I say windhexe+depolymerization technologies an easy answer:energy crisis

[DEMVET-USMC]

To find out about windhexe, simply do a google search using the word windhexe. Using this technology all organic matter can be reduced to a fine sterile powder. The reason this is possible is due to the angular momentum of the Earth. Now you have broken the vast majority of the chemical bonds in any and all organic matter and depolymerization chemistry can profitably turn this organic matter into useful fuels such as gasoline,fuel oil,kerosene,whatever. The refinement of oil is a very advanced technology. The vast majority of all plant matter is so called carbohydrates of one form or another. The problem with depolymerization of such matter to produce useful fuels has been that it requires a lot of energy to accomplish. I say the angular momentum of our planet can provide this energy using so called windhexe technology. This is an easy one to prove or disprove. If I am correct placing a windhexe machine closer to the equator should produce measurably more energetic results and conversely the further away from the equator you place one of these devices the less energetic the measurements will be. This is because the closer to the equator you are the more rapidly you are moving as in revolving and also the more mass that is revolving under you. Again, angular momentum transfer is the energy source. I give away all my great ideas. Someone or some group go out there and win yourselves a Nobel Prize. Do not forget to mention me: DEMVET-USMC Oscar from the DU forums. Go for it someone. ...Oscar

[Andy_Stephenson]

1. Read this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,960689,00.html

How about this for a ridiculous modern myth. There is a machine somewhere in America that can take virtually any sort of waste - offal from an abattoir, old tyres, junked computers - and turn it into high quality oil, plus pure minerals and clean water, all in a few hours. It is an invention that could change the world. Not only might it end the west's, and in particular America's, dependence on imported oil, but it has also the potential simultaneously to solve the increasingly pressing problem of waste disposal.

A fantasy along with the everlasting light bulb, the car that runs on water and the perpetual motion machine, right? Well, no.

[Warpy]

2. Windhexe seems to be unrelated

..to thermal depolymerization. I don't get the connection at all. However, thermal depolymerization seems to be getting the bugs worked out, and may be what eases us through the oil crunch. To read more, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

It's up and running at a Butterball plant. I can imagine it will produce quite a bit of toxic waste with less pure biomass, say from a landfill, but no more than is in the landfill already.

[DEMVET-USMC]

6. The connection is that a windhexe can be used to reduce material such

as wood chips,garbage,sewage into a fine sterile powder. You have now broken the vast majority of the chemical bonds that existed in the material you ran through the windhexe. Much less energy will be required to break the bonds that are left. Also, you now have a fine dry powder that can be mixed with say kerosene, a liquid that can be refined by the usual methods with some adjustments no doubt to remove the oxygen from what is mostly so called carbohydrates which is a bit of a misnomer as carbohydrates are not true hydrates. They got that name because for every Oxygen atom present in these molecules there are 2 hydrogens. True hydrates have water molecules bonded to another group and the water can be separated from the hydrate by heating to a high enough temperature that the water molecules separate and depart the reaction as water molecules. This should not be confused with evaporation as it is a different phenomenon. I think it is some Australian Company that is already using the windhexe to powderize and dry out coal for further refinement into fuels such as gasoline. The Germans had already worked out turning coal into usable fuels during WWII. This windhexe makes all these technologies a very much more efficient process. People kept asking where does the energy come from to do the amazing things the windhexe does and it came to me that was the ANGULAR MOMENTUM of the Earth. That idea is original to me.The phenomen is called ANGULAR MOMENTUM TRANSFER. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

10. I thought it was butterball that bought patent rights,old links gone now

I don`t think we are getting the whole story here,trade secrets and all that. The two technologies:thermal depolymerization and the windhexe machine were listed in the N.Y.Times:most important inventions of the year,2003 something like that and it clicked in my brain and I expect others that the two could be used together to profitably create fuels from organic matter of many types.We will all find out as time goes by as they are both important discoveries,though thermal depolymerizaation has been around for a long time great advances were made recently ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

9. Fantastic Link

Check out the link provided above Titled: READ THIS by God_bush_n_cheney. It is already being done. Garbage and sewage is being turned into useful fuels using thermal depolymeization technology. This is really important technology that will and already is going to solve the fuel crisis and garbage and sewage disposal. Garbage and sewage are event now being turned into useful fuels. Thank you for this link God_bush_n_cheney. I read a few months bach of a plant in Penn. that was do to open combining the two technologies. There is no reference to the windhexe. If it`s the same plant they may not be telling all.Trade secrets and all that.It seems an unlikely coincedent that the plant I read about that was going to use windhexe and this one are both located in Pennsylvania. ...Oscar

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Related to the Hilsch-Ranque Vortex Tube

One of the variants was invented by a guy named Majkrak, who called his version the Majkrak Cone. It was designed to separate warm and cold air molecules. The original effect was co-discovered by Hilsch and Ranque in the 1940s. Room-temperature air is pumped into a vortex at high pressure, and the hot and cold molecules separate and move to opposite ends of the vortex. This effect has recently been shown to be similar to thermoacoustic cooling and heating.

On the other hand, I don't see how thermal depolymerization and angular momentum figure into it. But these are interesting technologies, and I'll be glad to hear more about them in the future.

--bkl

[NNadir]

4. This sounds like a version of Maxwell's demon.

The Demon troubled Maxwell and many other physicists because it seemed to violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Further analysis revealed however that it was the second law and not the demon that prevailed.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. It's an acoustic effect

I am not up on the physics of it, but the principle is the same as so-called acoustic cooling/heating. The vortex itself makes a high-pitched whistle; when the primary frequency of this whistle is supressed, the temperture separation disappears.

I suspect that one of these winhexe machines could also be "disrupted" by acoustic methods. It could allow better mixing and maceration of the slurry before it is separated again.

