lethalfang

I don't care if you can make HHO and make it stable. The basic thernodynamics has not and will not have changed. You go from H2O to HHO: if absolutely no heat is lost during this process, a minimum of X amount of energy is required to do so. You go from HHO go H2O: if absoutely no heat is lost during this process, the maximum possible amount energy you can extract from this process is X. So the theoratically best you can do is to get nothing, and you cannot do the theoratically best.

Anti-matter of subatomic particles are created in nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, and that's how mass is lost in nuclear explosion. The total quantum number in the universe is conserved according to our understanding, thus, to convert the matter into energy, one must have equal amount of anti-matter.

According to current understanding, matter can only convert to energy when matter meets anti-matter. There isn't enough anti-matter around to conver all matter to energy. Even there is, matter will eventually run out as well.

That's not the point. The point is free energy, work, and thernodynamics. If you begin with water as a fuel, and ends with water as a waste, there is no friggin' way any energy can be extracted for work. Water can only be considered as a fuel if and only if you end up with a waste that is of lower energy than water. Unfortunately (as far as fueling is concerned), water is the lowest energy molecule you can make out of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, thus, water as a fuel is an impossible prospect. Fusion creates energy, because 2 hydrogen atoms combine to make one helium atom, and helium is of lower energy than hydrogen, hence work can be extracted. The problem is that this process is spontaneous only at very high temperature, e.g. hydrogen bomb.

H2O, HHO, HOH, whatever. The fact is, water is the lowest energy of them all, that means it is thermodynamically impossible to use it as a fuel. What's he saying? He converts H2O to something else, and then generates H2O as waste? That means there is a net of zero energy output, and that's not speaking of the energy loss in converting H2O to that "something else."

This really is quite simple as far as classical thermodynamics is concerned. According to the laws of thermodynamics, anything (including the universe) will one day reach equilibrium. Anything at equilbrium will have a statistically uniform (random) distribution of all matter and all energy. Nothing interesting will occur in equilbrium, and anything at equilbrium cannot do work of any kind. The system at equilbrium still has internal energy. The product of entropy and temperature is a form of energy, but it cannot do work of any sort.

The pen idea is a great idea indeed. It's okay for the pen to be bulky and ugly. It does not even to be a working pen, even though it's nice if it is. It's a proof of principle thing, and I figure you do not have the budget to get the finest cutting-edge equiptment.

The opposing force comes from rotation. The inertia comes from the fact that a instantaneous velocity vector points outward for a rotation object.

The mass of an electron is miniscule comparing to the mass of a neutron. The momentum change in a neutron if it runs into an electron is negligible.

Few doctors can do calculus. Math is not heavily required for people in the medical career. Medical research, now that's another matter, depending on what kind of research you do. Physical chemistry requires a good amount of math.

Biophysical Chemistry It includes everything. Need I say more?

All heavy metal dusts are toxic. Depleted uranium is considered pretty much non-radioactive, not much above the background level anyway.

The lowest temperature obtained in the lab is only a few nano-Kelvin, used to produce Bose-Einstein condensate.

The one which some lunatics claim the mission to moon was a hollywood plot, a claim based on total lack of understanding in classical Newtonian physics.

The big idea in Einstein's relativity is that the laws of physics is same in all frames of reference. You only observe the observable in your frame of reference, and you can only make conclusions based on observation from your frame of reference. Whether or not an object is absolutely moving is an irrelevent and wrong question. The only question with any relevence to you as an observer, assuming you are not experiencing acceleration is that, is the object moving with relative to your frame of reference.

The relative velocity does make the age difference. According to Brother A in space, his brother B is experiencing time dilation due to earth moving near the speed of light, and therefore is aging slowly. Brother A is absolutely correct. According to Brother B on earth, his brother A is experiencing time dilation due to his spaceship moving near the speed of light, and therefore is aging slowly. Brother B is absolutely correct. There is nothing to distinguish A from B at this point. Theoratically, they CAN observe each other with a telescope. The information moving between the spaceship and earth is at the speed of light. No problem there. When A experiences an acceleration or deacceleration to make a stop on earth, which is the exact same thing as gravity in relavity, A will experience time dilation. When A reaches earth, he will be younger than his twin brother B.