Fla. Man Invents Machine To Turn Water Into Fire

[dullard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This process nets an enormous amount of heat that can be used many ways for conversion where you have some loss but you are still talking about a nearly 2 to 1 net loss.

Fixed.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You're missing the point.

The hydrogen extraction is not to directly make electricty, it is to make heat.

I'm not sure I understand.

So you convert energy into hydrogen. Then burn the hydrogen for heat.

OK. But you still lose significant energy in the hydrogen generation process. It would be far more efficient to use your original energy source to produce the heat.

The only role for such a system is if you want to use the hydrogen to do something that your original energy source can't do (e.g. if you want to make a blow torch powered by electricity - this type of torch has been used for decades because generating hydrogen is much more convenient and safer for occasional users than cylinders), or you want to use the chemical properties of the hydrogen (to use in chemical reactions e.g. for making plastic).

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Mark R

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You're missing the point.

The hydrogen extraction is not to directly make electricty, it is to make heat.

I'm not sure I understand.

I'll translate with an example. Dmcowen674 is saying that if driving from Miami to NYC is taking too long, go through Denver (Miami -> Denver -> NYC) for a 2:1 net gain. In other words, make it more confusing and complex to hide the fact that you are lying and/or have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: dullard

The world uses ~5x10^20 J/year (all forms of energy combined). At your rate in your example, you'd produce 8.98x10^20 J/year. You are producing too much energy, we don't need it all.

Alright, well good. Then we'd use even less than the mass I mentioned.

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
If hydrogen is good enough for the sun, it's good enough for me!

Interesting point there. Concerning turning matter into energy, the sun loses about 4.2 billion kilograms per second. In the 100 years I mentioned, the sun "will have lost 1.3*10^19 kilograms due to the fusion reactions."
Source
Guess how much the sun cares. Not much.
Sun's total mass = 2*10^30 kilograms.

interesting read...thanks

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mark R

Originally posted by: destrekor
here's the thing about water. It can be considered an energy source, because relatively little energy is needed to to get energy out of hydrogen. But it can also be classified as a storage medium, because you cannot directly access the hydrogen in it. Here's the kicker though: what if we discover a more convenient way to extract hydrogen from water? What if we use only a little energy in extracting the hydrogen, and then a little more in igniting the hydrogen, and end up gaining a large amount of energy?
what if we make it sustainable? as in, once you ignite the hydrogen, you keep a steady line of hydrogen being fed into the fire that is created and contained.

But here's the kicker. You cannot get more energy out of the hydrogen than you put in to separate it; you will always lose. There is no way around it. At least, that is what is stated in the fundamental laws of physics.

If you split the water into hydrogen, with perfect efficiency (not actually achievable), and then recombine it perfectly (again, not actually achievable) the best you can do is break even. In practice, you have to accept losses.

In fact, current techniques for seperating hydrogen and then using it, are horribly inefficient - you'd be lucky to get 50% of your energy back. This is one of the fundamental problems of building a 'hydrogen economy' for cars - by the time you've generated the hydrogen, transported it, packaged it in a form suitable for cars, and then converted it back to energy, you've barely got 25% of your energy left.

While it is very convenient and relatively efficient to convert electricity into hydrogen, generating electricity is a massive loser. It comes down to the fact that most electricity is generated by burning a fuel to produce heat and then somehow using the heat from the fire to turn a generator. Converting heat to mechanical energy is inefficient, and there is no way round this (again, it's a law of physics - specifically it's due to entropy); that said, current technology is still a fair way from the limit, so there is room for improvement - but even with impossibly perfect technology you're still onto a serious loser with this approach.

You're missing the point.

The hydrogen extraction is not to directly make electricty, it is to make heat.