--bkl

[DEMVET-USMC]

11. Sorry I do not see how the 2nd law of thermodynamics can in anyway

play a significant role in explaining or disputing my theories as to how the windhexe machine acquires the energy necessary to do the work necessary to reduce materials as substantial as bricks, stones ,concrete and on and on into a fine powder. The second law of thermodynamics states: in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state. This is also commonly referred to as entropy. Engineers have taken accurately measured weights of specific compounds with known chemical bond strengths and run it through the windhexe and calculated the energy required to reduce these substances to as fine a powder as is produced and it is far beyond the energy being introduced into the system with the air jets that power it. Entropy has a very small energy value. In fact, it would only strengthen my argument as it is a net loss in all energy transfers. So I do not understand your point at all. Do people just want to tear my arguments apart without giving them any real consideration ? What if I am right. Does that not deserve some consideration ? If there are any physics or engineering students out there looking for a worthy doctoral thesis project, please give these theories of mine some thought. You can mention me in some very minor way as somewhat of an inspiration for your project. I`m used to getting next to nothing or nothing at all for my efforts. ...Oscar

[NNadir]

12. I haven't looked at the system you describe and probably won't.

I wasn't referring to the system you referenced, but to the separation of fast molecules and slower molecules (hot and cold) which is precisely the problem that Maxwell's Demon thought experiment examined. In the case of the demon, ultimately it was realized that the energy loss created by the imaginary intelligent demon was represented by the energy lost in information processing.

A refrigerator, of course, results in a heat differential, but one needs to put more energy into this system than one can obtain from the heat differential so constructed. This is the essence of the second law of thermodynamics. The concept of entropy is simply a way of quantifying this observation, largely developed by Boltzman, in which defined entropy as being a function of log(W), where W is the number of states available to the system. The entropy in this case is given by the relation S = k*log(W) where k is Boltzman's constant, defined as the gas constant divided by Avogadro's number.

Thank you for your discussion of chemical bonds, but I think I understand physical chemistry quite well. Chemistry is my field. I also understand quite a bit about thermal depolymerization and have written on the subject quite a bit here.

I don't think I'll look into Windhexe. From your description, it sounds like something involving the Coriolis effect, but I can't be sure. If it works, I'm sure you will become very wealthy and perhaps win the Nobel Prize for it.

I do note that the Patent office now (at least before it was completely swamped with patent applications, many of which do not get the proper attention they need to be disqualified) requires that any system that would seem to violate the second law to be accompanied by a working model. I would suggest that the working model be built and submitted, whereupon your doubters, including me, will be proven to have been asses.

Certainly you should not be discouraged by anything I say as you head out on the course to fame and wealth. I note that according to legend Boltzman killed himself because he believed that his ideas were not accepted. The people who were active in rejecting Boltzman's work didn't believe in atomic theory, since atoms could not be seen or proven. They also argued that because the momenta and space coordinates of particles could not be measured, Boltzman's statistical treatment of these properties (with which he defined entropy) could not be useful. Boltzman's suicide was a real tragedy for science, because Boltzman certainly was among the greatest scientists the world has ever known.

[DEMVET-USMC]

14. I did not invent the windhexe. You obviously did nor read anything I

wrote. The windhexe is already being used on a number of large scale projects and is a proven technology. I explained where the unexplained energy to power this machine comes from. The Coriolis effect has nothing to do with it. This is a closed system and outside airflow would therefore have no effect on it.It is the angular momentum transfer of the Earth revolving on it`s axis. At least take the time to read the New York Times Magazine article regarding the windhexe which I quoted in its entirety today and my comments answering the questions asked there.Or don`t, I really don`t care what you do. ...Oscar

[treepig]

15. according to msnbc

at this link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4723367/

"The Windhexe forces highly compressed heated air into four openings at the top; when those airstreams meet, Vortex says, they swirl about and essentially create a miniature funnel cloud, whipping around at incalculable speeds."

considering that considerable energy is required for heating and compressing the air that this device runs on, it's doubtful that it accomplishes much except for pulverizing stuff into "micron-size particles" (once again according to the msnbc article).

btw, chemical bonds are on the size of angstroms, which are 10,000 times smaller than a micron - hence this fine powder still contains alot of chemical bonds!! (on edit - this comment should be placed in response to your contention in post #7 that the vast majority of chemical bonds are broken, in reality only a tiny fraction are).

[DEMVET-USMC]

17. Of course it still contains a lot of chemical bonds but I stand by my

statement that the vast majority of the bonds are broken to reduce the substances introduced into the windhexe to the fine powder that is produced. I would have to know the average size of these particles and chemical makeup of the material pulverized and come come up with the correct equation to do these calculations. The Engineers who have looked at it presumably have and claim to be baffled as to where the necessary energy comes from. My gut feeling is that indeed the vast majority of the bonds are broken. I could be wrong. Most of the papers being written on the subject of the windhexe are in German and I don`t know German. If you do and are interested enough to do a google using the word : windhexe maybe you can update us as to what the Germans have to say about all this. I appreciate your interest. ...Oscar

[treepig]

20. the msnbc article gives a size - "microns"

if that doesn't mean anything to you - that's about the size of a single bacterial cell. on one hand, bacteria are indeed very small, in fact you can barely see them even by using the most powerful light microscopes (you need to use an electron microscope). so if something becomes pulverized to micron size, if can legitimately be considered to be a very fine powder.

even so, this pulverization process is still a physical and not a chemical transformation. for example, going back to the bacteria - even though it is tiny, it nevertheless contains billions of even tinier chemical molecules. the windhexe process would have no impact on them.

ok, let's look at this process from one more perspective and consider that you have two candles - one you burn as is, and one that you pulverize before combustion - in both cases you would get the same amount of energy out of the process. that's because candle wax is composed of molecules such as C31H64 - there would be about 10(e12)(one trillion) of these molecules - completely intact - in one pulverized particle. actually getting chemical energy from the bonds in these molecules, therefore, occurs at a much smaller scale (a trillion-fold smaller) than the processes carried out be the windhexe machine.

more specifically, one molecule of C31H64 would combine with 47 molecules of O2 (molecular oxygen) to produce 31 C02 (carbon dioxide) and 32 H20 (water) molecules. to figure out how much net energy is obtained from this process, you first determine how many bonds must be broken and how much energy is required to do so:

30 C-C bonds: 30 x 346 kJ/mol = 10,380 kJ/mol
64 C-H bonds: 64 x 413 kJ/mol = 26,432 kJ/mol
47 O=O bonds: 47 x 498 kJ/mol = 23,406 kJ/mol

total of 60,218 kJ/mol


then you can calculate how much energy is release upon formation of the bonds present in the final products:

62 C=O bonds: 62 x 749 kJ/mol = 46,438 kJ/mol
64 H-O bonds: 64 x 463 kJ/mol = 29,632 kJ/mol

total of 76,070 kJ/mol

net energy gain = 76,070 - 60,218 = 15,852 kJ/mol

therefore, if you had a candle one mole in size - i.e., that weighed about one pound if composed of C31H64 molecules - you'd get about 16,000 kJ of energy from complete combustion (that's the equivalent of about 4.5 kW-hours in terms of electricity). note that this value is completely independent of whether the candle is intact in one piece, or pulverized into billions of microscopic particles


hopefully this simple example suffices to illustrate the difference between physical and chemical transformations and will dissuade you from continuing to post your factually non-supported theories (unless, of course, your intent is merely to provide entertainment . . . )

[DEMVET-USMC]

21. Well the technology is being used already to do all the things the article

and Polifka`s engineer/partner said it could do. I am too tired to examine your statements as to accuracy. I will simply say that the results are in and big time investors of money believe in it. This technology is being used now and I am convinced you will be hearing a lot more about it as time goes by. ...Oscar

[treepig]

25. yeah, it probably is doing what they say it does

namely, use a lot of energy (in the form of heated, compressed air) to pulverize things. really, that's not all that remarkable.

what i'm saying is that it's NOT doing what YOU'RE saying it does, namely,

(1) breaking chemical bonds by
(2) somehow harvesting energy from the earth's angular momentum

if you expect to actually convince anyone of these claims, which are rather remarkable as they contradict thousands (or probably millions) of person-years of work in chemistry and geophysics, it's just not good enough to say, gee, "i only have a 12-th grade education" or "i'm too tired to think" - so "someone else should go figure out the details."

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treepig]

40. the point is that you're selling yourself short by only considering

the angular momentum of the earth's rotation, which is 1000 mph at the equator.

i suggest you consider transfering angular momentum from the orbit of the solar system (which of course includes the earth) around the milky way into the windhexe machine. in this case, the velocity is 500,000 mph - a dramatic 500-fold increase in energy availability!!

[treepig]

42. to emphasize the point that rotational momentum is small

compared to momentum gained from orbiting the sun, here's a quantitative comparison of the earth's angular momentum derived from rotation vs. orbiting the sun:

from http://www.thomasbending.co.uk/puzzles/physics/angmom.htm

Earth's angular momentum

Q: What should the earth's day length be such that its angular momentum (relative to the solar system) is 0?


A: 23 milliseconds.

The angular momentum of its orbit around the sun, assuming it's a point mass, is MR2v where M = mass of earth, R = orbital radius, v = angular velocity of yearly orbit.

The angular momentum of its rotation about its axis is (2/5)Mr2w where r = planet radius, w = angular velocity of daily rotation.

Thus we want w = -(5/2)R2v / r2.

Now R = 1.5e11 m, v = 2 pi /(3600*24*365) = 2e-7 radians/s and r = 6.4e6 m, so w = -270 radians/s so the required day length is 23 milliseconds, but in the opposite direction to the actual rotation. Thus the earth would be doing 2600 rpm.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DEMVET-USMC]

58. We live on the planet Earth and these machines cannot be placed in outer

space. I guess you could launch one into outer space if you wanted to,but I don`t think it would do much good. We are on a massive revolving ogject called the planet Earth, there is plenty of angular momentum right here. ...Oscar

[treepig]

59. nobody suggested placing them in outer space

like you say, there's plenty of angular momentum right here. once again, the definition of angular momentum is "Angular momentum. A quantity obtained by multiplying the mass of an orbiting body by its velocity and the radius of its orbit. A spinning body also possesses spin angular momentum. (from http://www.herts.ac.uk/astro_ub/aA_ub.html )


like i've explained many times, this angular momentum is the combination of the superposition of angular momentum from:

1) the earth spinning on its axis

2) the earth orbiting the sun

3) the earth, along with the sun, i've explained the first two in great detail in other posts, but here's something to help you visualize the earth orbiting the milky way galaxy:




perhaps an analogy would help you understand this concept? consider that you want to determine the momentum of a flea - in this case to keep it simple, let's just consider linear momentum.

let's say the flea has a mass of 1 mg and is walking across your head at a rate of 1 cm/s - it would have a momentum of 1x10(e-8) kg*m/s. we can compare momentum from the flea itself walking to the earth spinning on it's axis.

now, let's further say that at the say time you're walking along at 3.6 km/h (or 1 m/s) - in this case the flea is now moving at between 99 cm/s or 101 cm/s (depending if it's moving directly opposite or completely in line with the direction you're going). the flea's momentum now increases just about 100-fold to 1x10(e-6) kg*m/s. we can now compare the momentum of the flea to that of the earth's combined momentum from spinning on it's axis, while at the same time orbiting the sun.

now, let's say that you (and your companion flea) are actually doing your walking down the aisle of at 747 airplane that's moving at 1,000 km/h. in this case, the flea's momentum increases to ~2.78x10(e-4) kg*m/s. we can compare this value of momentum to that of the earth orbiting the galaxy.

as can be seen, the momentum of the flea changes dramatically depending on the frame of reference used for analysis - and the flea remains blissfully unaware of any of this. similarly, the angular momentum experienced by the windhexe machine - all the time sitting in exactly the same place safely down on the earth's surface - can vary dramatically depending on the frame of reference used for analysis. and, just like the flea, the windhexe machine remains blissfully unaware of these subtleties. there is no way that it could de-convolute these three different effects, and selectively tap into the component of angular momentum derived from the earth's rotation and exclude the components derived from orbiting the sun and galaxy.

[DEMVET-USMC]

62. Actually maybe windhexe machines on space stations and rocket ships

could be used to treat and recycle sewage for instance. Of course this would prove my theories to be wrong as I beieve it is the angular momentum of the Earth that accounts for the previously unexplained energy input. Of course it could be used on the moon or Mars for instance if I am correct.

