Fla. Man Invents Machine To Turn Water Into Fire

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,088
722
126
Originally posted by: 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

Whoa, neat link! :Q
 

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
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.

So let me understand you... it's generating heat, not energy. Because, after all, it's not like heat is "a form of energy that is transferred by a difference in temperature".

And so, according to you, a process that breaks apart H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, and then recombines them, can yield a 2:1 ratio of energy output?

Please. God. Tell. Me. You. Are. Joking.

I mean, please at least study the basics of thermodynamics. This is physics 101. There is nothing remotely complicated about this.

It's not about oil companies, it's about basic physical laws. Oil is both abundant and extremely energy-dense. It is both cheap to extract, and easy to transport. It is the best form of energy we currently have, and that is why we use it.

Just this week I was mocked for my views on evolution, and you made your contribution to that. I was called stupid by many people, just because of my views on evolution. And now you turn around and question the very basics of thermodynamics... and yet I am the one who doesn't understand science? How can you mock me for my beliefs and then turn around and make these kind of ridiculous assertions?
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: Trevelyan

So let me understand you... it's generating heat, not energy. Because, after all, it's not like heat is "a form of energy that is transferred by a difference in temperature".

lol

:thumbsup:
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: 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.
:confused:
I'm still not certain if you're being serious or not. Text doesn't pass sarcasm very well. I am really really hoping you're not being serious. If we launched one Cassini-sized chunk of dirt a day, it still wouldn't make any difference for a damn long time.
Though it might make more sense to launch radioactive waste into the sun instead, if we're going to be launching something at all. Which, BTW, launching all of Earth's radioactive waste into the sun wouldn't do a thing to the sun. Think of the amount of pain you endure from a piece of dust striking your skin. The sun would care one quadrillionth of that. Hell, you could plunge Earth into the sun. There might be a small puff of light as Earth is superheated and vaporized, but the sun would keep on going like nothing had happened.
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Originally posted by: 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.


No, the separation of water into hydrogen and oxygen and the combustion of hydrogen are the exact opposite processes. When hydrogen combusts, it recombines with oxygen to form water and gives off energy in the form of heat. When water splits into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to provide the same amount of energy that was given off in combustion to reform the bonds. Like Mark R stated, ideally this would be a break even process but that's not going to happen realistically.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
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.


Hopefully this will make you feel better: our planet gains roughly 40,000 tons of mass every year (meteorites, etc.) here

So, actually, it seems that it's prudent to turn some of that mass into energy, otherwise our planet is going to get too big for us :p
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
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.


Hopefully this will make you feel better: our planet gains roughly 40,000 tons of mass every year (meteorites, etc.) here

So, actually, it seems that it's prudent to turn some of that mass into energy, otherwise our planet is going to get too big for us :p
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Hey, anyone ever notice the correlation between the price of gas and the number of nutcases who emerge with fantastic new inventions to save the world?
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
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.

Wow. Do you have any IDEA of the numbers involved? Exactly what percentage of water molecules contain deuterium, how many grams of deuterium it takes per megawatt of power, and how much "normal" (non-heavy) water would be left if we were to use every last atom of deuterium on the planet?

And then you think that CO2 emissions are LESS of a problem? You're worried about a stain in the carpet when the house is on fire.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Hey, anyone ever notice the correlation between the price of gas and the number of nutcases who emerge with fantastic new inventions to save the world?

Yup.

The average person starts getting desperate, and enterprising people see a way to profit from that.


 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,674
146
106
www.neftastic.com
Congratulations! You've just invented the microwave oven!

All notes aside... not only may this solve the world's energy crisis but it will also assist with global warming! See, if global warming causes the ice caps to melt, then we have more water available, which means we have more "fuel", which means we can burn water and reduce the rising sea levels due to global warming! We get to solve lots of problems with this invention!
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
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.

Penicilin comes to mind.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Congratulations! You've just invented the microwave oven!

All notes aside... not only may this solve the world's energy crisis but it will also assist with global warming! See, if global warming causes the ice caps to melt, then we have more water available, which means we have more "fuel", which means we can burn water and reduce the rising sea levels due to global warming! We get to solve lots of problems with this invention!

Maybe similar in nature, but I haven't seen any of my liquids burst into flame in one.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: CPA
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.

Penicilin comes to mind.

Teflon as well.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
keyw: Microwave ;)

Whoaw....put magic "micro waves" towards any organic material...and is heated..might even burn ;)

Sry...this is NOT that new. Besides, agree with all formerly said about "law of eneryg conservation".....energy to produce radio waves would be too high.

The point is that WATER itself doesn't "contain" that much energy, as, for example gas. If there is a constant energy source necessary to keep the water "burning"...this is pointless. As i understand it.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
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.

So let me understand you... it's generating heat, not energy. Because, after all, it's not like heat is "a form of energy that is transferred by a difference in temperature".

And so, according to you, a process that breaks apart H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, and then recombines them, can yield a 2:1 ratio of energy output?

Please. God. Tell. Me. You. Are. Joking.

I mean, please at least study the basics of thermodynamics. This is physics 101. There is nothing remotely complicated about this.

