS matter is a little simplistic, but Einstein proved that energy and matter are different forms of the same thing.

"Einstein's famous equation from 1905 E=mc2 demonstrates that energy (E) is equivalent with matter (mass m)."

http://nobelprize.org/educa...cs/energy/intro.html

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 04-23-2008).]

quote THE REAL Fieronut:Has anyone ... TRIED an HHO generator in their Fiero?

No

[This message has been edited by 30+mpg (edited 04-23-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Songman: ... more on the Energy is Matter question...

I'm very familiar with the Special Theory of Relativity, but it has little or nothing to do with ordinary chemical processes.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 04-24-2008).]

I've came across a lot of the same articles on this subject before. It's interesting to say the least, but It's obvious that there are a lot of people trying to prey on people's hopes. Out of curiosity I decided to do my own experimenting...I haven't discovered any revolutionary source of energy but It's lead to a lot of fun science experiments with alternative energy sources and that is more of what I was aiming for. I've also realized how easy some of these things are to build 'properly'. Things like electrolysis systems, fuel cells, geothermal furnaces, solar furnaces, and the like aren't really hard to build in their basic forms, and you get a real good understanding of the science when you do it yourself. They are also very useful in the proper situation. I DON'T have personal experience with the HHO products in question, but most of them look like simple electrolysis tanks that you could make for $20 at most, from what I've found out I think if anything they simply give the combustion process a bit of a nudge...but be mindful of how that nudge is obtained. I have to laugh...I always say that even if my electrolysis tank just inefficiently produces bubbles it still looks pretty damn cool on my shelf . For me it's a cheap hobby while I'm saving to do my Fiero work....but seriously if you are interested in this stuff the materials are dirt cheap for small versions and there is a ton of legit info on hydrogen electrolysis out there....this way you can draw your own conclusions. Also, there are a lot more learned experimenters out there doing this stuff, that aren't just trying to get your money. Do some searching on the net, and if nothing else they'll give you a good idea of what they've tried and their results. Thermodynamics proves against a lot of HHO claims, but you never know what other things you can create when you get inventive. On a side note if anyone has a good read on cold plasmas and cavitation I'd appreciate it. It's a subject that seems really interesting, but I've only seen a few articles on it and I'd like to learn more. When in doubt...check it out yourself .

quote Originally posted by FieroGTPed: On a side note if anyone has a good read on cold plasmas and cavitation I'd appreciate it. It's a subject that seems really interesting, but I've only seen a few articles on it and I'd like to learn more. When in doubt...check it out yourself .

I am nearly done with this thread, but let me say this...it's true that human being's knowledge of the physical universe is incomplete. And there may be many, many phenomenon that are unexplored and give new and exciting results. But I don't think HHO is one of them. I find it hard to believe that some guy we never heard of working in his garage has discovered some new property of water that scientist have yet to discover. Maybe me and the other "theoreticians" and "big oil stooges" are wrong. But let me see it on the cover of Scientific American before I take it serious.

Cold Fusion is a good example. There was a lot of hoopla over it when it appeared that there was something to it. Later it was revealed to be somewhat fraudulent, and mostly clumsy experimentation. But now it seems there might be something to it afterall. The US Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego seems to have duplicated the effect under controlled circumstances. http://www.infinite-energy....ne/issue44/navy.html Maybe it's possible to unlock quantum energy from simple table top experiements?? Who knows,

If the HHO is able to demonstrate more energy output than it takes to get it going then it would be operating under some new as yet discovered physical law, and that would make it the discovery of the decade.

quote Originally posted by Songman: Energy and matter are equivalent.

Fusion shoots, he scores!!!

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I'm afraid you're very,very mistaken. Please provide a link to a credible scientific source that supports your assertion.

Make me

I may be wrong. I don't deal much with chemistry. I'll have to riffle through my old text books when I have time. I'm pretty sure though that the atomic masses are different between individual atoms and a stable compound (though mass difference is VERY small). Anyways, I know for dang sure that matter is energy.

EDIT: After a quick breeze through my books, maybe mass doesn't change. I thought the bond energy changes had a correlation to the molecular masses changing, but maybe not. Why am I even thinking about this at 2AM?

EDIT 2: Ha! thought so.... From stanford:
http://www2.slac.stanford.e...eory/relativity.html

quote Even in chemical processes there are tiny changes in mass which correspond to the energy released or absorbed in a process. When chemists talk about conservation of mass, they mean that the sum of the masses of the atoms involved does not change. However, the masses of molecules are slightly smaller than the sum of the masses of the atoms they contain (which is why molecules do not just fall apart into atoms). If we look at the actual molecular masses, we find tiny mass changes do occur in any chemical reaction.

[This message has been edited by 86fierofun (edited 04-24-2008).]

A quote from Arthur C. Clarke, English physicist & science fiction author.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

...and because we "can't get our head around it" and understand how it works, we will immediately look on it as "must be a scam". While I can see how many of these devices look like simple electrolysis machines, those that are more complicated in nature may indeed have substantially increased the efficiency of that process. Although I too am skeptical for many of the reasons mentioned above, I would still be interested in experimenting with one of the "better designs" and see what happens. If nothing works - it's no skin off anybody's backside...