[DEMVET-USMC]

37. As to people taking an interest in Frank Polifka`s machine the facts speak

for themseves. Do a google search,there is world wide attention about his machine. He never used his lack of a higher education as any sort of excuse. He just stated it as fact. No whining from that guy,I expect he will be a very weaithy man if he isn1t already. Nor do I whine about it. I never event mentioned it remember. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

60. You say what the windhexe machine does is not remarkable,The whole world

seems to disagree with that statement. This technology is being used now to treat sewage in Pennsylvania,according to that N.Y.Times article I quoted. Also being used to treat poultry byproducts for use in pet food. Most of the literature out there on the web is written in German so evidently they are embracing windhexe technology big time. There are other machines that use different technologies to do similar things. It is because the windhexe machine accomplishs so much work with what appears to be so little energy. This is what has baffled the engineers who have looked at it. I believe I have correctly identified where all this unaccounted for energy comes from. I hereby dub it the " Oscar Effect " Which is that properly controlled air vortexes and possibly liquid ones can tap into the angular momentum of the Earth and other planets with the phenomenon known as angular momentum transfer and be used to do very useful work " June 2, 2004 : Oscar ..... I am printing this one for future reference ....Oscar

[treepig]

61. so little energy?

Compressing the air so it can be pumped into the cone at hundreds of miles per hour takes in excess of 200 kilowatts of electric power and costs about $12 per hour.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28285-2002Dec8


that's the equivalent of 20 gallons of gasoline to run one of these things (and they're not that large) for one hour. an 18-wheeler would be hard-pressed to burn energy at this rate. thank god for the energy assist from magically tapping into the earth's angular momentum or we'd really be screwed!!

[DEMVET-USMC]

63. Significant advances have been made since that article was written in 2002

Some company named I think: Vortex technologies, something like that and they are now producing much more efficient machines. I`ll try and find their website. I did a search and found out there a growing number of companies getting involved in windhexe technology including coal,ethanol and energy production. Please go to: < http://vortexdehydration.com/id28.htm > if any readers out there are interested in some more current information regarding all this.

[DEMVET-USMC]

27. Are you trying to tell chemical bonds are not broken when rocks are

pulverized into a fine powder. I believe you are reffering to what a chemical reaction is. The Mechanical pulverization of rocks and other materials breaks chemical bonds, it is not a chemical reaction. Whatever made up the rocks has not been altered chemically, but a very many chemical bonds have been broken. Surely you don`t dispute that.Physical processes are capable of breaking chemical bonds. ...Oscar

[treepig]

32. yeah, basically that's correct

and it doesn't help that you obfuscate matters by comparing the pulverization of rocks and organic material - there are many types of chemical "bonds" - see http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/ionic.html#top - you started the discussion in your original post based on one type of bonds (covalent bonds) and now you're shifting rocks, which are held together at an atomic level by different types of bonds. nevertheless, the pulverization of rocks mostly is based on disruption of microdomains within the rock, not the breaking of chemical bonds that link individual atoms to each other - btw, if you wish to enlighten yourself on the microscopic mechanisms underlying the fracture/pulverization of rock, check out:

http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/LithicTech/3_Fracture_Mechanics.html

in any event, in your original post, you focused on organic material - the physical pulverization of organic material WILL NOT break any covalent bonds - the ones that "store" energy released by combustion. the pulverization process may disrupt a few much weaker interactions such as hydrogen bonds and van der Waals forces - in general these are considered to be intermolecular interactions that transiently keep molecules next to neighboring molecules. disruption of these interactions requires relatively little energy. a specific and interesting example is a gecko that uses van der Waals forces to walk upside down across ceilings see - http://www.howstuffworks.com/news-item21.htm - to my knowledge no one has ever evoked transfer to the earth's angular momentum as a necessary component of this process.

by contrast, disruption of intramolecular covalent bonds - the bonds that hold molecules themselves together and store the "useful" energy in hydrocarbon-based fuels - requires a large amount of energy and it's almost impossible to envision a physical process that breaks these bonds.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treepig]

38. ok, now you're making progress towards supporting your

bond-breaking theory - but by using diamonds - one of the very few carbon-based substances that has a greater-than-micron large-scale covalently-bonded structure (it's not clear to me why one would want to pulverize a diamond in the windhexe machine, but i'll humor you nevertheless).

ok, by consulting this website:

http://phycomp.technion.ac.il/~david/thesis/node3.html

we learn that there are 1.77 x 10e23 carbon atoms in a cubic centimeter (cc) of diamond. each carbon atom forms a bond with four other carbon atoms, therefore there are a total of 7.08 x 10e23 chemical bonds in a one cc cube of diamond.

ok, let's assume we pulverize this cc of diamond into micron-size particles using the magical windhexe machine, and for simplicity, we assume the dust-sized particles remain perfect cubes. in this case the original cc-sized cube becomes 10e12 (one trillion) micron-sized cubes. each of these dust-sized cubes now has one-trillion less carbon atoms, or 1.77 x 10e11, which are held together by 7.08 x 10e11 bonds minus the number of bonds broken during pulverization. now, to calculate the number of chemical bonds broken, consider that one of the six faces of the micron-sized cube consists of an array of ~5,614 x 5,614, or 31,516,996 carbon atoms. each of these atoms had one of it's four bonds broken during pulverization - and considering that the cube has six faces, that means that a total of 189,101,967 bonds were broken per micron sized cube.

finally, let's compare the total number of bonds in a dust-sized particle with the number broken during pulverization. once again, that's 7.08 x 10e11 compared with 189,101,967 (which is 1.89 x 10e8). another way to compare these numbers is to say that one out of every 3,744 bonds, or 0.0267%, were broken during the pulverization. even in your extreme example of diamond, this number hardly represents the "vast majority" - once again, i posit that any sane person would characterize the number of broken bonds as negligible compared to the number that remain untouched.