This process nets an enormous amount of heat that can be used many ways for conversion where you have some loss but you are still talking about a nearly 2 to 1 net gain.

exactly the point i was making in my original argument too. hydrogen has an enormous energy potential through heat loss generated from hydrogen burning.

and if we can skip the step of having to extract the hydrogen and merely ignite the water, which means it must be immediately igniting upon separation from oxygen, then you have a possibly, relatively efficient combustion procedure. reason being: the source is already present, as is the fuel for the source to ignite. the radio waves make resonate as such a frequency to break the bonds, which sees free hydrogen atoms, ready to make bonds with the oxygen again.
The process of breaking the bonds of H2O, and having the free hydrogen atoms bond again with the free oxygen atoms, has a large energy potential due to the few methods that we could harvest that energy.

the combustion portion could be used in two ways, at the same time no less: use the combustion to heat water (in turn there are two options here: use steam to turn turbines directly, or use steam and let it collect and condense and use the condensed water to turn the turbines), and at the same time, the combustion chamber will be filled with water vapor from the re-bonded hydrogen and oxygen and with a high enough pressure, that would condense and could fall through a second turbine, or through the creation of a pressure differential, could use the vapor itself to drive a turbine, after the pressure climbed in the chamber, the vapor would be pushed out, and the only exit could have a turbine and water collection system to bring it back into the cycle. Any additives that are necessary for the system to work with as little energy input as possible, they would already be in the water and would never leave the chamber since the system is only breaking bonds and re-bonding.

hell, if I had more experience in the field, I'd look into this myself and try and jerry-rig up a little system.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: destrekor
and if we can skip the step of having to extract the hydrogen and merely ignite the water, which means it must be immediately igniting upon separation from oxygen, then you have a possibly, relatively efficient combustion procedure. reason being: the source is already present, as is the fuel for the source to ignite. the radio waves make resonate as such a frequency to break the bonds, which sees free hydrogen atoms, ready to make bonds with the oxygen again.
The process of breaking the bonds of H2O, and having the free hydrogen atoms bond again with the free oxygen atoms, has a large energy potential due to the few methods that we could harvest that energy.

the combustion portion could be used in two ways, at the same time no less: use the combustion to heat water (in turn there are two options here: use steam to turn turbines directly, or use steam and let it collect and condense and use the condensed water to turn the turbines), and at the same time, the combustion chamber will be filled with water vapor from the re-bonded hydrogen and oxygen and with a high enough pressure, that would condense and could fall through a second turbine, or through the creation of a pressure differential, could use the vapor itself to drive a turbine, after the pressure climbed in the chamber, the vapor would be pushed out, and the only exit could have a turbine and water collection system to bring it back into the cycle. Any additives that are necessary for the system to work with as little energy input as possible, they would already be in the water and would never leave the chamber since the system is only breaking bonds and re-bonding.

LOL

I really don't know what to say.:Q

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Mark R

Originally posted by: destrekor
and if we can skip the step of having to extract the hydrogen and merely ignite the water, which means it must be immediately igniting upon separation from oxygen, then you have a possibly, relatively efficient combustion procedure. reason being: the source is already present, as is the fuel for the source to ignite. the radio waves make resonate as such a frequency to break the bonds, which sees free hydrogen atoms, ready to make bonds with the oxygen again.
The process of breaking the bonds of H2O, and having the free hydrogen atoms bond again with the free oxygen atoms, has a large energy potential due to the few methods that we could harvest that energy.

the combustion portion could be used in two ways, at the same time no less: use the combustion to heat water (in turn there are two options here: use steam to turn turbines directly, or use steam and let it collect and condense and use the condensed water to turn the turbines), and at the same time, the combustion chamber will be filled with water vapor from the re-bonded hydrogen and oxygen and with a high enough pressure, that would condense and could fall through a second turbine, or through the creation of a pressure differential, could use the vapor itself to drive a turbine, after the pressure climbed in the chamber, the vapor would be pushed out, and the only exit could have a turbine and water collection system to bring it back into the cycle. Any additives that are necessary for the system to work with as little energy input as possible, they would already be in the water and would never leave the chamber since the system is only breaking bonds and re-bonding.

