Scientist "burns" salt water with radio waves...

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It doesn't make sense to those that are stuck in the mud.

Why are you guys so focused on the stirred RF energy? The focus should be on the hydrogen.

The Sun is very well behaved at a relative steady pressure threshold otherwise this planet would've been a crisper loooooong ago.

How can I throw anything together, I'm a moron remember?

Your statement of a positive acceleration curve makes no sense. You do realize you're talking about a jerk right? (I'm serious).

If you turn the RF off the reaction stops plain and simple. No RF = no breaking up of H2O and thus no fire.

Don't even start talking about the sun again. It's a completely different process. That's nuclear fusion, this is simple oxidation. They're not even in the same ballpark.

Stuck in the mud? Over what?

Here's an idea for you: Let's set up a water wheel which is connected to a conveyor belt which runs from the lake below the water wheel to the chute above the water wheel. If we start it off with a bucket of water, it'll go forever, and we can get it to mill our flour for us!

That's essentially what you're talking about.

 

[Paratus]

I will cross post here from the OT thread on this

Originally posted by: bdude
John Kanzius, a former broadcast executive from Erie, Pennsylvania, attracted media attention in 2007 upon claims to having developed a way to produce energy by burning saltwater, by means of a radio frequency generator that releases the oxygen and hydrogen from saltwater and create an intense flame. Skeptics propose that the process would liberate the same amount of energy it consumes if it operates at 100% efficiency. Kanzius has admitted that his machine requires more energy than it releases, however the specifics of the process are still unreleased while Kanzius applies for a patent.[1] He states that the discovery was accidental while researching the use of radio waves for the treatment of cancer.[2] None of his claims are peer-reviewed, and patent applications don't require the machine actually work for the patent to be filed.

Kanzius owns a patent for an Enhanced Systems and Methods for RF-Induced Hyperthermia[3] which describes potential medical uses of radio waves for diseases such as cancer.

per. Wiki

Thermodynamics > Kanzius

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: silverpig

1. That makes no sense.
2. It still won't work.
3. The sun does pulsate.
4. This project is a dead end.

Positive acceleration curve?

You threw together three physicsy sounding words which together make no sense.

It doesn't make sense to those that are stuck in the mud.

Why are you guys so focused on the stirred RF energy? The focus should be on the hydrogen.

The Sun is very well behaved at a relative steady pressure threshold otherwise this planet would've been a crisper loooooong ago.

How can I throw anything together, I'm a moron remember?

Very simply you are using energy to separate water into H2 and O and then recombining them by burning to get energy and water out. You will never get more energy out than you put in out of a system like this.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Dave. You are conflating an exothermic reaction (oxidating combustion) with a fusion reaction. The energy released in those two different types of reactions are immensely different.

The fusion we are able to produce here on Earth is slightly different from what goes on in the sun too. We use isotopes of hydrogen -- deuterium and tritium. The sun can fuse pure hydrogen, hydrogen isotopes, and many other elements. Some stars, depending on their mass, can fuse elements all the way up to but not including iron, depending on the phase they are in.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It doesn't make sense to those that are stuck in the mud.

Why are you guys so focused on the stirred RF energy? The focus should be on the hydrogen.

The Sun is very well behaved at a relative steady pressure threshold otherwise this planet would've been a crisper loooooong ago.

How can I throw anything together, I'm a moron remember?

Your statement of a positive acceleration curve makes no sense. You do realize you're talking about a jerk right? (I'm serious).

If you turn the RF off the reaction stops plain and simple. No RF = no breaking up of H2O and thus no fire.

Don't even start talking about the sun again. It's a completely different process. That's nuclear fusion, this is simple oxidation. They're not even in the same ballpark.

Stuck in the mud? Over what?

Here's an idea for you: Let's set up a water wheel which is connected to a conveyor belt which runs from the lake below the water wheel to the chute above the water wheel. If we start it off with a bucket of water, it'll go forever, and we can get it to mill our flour for us!

That's essentially what you're talking about.

That's the key.

You may start with ONE bucket but after the process gets started you can add many more buckets WITHOUT more required RF energy than started with.

Why are you guys going nuclear? Been hanging around WMD too much?

1950 - A Touch of Sun

This has nothing to do with nuclear fission, this is chemical fission.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It doesn't make sense to those that are stuck in the mud.

Why are you guys so focused on the stirred RF energy? The focus should be on the hydrogen.

The Sun is very well behaved at a relative steady pressure threshold otherwise this planet would've been a crisper loooooong ago.

How can I throw anything together, I'm a moron remember?