[DEMVET-USMC]

45. Once again you insist on complicating a simple principle I was trying to

illustrate. When a jeweller cleaves a diamond he is braking carbon atoms bonded to carbon atoms. My point was that chemical bonds are being broken by mechanical actions, and that no chemical reaction takes place. If you break a piece of glass chemical bonds are being broken. If you cut a piece of paper the same is true. Chemical bonds are broken by mechanical means. Nothing in the literature of chemistry states otherwise. You apparently believe a chemical reaction is required to break a chemical bond which is non-sense and you know it.Please, why do you persist in trying to confuse the premise of my theory, wich has more to do with physics than with chemistry to begin with. And yes I do know the two are so closely related in some ways it is impossible to separate the two. My theory falls very much into the physics side of these closely related branches of science.My theory answers the question of where the unexplained energy comes from to do the work the windhexe machine does. I was thinking of you today, and what I might say to you to open your mind up to my concepts as to angular momentum transfer. Have you not ever observed how air vortexs constantly and spontaneously occur when the right material is present to make these vortexes visible: dry leaves in the Autumn, powdery snow in the winter. They appear constantly when the conditions are right for observing them. They rapidly appear with relatively much more energy than the air mass around them,often dancing around a field for 15 seconds or so. This energy is there all around us and vortex/windhexe technology is a proven way to tap into it. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

49. Thank you for acknowledging chemial bonds can be broken by

mechanical means. Perhaps we can begin a meaningful debate. I will not go out of my way to insult you as long as you do the same. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

51. I guess you assume I know little if any about organic chemistry

I am going to really piss you off when I find the time to write about my ORIGINAL THEORIES regarding the anti-viral properties of BHT commonly known as butylated hydroxytoluene. This compound successfully treated my hepatitis C infection. Once again, I did not discover this phenomonen but am the one who came up with a reasonable explanation for exactly how it does what it does. I have written extensively about it in different forums and published a copywrighted booklet and on and on. You really are a hoot.....Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

52. The Windhexe machine is in use big time as to pulverizing organic

matter already. That is were the big payoff has been. If you spent one tenth of the time you spend trying to discedit me you would know this. ...Oscar

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treepig]

54. if you rely on google searches for your science information

i beleive we may have identified the source of the misinformation you propound.

anyhow, the earth gains angular momentum from at least three sources.

1) rotation on it's axis

2) orbiting the sun

3) orbiting the milky way (along with the rest of the solar system).

this website http://www.thomasbending.co.uk/puzzles/physics/angmom.htm give a method to calculate values for the first two:

The angular momentum of the earth's rotation about its axis is (2/5)Mr2w where r = planet radius, w = angular velocity of daily rotation.

The angular momentum of the earth's orbit around the sun, assuming it's a point mass, is MR2v where M = mass of earth, R = orbital radius, v = angular velocity of yearly orbit.

if you do the calculations, you'll find that the angular momentum resulting from orbiting the sun is huge compared to rotation on its axis.

in any event, these two motions are superimposed on each other, and there is absolutely no way a 6-foot tall windhexe machine on the surface of the earth could even detect them, much less differentiate between them and selectively tap into the rotational momentum only.

so far, you have yet to disprove any of my claims, such as showing how my calculations that pulverizing diamonds, even if the windhexe would do so, breaks more than 1 in thousands of chemical bonds, a most insignificant fraction.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DEMVET-USMC]

65. Most of these windhexe are being used to powderize organic material of

of one type or another. Surely you have read some of this stuff. Did you check out that site it told you about earlier this evening ? ...Oscar

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treepig]

33. the point is that the onus is on you to provide a mechanistic

justification to support your hypothesis - otherwise no sane person is ever going to go through the hassle of testing the apparatus at different latitudes.

for example, why do you focus on the earth's rotational momentum? let's for a moment assume that momentum from the earth's movement could actually be transferred to the contents of the windhex machine - then what about the earth's momentum gained from orbiting the sun - the entire planet is orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph - what if momentum from this movement is also transfered to the windhexe machine - wouldn't this effect then predominate over the rotation of the earth on its axis, which results in a maximum velocity of 1,000 mph at the equator? if so, the difference between the equator and poles would be miniscule (< 2%) and no doubt difficult to measure.

but what about the solar systems' rotation about center of the milky way - using this frame of reference the earth is moving at about 500,000 mph (and therefore has even greater momentum that is independent of latitude) - what if the windhexe machine was magically harvesting this source of energy? then your latitude-based theory becomes even less relevant.

it would seem to me that some of these rather basic questions require answering before field tests of your theories would commence

[DEMVET-USMC]

34. You just said the difference in Angular Momentum would be 2%. Please

stop and think for a moment. At the equator you are traveling at about 1,000 miles per hour because the circumference of Earth is about 24,000 miles and there are 24 hours in a day. Now if you are near either pole,lets say to keep the math simple you step 3.82 meters from the pole. You now will now travel 24 meters in 24 hours or 1 day . You are now traveling at 1 meter per hour not the 1,000 miles per hour you would be traveling at, at the equator. Because angular momentum is a product of velocity x mass and some equation I do not know off hand. The important thing is that angular momentum`s energy value is dictated by mass and velocity. Also,though obviously the mass of the Earth does not change that portion of the Earth that is revolving along with and your windhexe machine is far less than at the equator. Surely you can understand that. At least the part about the velocity differnces near the pole and at the equater. You are an intelligent person I can see that. Maybe you should stop and think a little before poking fun at me . Frankly that statement about a 2% difference in angular momentum was beneath you had you thought about it for but a moment.The questions about the rotation of the earth,galaxcy and such,the windhexe is on the Earth itself. I don`t know but I do not think these other movements would enter into the effect, I could be wrong and maybe YOU are onto something. Nevertheless I do appreciate your continued interest...Oscar ...that distance I gave you is a product of Pi: 24 divided by 3.14 = 7.64 divided by 2 = 3.82 OF COURSE I ROUNDED IT OFF But that is close

[treepig]

39. but you neglect the angular momentum of the earth

derived from it's orbit around the sun.

in this case, that's 67,000 mph. since the poles do not gain addition velocity from the earth's rotation, they move steadily at 67,000 mph. however, the equator could be traveling at either 66,000 mph or 68,000 mph when the effects of the earth's rotation are superimposed upon the motion of the earth's orbit around the sun (depending if the two motions are antagonistic, or synergistic).