LOL

I really don't know what to say.:Q

whether or not its possible, I make no claims. This untrained person merely imagines it could be possible someday in the future.
mostly a what-if scenario. a what if we could break the bonds with little energy.

i may be partially retarded in the field of physics and chemistry, but I make no claims of otherwise.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Analog
Like you'll get back the fossil fuels you burn now in your lifetime...

Fusion doesn't give you hydrogen back, but you do get a lot for what you put in. I venture to say that the amount of energy that would be available to us would be mind boggling if fusion ever works, with little chance of running out of fuel. I'm sure there are some calculations on this somewhere.

Nope, we won't get those fossil fuels back. But all that matter does remain on earth, and will be reused in other forms.

Most of our hydrogen is from water. We take that hydrogen atom, we destroy it, we have less water and more oxygen. I think that is a lot more dangerous to our ecosystem and global temperatures than temporarily adding carbon.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Are you also upset about the space program? Think of all the precious matter it's launched from this planet. Or the water that is taken up - as I understand it, they open up their waste storage bays to the vacuum of space to allow the water to boil away. We're never getting that back either.

Actually yes, that does upset me.

 

[Cattlegod]

you guys, this can't work. If this did, it would be the same as a perpetual motion machine which is paradoxical.

If the radio waves split the water, it splits into hydrogen gas and oxygen. then if it is combusted, it combines right back into water, filling the test tube back up. then it breaks again and back into water, creating infinite energy.

The only way this could work, is if the radio waves that split the water cost more energy than burning the hydrogen and oxygen provides, thus, you actually get a net LOSS of energy until the battery that powers the radio machine dies.

on another note, if it was simply as easy as running a radio wave through water to separate hyrdrogen and oxygen, don't you think we would have figured that out by now? I mean, we figured it out that water resonates at 2.4Ghz (microwave) after all.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
He will die of "cancer" in a few months.


Water powered car and blow torch

You're an idiot if you believe that. Anyone with common sense knows that it takes more energy to break water down into hydrogen/oxygen than you'd get by burning them.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Man, people just love fossil fuels.

No, people just have common sense and can identify a scan when they see one.

Hey, I just made a super hybrid car that runs on perpetual motion half the time, and burns water the other half. And nobody's thought of it! Please send money to my lab in Niger, and as a token of my appreciation I'll send you a major bridge from Brooklyn.

 

[James3shin]

Take thermodynamics folks, this thing is a dream at best.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: destrekor
whether or not its possible, I make no claims. This untrained person merely imagines it could be possible someday in the future.
mostly a what-if scenario. a what if we could break the bonds with little energy.

i may be partially retarded in the field of physics and chemistry, but I make no claims of otherwise.

That about sums up the most important point: There are plenty of people out there with millions of dollars who are retarded in the fields of physics and chemistry. However, they're smart enough to know that if this quack is on to something, and they invest 10 or 20 thousand dollars, they're going to be filthy rich in another decade or so.

Unfortunately, people illiterate in science who are willing to gamble with money end up supporting these loons, AND, what's worse, lend credibility to their claims.

 

[FleshLight]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Analog
Like you'll get back the fossil fuels you burn now in your lifetime...

Fusion doesn't give you hydrogen back, but you do get a lot for what you put in. I venture to say that the amount of energy that would be available to us would be mind boggling if fusion ever works, with little chance of running out of fuel. I'm sure there are some calculations on this somewhere.

Nope, we won't get those fossil fuels back. But all that matter does remain on earth, and will be reused in other forms.

Most of our hydrogen is from water. We take that hydrogen atom, we destroy it, we have less water and more oxygen. I think that is a lot more dangerous to our ecosystem and global temperatures than temporarily adding carbon.

We do get those fossil fuels back via the carbon cycle. Except it takes 100-10,000,000 years depending on which cycle you're looking at.