In the past, for many inventions it has often been said "that can't be done" - until somebody went out and DID IT.

------------------

3.4L S/C 87 GT www.fierosound.com
2002/2003/2004 World of Wheels Winner &
Multiple IASCA Stereo Award Winner

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Too bad it takes more energy to power the radio frequency generator than what can be gained from the burning water. http://www.hoax-slayer.com/salt-water-fuel.shtml Again, basically it appears that this is just another way to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, and again the power it takes to do this exceeds the energy from recombining the H and O. JazzMan

I must say you do appear to be an intelligent fellow well self educated I'm sure. Most likely you know a lot of mostly useless information that comes in handy in debates like this not being sarcastic seen plenty of threads love your work but especially love how you get worked up when people ask but then ignore view your points. I for one realise you wont be running it from your cassette deck and most likely throw enough energy at anything and it will burn. hehe

quote Originally posted by 86fierofun: From stanford: http://www2.slac.stanford.e...eory/relativity.html "Even in chemical processes there are tiny changes in mass which correspond to the energy released or absorbed in a process. When chemists talk about conservation of mass, they mean that the sum of the masses of the atoms involved does not change. However, the masses of molecules are slightly smaller than the sum of the masses of the atoms they contain (which is why molecules do not just fall apart into atoms). If we look at the actual molecular masses, we find tiny mass changes do occur in any chemical reaction."

Interesting. It looks like I have a little more literature research ahead of me. I do wonder how this can apply to both exothermic and endothermic chemical reactions, though. After all these years, I'm still learning.

Yeah, that quantum stuff gets very interesting. Unfortunately, most of it isn't relevant for anything but theorists

I stayed up waaaay too late last night finding that

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 04-21-2009).]

In the case of HHO brown's gas, I think the new therory is not to run the car from it. It can be used as a catalist to make a more complete burninbg of the gasoline already in use. In this case it doesn't matter as much how much energy was used to create the HHO, just that it helps a more complete burn of the gasoline in the engine. My dad and I experimented with this back in the early 1980's. A 455 super rocket is not the best mule to use as a test. Also without a real dyno, the difference in wind, temperature and heavy foot can skew the results so badly that you could prove or disprove about anything you wanted.... Does anybody have a lot of free dyno time? It might just work as a catalist....

quote Originally posted by 86fierofun: ... From stanford: http://www2.slac.stanford.e...eory/relativity.html "Even in chemical processes there are tiny changes in mass which correspond to the energy released or absorbed in a process. When chemists talk about conservation of mass, they mean that the sum of the masses of the atoms involved does not change. However, the masses of molecules are slightly smaller than the sum of the masses of the atoms they contain (which is why molecules do not just fall apart into atoms). If we look at the actual molecular masses, we find tiny mass changes do occur in any chemical reaction."

I'm posting here again, not to prolong the discussion but because I promised that I would do some research and follow up. If you (and others) had said "Mass is equivalent to energy" rather than "Mass IS energy," then I would probably have been willing to go along ... but you didn't and so I didn't.

The most direct and accessible support I could find for your position is a 2005 article in The New York Times by respected physicist Brian Greene:

"The standard illustrations of Einstein's equation ... have perpetuated a belief that E = mc˛ has a special association with nuclear reactions and is thus removed from ordinary activity. This isn't true. When you drive your car, E = mc˛ is at work. As the engine burns gasoline to produce energy in the form of motion, it does so by converting some of the gasoline's mass into energy, in accord with Einstein's formula."

While I agree that Dr. Greene is correct in the abstract, is what he says all that enlightening? Is it more or less useful to you if I accurately report my body mass (and thus my weight) in electron-volts? Is it more or less clear if I tell you that my Fiero recorded 'xxx' attograms per second on a chassis dyno? To Dr. Greene (and you), I respectfully ask, "So what?"

On the other hand, the best source I could find to support my position is the late Richard Feynman's classic, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1:

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is ... There are many other forms of energy [in addition to gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy, elastic energy, heat energy, etc.] ... There is electrical energy, which has to do with pushing and pulling by electric charges. There is radiant energy, the energy of light, which we know is a form of electrical energy because light can be represented as wigglings in the electromagnetic field. There is chemical energy, the energy which is released in chemical reactions ... Our modern understanding is as follows: chemical energy has two parts, kinetic energy of the electrons inside the atoms, so part of it is kinetic, and the electrical energy of the interaction of the electrons and the protons -- the rest of it, therefore, is electrical."

So we don't have to invoke mass/energy equivalence to understand or measure ordinary chemical reactions; in fact, invoking Special Relativity tends to obscure what's actually going on. The energy released (or absorbed) by a chemical reaction is exactly equal to the changes in internal energies (kinetic + electrical) of all the atoms that take part in the reaction. But far more important, the energy available for release in a chemical reaction is only a microscopic fraction of the total mass energy present in the participating atoms. To tap that huge reservoir of mass energy necessitates destructively tampering with the nuclei of the atoms, where the massive protons and neutrons reside, which requires totally different processes than ordinary chemical reactions.

At best, we'll probably have to agree to disagree, but the general rule in physics is: If the observed velocity is less than 100 miles per second, you can safely ignore the relativistic effects in any real-world process.

With that, I'm outta' here.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 05-20-2008).]