68,000 compared to 67,000 is 101.49%. hence, the maximal possible increase in the earth's velocity at the equator compared to the pole is 1.49%, which as i stated, is less than 2%.


now, if you consider earth's angular momentum as a consequence of the the solar system's rotation around the milky way, the 1000 mph at the equator becomes even less significant.

[DEMVET-USMC]

44. Well,as I have stated so many times, it is the angular momenum of Earth

itself,and not these other forces you refer to that account for the heretofore unexplained energy input required by the windhexe machines to do the work they unquestionably accomplish. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

50. The angular momentum of the Earth has nothing to to with it`s orbital

relation to the sun execpt for some extremely minor effect the Sun`s gravitational field has on the angular momentum of the Earth. We are talking about the rotation of the Earth around its axis and not the Earth`s rotation around the sun. Come on , get real and stop throwing all this off the wall crap at me.If the sun`s gravitational field had a stronger gravitational effect on the planet as to objects on the planet the planet itself would fall into the Sun. Let me anticipate you. Eventually it will. At this moment in time the Earth`s graitatinal field regarding all that is on the planet and the moon that revolves around it is a very much stronger feild than the Sun`s because of our distance from the sun. If this were not true the moon would fall into the Sun and on and on ...Oscar

[treepig]

55. you really should get busy writing textbooks to correct all

the mis-information out there. for example, the universally accepted definition of angular momentum for a celestial body such as the earth is: a measure of the amount of spin or orbital motion . . .

http://www.astronomynotes.com/angmom/s1.htm

the earth happens to have both spin and orbital motion - hence you're way out in left field on this one.

[DEMVET-USMC]

64. Well all fields of Science are constantly being updated, theories modified

and such to incorporate new information that necessitates altering previously accepted scientific principals. In fact it is happening so fast it is hard to keep up with The whole dark matter/ dark energy phenomenon is a good example. Some are saying they now believe fully 90% of the mass in our Universe is this type of matter which began appearing about 4 billion years ago. It`s just an example of what I am referring to. ...Oscar

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DEMVET-USMC]

70. I would say adios amigo,and did a day or two ago but realized there is

some relationship that has developed between us we both eventially give in to and continue to communicate. Of course I could be wrong. Your an intelligent man, I know that,nevertheless, you have a propensity for unnecessarily complicating that which is simple. Again it is the angular momentum of the Earth independant of these other forces that add the previously unexplained energy input into windhexe machines that account for the energy necessary for them to do the work they do. Did you read say 1/2 of what I wrote to you ? Have you not ever observed how readily and spontaniously these vortexes form when the material is present to make them visable such as leaves in the fall or light powdery snow in the winter and how rapidly and much more energic the airflow within these vortexes is ? ...Oscar

[NNadir]

24. That's right. I did not read anything about it.

I reported that fact.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DEMVET-USMC]

7. The windhexe breaks the vast majority of the chemical bonds of the

Chemical bonds that exist in say wood chips. The windhexe reduces the material to a fine dry powder. It requires energy to break chemical bonds, the windhexe provides that energy. Now the thermal depolymerization process and therefore has much less work to do as most of the bonds were broken by the windhexe machine. It is my belief that it is the angular momentum of the Earth that provides the previously unexplained energy input. The phenomenon is known as ANGULAR MOMENTUM TRANSFER. The windhexe machine and what is becoming known as vortex technology, is a method of tapping into the angular momentum of the Earth and doing some very useful work. These technologies are going to solve some very big problems facing mankind. My contribution is that I correctly identified the unexplained energy input into the windhexe machine.I do not have the resources nor am I connected to say a University that could fund the money and have the credentials to do that simple test I suggested: Buy a windhexe machine and take readings such as wind speed and temperature inside the windhexe at different latitudes. If I am correct the the wind speed and temperature should rise the closer you are to the equator because the closer you are to the equator the faster you are moving,revolving, around the axis of the Earth. Also there is more mass under you revolving along with you and your windhexe. Now go out there and get a NOBEL PRIZE. Don`t forget to mention Oscar DEMVET-USMC from the DU forums. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

8. The Angular Momentum of the Earth revolving on it`s axis provides the

previously unexplained energy input into the windhexe. Please read my other postings answering simular questions in this thread. This idea is original to me,DEMVET-USMC, Oscar from the DU forums. ...Oscar

[treepig]

43. Try these "busters" to exercise your brain ...

from http://courses.science.fau.edu/~rjordan/busters_6/answers_6.htm#Ex_2
and maybe learn something about angular momentum

<2> A sizeable amount of dirt is washed down the Mississippi River and deposited in the Gulf of Mexico every year. What effect does this tend to have on the length of the day?

Answer: The Mississippi River runs from north to south, which means that mass is being transported to regions where the tangential velocity at the Earth's surface is greater. There are no external torques actng on the Earth and so to conserve angular momentum - the product of the moment of inertia and angular velocity - a slowing down of the rotation rate must occur. Therefore, the length of the day increases, albeit by an exceedingly small amount!



<3> (Funny one ... this!) How would the length of the day be affected if the whole population of the Earth walked in an easterly direction? What about when they stopped walking?

Answer: The whole population walking from west to east would produce angular momentum that is in the same direction as that resulting from the Earth's rotation. However, since there are no external torques on the system, i.e., the Earth and its inhabitants, the additional angular momentum created by the walkers would be compensated by a reduction of the angular momentum due to the Earth's rotation. Thus, the rotation rate of the Earth would decrease, leading to an increase in the length of the day.

If they stopped walking, conservation of angular momentum means that the Earth's rotation would increase and so the day would regain its original length.

Thank goodness the population generally walks around in random directions, i.e., their walking is not correlated!



<7> As the Earth rotates under the tidal bulges, which are produced by the Moon, there is a frictional force between the water and the Ocean floor. One consequence is that the Earth's rotation slows and the days are getting longer (by something like 0.0015s per century!). That means the angular momentum of the Earth is getting smaller. Angular momentum can change providing there's an external torque acting on the system; but in the Earth-Moon case there is no external torque. So, how is the total momentum of the Earth-Moon system conserved?