 

[PottedMeat]

Wow there are actually people who are worried that the development of fusion power will deplete the amount of water on the earth???

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: PottedMeat
Wow there are actually people who are worried that the development of fusion power will deplete the amount of water on the earth???

I suppose in theory it could after many many years. If it isn't stored or burned, wouldn't the hydrogen gas evaporate above the oxygen/nitrogen layer and get out of our reach.

 

[LongCoolMother]

so it appears at the moment that hydrogen powered vehicles may not be more efficient and perhaps even worse than petroleum powered vehicles. I guess we should give up the idea altogether, huh?

 

[The Sauce]

I remember a quote once that most of the greatest inventions in mankind's history are not heralded with a cry of "eureka" but rather with a somewhat perplexed "what the heck was that?" I think this fits the bill.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
If the radio waves split the water, it splits into hydrogen gas and oxygen. then if it is combusted, it combines right back into water, filling the test tube back up. then it breaks again and back into water, creating infinite energy.

In order to combust some of the water must be lost as heat right? From your description it doesn't really seem like a perpetual motion machine so much as a fuel that burns while returning some of the original materials in the process.

Is there a conceivable scenario in which the heat of the burning hydrogen is enough to perpetuate the process once you get it started? This would seem to be the only way that it would work.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: dullard
Dmcowen674 is saying that if driving from Miami to NYC is taking too long, go through Denver (Miami -> Denver -> NYC) for a 2:1 net gain. In other words, make it more confusing and complex to hide the fact that you are lying and/or have no idea what you are talking about.

Don't forget those illegal speed traps.

The idea reminds me of the sulfur lamp. Text

 

[txrandom]

Originally posted by: FleshLight

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Analog
Like you'll get back the fossil fuels you burn now in your lifetime...

Fusion doesn't give you hydrogen back, but you do get a lot for what you put in. I venture to say that the amount of energy that would be available to us would be mind boggling if fusion ever works, with little chance of running out of fuel. I'm sure there are some calculations on this somewhere.

Nope, we won't get those fossil fuels back. But all that matter does remain on earth, and will be reused in other forms.

Most of our hydrogen is from water. We take that hydrogen atom, we destroy it, we have less water and more oxygen. I think that is a lot more dangerous to our ecosystem and global temperatures than temporarily adding carbon.

We do get those fossil fuels back via the carbon cycle. Except it takes 100-10,000,000 years depending on which cycle you're looking at.

According to several ATOTers oil is not renewable!

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
I remember a quote once that most of the greatest inventions in mankind's history are not heralded with a cry of "eureka" but rather with a somewhat perplexed "what the heck was that?" I think this fits the bill.

It amazes me that people that consider themselves intelligent would be so naive as to believe this stuff.

This doesn't fit the bill. This is a scam, plain and simple. Maybe if you're 21 this sounds so neat and possible to you, but wait a few years. After the 10th time of hearing it, you'll realize that it's all a scam.

This is common sense, people.

Here's my tip to you:

Don't try to claim you're smart and:

1. Admit you gave money to someone from Niger claiming to be a prince
2. Admit you got involved in a pyramid scheme
3. Defend perpetual motion/burning water as if you can get energy from that

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

No, it's not generating energy directly.

It's generating heat which can then be used to convert to energy.

The heat "generated" is enough for nearly a 2 to 1 ratio of energy in Vs energy out.

We won't see it because it threatens oil.

The oil companies don't have as much influence as you think. If there was this easy way to generate energy from burning water, it would be easy to put it online for everyone to see. Even if they tried to patent it, you could still post the data online for everyone to copy. Anyone could build it if they wanted.

But, it doesn't work. That's why it never gets past the "hype" stage.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles


Might as well kill yourself now because the sun and all stars operate via fusion...we'll have to become gods in order to figure out how to keep the universe from dying...

Fusion doesn't violate any laws of physics. On the contrary, understanding the laws of physics enabled people to understand fusion and make nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. Go back to school. Please.