It's not about oil companies, it's about basic physical laws. Oil is both abundant and extremely energy-dense. It is both cheap to extract, and easy to transport. It is the best form of energy we currently have, and that is why we use it.

Just this week I was mocked for my views on evolution, and you made your contribution to that. I was called stupid by many people, just because of my views on evolution. And now you turn around and question the very basics of thermodynamics... and yet I am the one who doesn't understand science? How can you mock me for my beliefs and then turn around and make these kind of ridiculous assertions?

You guys are taking the simplistics of thermodynamics too seriously and far.

Jeesh, if forums existing in the late 1800's the Internal combustion engine never would've replaced the steam engine with you naysayers.

Obviously the external beam is only a catalyst, other fuel/mix would still have to be introduced into the hydro engine.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
LOL, how much energy is required to run the machine that generates radio waves?
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You guys are taking the simplistics of thermodynamics too seriously and far.

Jeesh, if forums existing in the late 1800's the Internal combustion engine never would've replaced the steam engine with you naysayers.

Obviously the external beam is only a catalyst, other fuel/mix would still have to be introduced into the hydro engine.

Translation: You guys are talking about a topic of which I have no understanding (but at least I can spell it correctly.) Therefore, I will see if I can convince other people with no understanding that you guys simply shoot down any idea as being impossible. Here, I'll string together some technical sounding words to make it seem like maybe I do know what I'm talking about.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
I got a proposal to solve the energy crisis. It involves plugging people into an electrical grid and virtual reality.
I've got a better one. Build a huge network of stationary bicycles that generate electricity. Pay people in 3rd world country cents and charge Americans $$$. Its the American way!!! :D
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
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.

So let me understand you... it's generating heat, not energy. Because, after all, it's not like heat is "a form of energy that is transferred by a difference in temperature".

And so, according to you, a process that breaks apart H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, and then recombines them, can yield a 2:1 ratio of energy output?

Please. God. Tell. Me. You. Are. Joking.

I mean, please at least study the basics of thermodynamics. This is physics 101. There is nothing remotely complicated about this.

It's not about oil companies, it's about basic physical laws. Oil is both abundant and extremely energy-dense. It is both cheap to extract, and easy to transport. It is the best form of energy we currently have, and that is why we use it.

Just this week I was mocked for my views on evolution, and you made your contribution to that. I was called stupid by many people, just because of my views on evolution. And now you turn around and question the very basics of thermodynamics... and yet I am the one who doesn't understand science? How can you mock me for my beliefs and then turn around and make these kind of ridiculous assertions?

You guys are taking the simplistics of thermodynamics too seriously and far.

Jeesh, if forums existing in the late 1800's the Internal combustion engine never would've replaced the steam engine with you naysayers.

Obviously the external beam is only a catalyst, other fuel/mix would still have to be introduced into the hydro engine.

How does an internal combustion engine violate the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
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.

So let me understand you... it's generating heat, not energy. Because, after all, it's not like heat is "a form of energy that is transferred by a difference in temperature".

And so, according to you, a process that breaks apart H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, and then recombines them, can yield a 2:1 ratio of energy output?

Please. God. Tell. Me. You. Are. Joking.

I mean, please at least study the basics of thermodynamics. This is physics 101. There is nothing remotely complicated about this.

It's not about oil companies, it's about basic physical laws. Oil is both abundant and extremely energy-dense. It is both cheap to extract, and easy to transport. It is the best form of energy we currently have, and that is why we use it.

Just this week I was mocked for my views on evolution, and you made your contribution to that. I was called stupid by many people, just because of my views on evolution. And now you turn around and question the very basics of thermodynamics... and yet I am the one who doesn't understand science? How can you mock me for my beliefs and then turn around and make these kind of ridiculous assertions?

You guys are taking the simplistics of thermodynamics too seriously and far.

Jeesh, if forums existing in the late 1800's the Internal combustion engine never would've replaced the steam engine with you naysayers.

Obviously the external beam is only a catalyst, other fuel/mix would still have to be introduced into the hydro engine.

How does an internal combustion engine violate the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics?


Dave is a Creationist it seems :p
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: Looney
Originally posted by: homercles337
Where's the energy for his maching coming from? All it said was its a machine that emits radio waves.

Really, if this was possible, the amount of energy required to break the bonds of hydrogen and oxygen would be immense.

See you're thinking conventionally. Very few people can see outside the box and those are the people that change the world. And sometimes those things that change the world are so simple that when it appears everyone says "why didn't I think of that"

right...all he has to do is publish a ground breaking scientific paper on his breakthrough in physics and then there will be no arguement. just like the loons that sell magnets to heal people and fuel saving swirly devices they dont' bother because they know they cant
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I would be really curious to know more specs of the machine itself, but of course, I can see why they're not just being passed around :p
Suppose he stumbled on the resonant frequency of the chemical bond or something?
I'd say this is most likely the answer, and is what I'm playing with in regards to my hydrogen/oxygen generator.

He's not breaking the laws of thermodynamics, obviously. He doesn't claim to be.