Answer: The total angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system has several contributing sources; from the rotation of the Earth on its axis, from the rotation of the Moon on its axis and the rotation of the Moon about the Earth. A reduction in the Earth's angular momentum about its own axis must be compensated by an increase in one of the other sources. In fact, because of the friction between the Ocean floor and the water, the tidal bulge is 'slightly ahead' of where it would be if the Earth didn't rotate, i.e., directly in-line with the Moon:



The gravitational attraction between the bulge nearer the Moon and the Moon itself tends to increase the orbital speed of the Moon, which, in turns increases the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. However, that's not the whole story! In order for the Moon to be in a 'stable' orbit, the Laws of physics - namely, the balance between the centripetal and gravitational forces acting on the Moon - require that the Moon moves slightly farther away from the Earth, also increasing the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system!

In fact, the Moon is moving away from the Earth at the rate of a few centimeters (~3cm) per year. This increase is measured using laser light reflecting from a mirror left on the Moon by Apollo astronauts.

Another interesting fact, since the Earth's rotation is slowing down it means that in the past the day was shorter than it is now. Assuming the slowing rate is constant, you can work out that 500 million years ago (5 million centuries) the day was 7500s shorter, i.e., it was about 22 hours long! That means also, 500 million years ago the year was about 398 days long!

[DEMVET-USMC]

67. Actually the Earths rotational speed is slowing at the rate of very close

to 1 second per year according to the time keepers and their atomic clock in Paris. Since 1972 31 additional leap seconds have been added to account for this change. The name of that organization is: the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Paris. This angular momentum is being expended with or without windhexe machines.

[DEMVET-USMC]

13. N.Y.Times Magazine Dec.14,2003 Re: WINDHEXE

page 97 quote:" Tornado in a Can. The awesome destructive force of tornadoes-iconized in " The Wizard of Oz " and fetishized in " Twister "-has been harnessed by a 65-year-old-farmer who, as central casting would have it, hails from Kansas. Frank Polifka, who farms wheat and milo, invented a contraption called the windhexe, which creates a tornado-force wind within a steel funnel. A contained cyclone, it turns out, is very useful for pulverizing things. Polifka has reduced broccoli to powder. Same with rocks, aluminum cans, shark cartilage, coal, sewage, household garbage and the membranes that line eggshells. Now with the help of business partners, his machine is being put to use on bigger things. Energy companies in Australia are using it to remove moisture from coal. A garbage-processing plant in Pennsylvania will go online with it`s windhexe next month;the machine can turn two tons of trash into one ton of sterile powder. And in November, a North Carolina poultry processor started turning chicken parts into a high protein powder for use in the manufacture of pet food. Polifka, who made his first Windhexe about 15 years ago,designed his machine to push compressed air through nozzles at the top of the funnel-shaped can. Small deflection plates then force that air to flow in a counterclockwise direction, creating a miniature tornado. Using just a fraction of the energy employed by conventional crushers and dryers, the Windhexe breaks solid material down, increasing it`s surface area. It then exposes the degraded material to the heat cast off by it`s air compressors, evaporating any moisture within. David Winsness , an engineer who is working with Polifka to market the invention, envisions a day when every home will have its own Windhexe-churning loads of household trash and sewage into handfulls of fine powder.These mundane uses don`t mean the fearsome twister has lost its mystique. One of the most delicious things about the Windhexe is that theoretically the thing shouldn`t work at all. Its compressed-air streams don`t have enough energy to crush much of what it pulverizes. But some how when those airstreams are molded into the shape of a tornado, they become supercharged.' An engineer could not have invented this,"Winsness says. " As an engineer, you don`t try anything theoretically impossible." < Polifka has a 12th-grade education >" I don`t know what it really does," admits Poifka, who once tried and failed to photograph the inside of a working Windhexe using strobe lights." No ones been able to explain it." By Eryn Brown UNQUOTE - Well I have been able to explain it. This windhexe machine is a means of tapping into the angular momentum of the Earth to do some very useful work. The phenomenon is called: angular momentum transfer. This theory can be easily tested by taking readings of the windhexe`s internal airspeeds and temperatures at different latitudes. The closer you are to the equator the higher the wind speeds and temperatures should be if I am correct. This is because the closer you are to the equator the faster you are traveling as in revolving around the Earth and conversely the further you are from the equator the slower you are traveling the less angular momentum there will be there.Also,there is more mass revolving along with you the closer to the equator you are. Mass x velocity = angular momentum ....So there is the answer to the windhexe mystery according to: DEMVET-USMC Oscar at the DU forums. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST FOLKS

[treepig]

16. btw, mass x velocity = linear (not angular) momentum

whereas angular momentum = (moment of inertia) x (angular velocity)

see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#am for more details (hint: getting just a few of the basics correct might increase your overall level of credibility . . . )

anyhow, have you considered that harvesting the earth's angular momentum for energy production will necessarily slow the rotation of the earth, and what the consequences of that will be?

[DEMVET-USMC]

18. Got me on that one , and yes I also wondered if tapping into the

angular momentum of the Earth would speed up the slowing of the Earth`s rotational speed. It seems a possibility but there may be other factors involved that would rule this out, I don`t know. It seems to me that the Earth is spinning with the momentum it has and it is slowing down about 1 second per year. The angular momentum is being expended and my thinking is that the windhexe technology would in fact be only picking up and using energy that is already being expended and therefore not increase the rate of the Earth`s slowing....I appreciate your interest Oscar

[LARED]

19. This type of grinding

has been around for many years.

http://www.fluidenergype.com/htm/jom_p2.htm

The high velocity air grinds the material by beating it against itself and the wall of the containment vessel.

Using this technology all organic matter can be reduced to a fine sterile powder. The reason this is possible is due to the angular momentum of the Earth.

This makes no sense. The energy needed to grind material to a fine powder musr come from somewhere. The angular momentum of the earth is not going to provide the energy needed to grind the material. There must be an air supply to the windhexe thingy that creates the high velocity vortex where the grinding takes place. An air supply that is likely high pressure and high volume.

[DEMVET-USMC]

22. The engineers who have investigated this technology cannot explain where

the energy required to pulverize rocks for example , that the windhexe pulverizes into a fine powder comes from. Please read that N.Y.Times article I quoted. Or take a sledge hammer and hammer away at a few rocks and see how much energy it takes to reduce it to a fine powder. A simple exercise such as that makes you realize that there is something to this windhexe stuff. ...Oscar

[LARED]

23. Stuff is pulverized everyday using similar technology

I work in the chemical industry as a mechanical engineer. There is nothing magical about this device.

Hot compressed air is forced into a cyclone shaped container. Due to the shape of the container the air creates a vortex at very high velocity. The high velocity causes the materials to crash into each other and the walls of the vessel in effect grinding them into a fine powder.

The link I provided above shows a device that works in a similar way and can grind nearly anything into sub-micron particles.

It takes huge amounts of energy to run these devices. From an energy standpoint they are grossly inefficient.

[DEMVET-USMC]

26. Please read the N.Y.Times article I Quoted: Windhexe does Not require

large amounts of energy and as you yourself stated these machines, the ones you referred to, do, and you state from an energy standpoint they are grossly ineffecient. This is not so with the windhexe. That is why the engineers who have looked at this windhexe machine cannot explain it. The energy required to pulverize rock into a fine powder is not being supplied soley by the air compressors wich power the nozzles that force the air to flow, etc.. My answer to this is that this windhexe technology is a means of tapping into the angular momentum of the Earth it what is known as angular momentum transfer. These windhexe machines work. That is not in doubt. The question has been where does all the energy come from and I have given you my answer to that question. ...Oscar

[LARED]

41. The times articles say nothing of the sort

Windhexe does not require large amounts of energy

It does not say that.

and you state from an energy standpoint they are grossly ineffecient. This is not so with the windhexe.

No where could I find anything that spoke about energy efficiency.

Listen. I'm sure the Windhexe machines works just fine. I only thing I'm trying to tell you that the technology is not new. There is no tapping into the angular momentum of the earths rotation.

[DEMVET-USMC]

46. Did You read the article,because ,from what you say, you apparently

missed much of what was said . ...Oscar

[LARED]

48. Tell you what

If within ten years it turns out this Windhexe is in reality tapping into the angular momentum of the earth in some mysterious way, I'll buy you the best steak in town.

Until then I'm sticking with what I learned in engineering school and 20 plus years in the chemical business. This process is not new nor is it tapping into the earths rotational energy.

[Pol]

57. There is indeed doubt

It takes a painful amount of energy to compress air. Evaporation takes energy out of the system. Extracting large amounts of energy from the angular momentum of the earth is unexplained and highly suspect. Nothing I have read on this gives me any confidence that there is much more to it than putting a lot of energy into the system to accomplish the drying and pulverization.

By the way, the act of compressing air increases its temperature, again at the cost of energy input.

Windhexe may indeed provide rapid drying and pulverization of materials, but I don't see any new physics or black magic in it.

[Pol]

56. Sounds Questionable

This sounds highly questionable to me.

From http://www.vortexdehydration.com

The swirling air dehydrates the material using a combination of mechanical and evaporative energy and is therefore more efficient than any thermal drying device.
. . .

Last I checked, evaporation was driven by the input of moisture, like, for example, the boiling of water. "Evaporation energy" isn't going to provide power as far as I can tell. Sure, you provide a tornado in a can and things are going to dry out and beat together. But sustaining the tornado is going to require a lot of energy.

What appears to be the leading depolymerization technology relies on the presence of water for the conversion of organic matter into oil and other organic and inorganic products. Seems a bit contradictory and inefficient to take the water out only to put it back in.

History is replete with good salespersons/people manipulators backing hokey ideas. One scam that has run for years involves, essentially, hooking a battery or other power source up to a motor that drives a generator. The claim is that the output of the generator is greater than the power input. When the US patent office rejected the claims, it was appealed out to the highest body. Then the claims started about Arabs having bought off the patent office, oil company conspiracies and the like. All the while, the company continued gathering money from gullible suckers. I don't know whether windhexe is such a sucker play or not, but it doesn't really appear to offer anything to solving the energy crisis.

[DEMVET-USMC]

68. If it`s a suckers ploy there are some big time players buying into it.

Check that website you provided and on the left side of the page click history. Scroll down to 2003 and see some of the companies buying into it and the advancements that have been made in windhexe technology. One Company has 60 industrial size site set up in the U.S..THE MACHINES ARE BEING BUILT AND USED. ...Oscar

[Trillo]

71. I remember asking a physics professor

at a community college about something that might be related. Specifically, I was building a square greenhouse with a pyramidal shaped roof. At the peak of the pyramid was a wind turbine to exhaust hot air (heat rises), but I was curious about the coriolis effect on air circulation within the square shape of the base of the building. I wanted to place an intake air fan optimally in one of the corners and point it so there was a circular flow of air inside the greenhouse, and it was important to me that the fan be pointed in a direction that helped, rather than hindered, coriolis effect. The air would be flowing from below upward into the wind turbine at the peak

The professor couldn't answer my question except to say that any effect wasn't important, to think about water draining in a sink and how a circular motion of a hand in the water could easily disrupt the tornadic effect of the water draining.

I left the office disappointed that this basic question of mine couldn't be answered. I placed the fan in the middle pointing straight in, instead of pointing "right" or "left."

I can't offer any guidance regarding the energy efficiency of this windhexe machine other than to say I would think it would be a great way to grind up certain types of trash. If plastic free packaging, such as cardboard, that every home regularly disposes of was instead placed in a small machine like this, wouldn't the finely ground product make a great compost pile addition? And wouldn't that decrease the necessity of landfill space?

[Pol]

72. No decrease in landfill

Assuming that the cardboard was shredded, rather than powdered, there are still some issues to consider. First, many cardboards are surface coated with pigments or plastic that might not be the best thing for a compost heap. Secondly, I do not know whether the glue or other binder used in the making of ordinary cardboard would have any adverse effects. Finally, if the windhexe powders the material, it might impair the function of the compost heap.

As to landfill, yes, conventional landfill would be decreased. However, if it is going to the compost heap, it is ultimately intended to be used as landfill.