Your statement of a positive acceleration curve makes no sense. You do realize you're talking about a jerk right? (I'm serious).

If you turn the RF off the reaction stops plain and simple. No RF = no breaking up of H2O and thus no fire.

Don't even start talking about the sun again. It's a completely different process. That's nuclear fusion, this is simple oxidation. They're not even in the same ballpark.

Stuck in the mud? Over what?

Here's an idea for you: Let's set up a water wheel which is connected to a conveyor belt which runs from the lake below the water wheel to the chute above the water wheel. If we start it off with a bucket of water, it'll go forever, and we can get it to mill our flour for us!

That's essentially what you're talking about.

That's the key.

You may start with ONE bucket but after the process gets started you can add many more buckets WITHOUT more required RF energy than started with.

Why are you guys going nuclear? Been hanging around WMD too much?

1950 - A Touch of Sun

This has nothing to do with nuclear fission, this is chemical fission.

Water will not seperate without continued input of power. You cannot add another bucket of water and expect it seperate and burn without running your RF generator. There is no physical process to start a "chain reaction"

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It doesn't make sense to those that are stuck in the mud.

Why are you guys so focused on the stirred RF energy? The focus should be on the hydrogen.

The Sun is very well behaved at a relative steady pressure threshold otherwise this planet would've been a crisper loooooong ago.

How can I throw anything together, I'm a moron remember?

Your statement of a positive acceleration curve makes no sense. You do realize you're talking about a jerk right? (I'm serious).

If you turn the RF off the reaction stops plain and simple. No RF = no breaking up of H2O and thus no fire.

Don't even start talking about the sun again. It's a completely different process. That's nuclear fusion, this is simple oxidation. They're not even in the same ballpark.

Stuck in the mud? Over what?

Here's an idea for you: Let's set up a water wheel which is connected to a conveyor belt which runs from the lake below the water wheel to the chute above the water wheel. If we start it off with a bucket of water, it'll go forever, and we can get it to mill our flour for us!

That's essentially what you're talking about.

That's the key.

You may start with ONE bucket but after the process gets started you can add many more buckets WITHOUT more required RF energy than started with.

Why are you guys going nuclear? Been hanging around WMD too much?

1950 - A Touch of Sun

This has nothing to do with nuclear fission, this is chemical fission.

Water will not seperate without continued input of power. You cannot add another bucket of water and expect it seperate and burn without running your RF generator. There is no physical process to start a "chain reaction"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the volume of the H2O vs. the energy needed to emit the RF be the determining factors in the process?

What if X amount of RF is capable of "shaking and baking" a very large amount of water? What if increasing the volume of H2O does not require more (stronger) RF? Wouldn't that produce an energy-positive situation?

After all, the key is finding a way to release the energy of the hydrogen with very little stimulating fuel - in this case the RF. The problem has always been the amount of fuel required to separate the hydrogen and re-ignite it, which is why coal and other fossil fuels have always been considered too inefficient.

So, if it takes less energy to emit the required amount of RF, than we get out of the burning hydrogen, we win... right?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the volume of the H2O vs. the energy needed to emit the RF be the determining factors in the process?

What if X amount of RF is capable of "shaking and baking" a very large amount of water? What if increasing the volume of H2O does not require more (stronger) RF? Wouldn't that produce an energy-positive situation?

After all, the key is finding a way to release the energy of the hydrogen with very little stimulating fuel - in this case the RF. The problem has always been the amount of fuel required to separate the hydrogen and re-ignite it, which is why coal and other fossil fuels have always been considered too inefficient.

So, if it takes less energy to emit the required amount of RF, than we get out of the burning hydrogen, we win... right?

OK, here's how it is.

1. It takes X amount of energy to separate one unit of H2O into H2 and O2. X is related to temperature differences and heats of formation of H2 and O2 (i.e. it is a thermodynamic constant that can never be changed - it's simply a property of these chemicals).

2. Recombining one unit of H2 and O2 into H2O always releases -X energy because it is the exact opposite process as 1 above.

3. Y is the energy loss (due to inefficiency) of the RF generator per unit generation of H2 and O2.

4. Since 1 requires an input of X+Y and 2 outputs only -X, the energy Y is always lost. Since Y is normalized per unit of production, scaling the process has no impact on the fact that Y is always a non-negative number due to the second law of thermodynamics. If you invented a perfect RF generator, then Y could approach zero, but it can never go below zero. Thus, X+Y-X=Y is the net energy loss of this process. Period.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It doesn't make sense to those that are stuck in the mud.

Why are you guys so focused on the stirred RF energy? The focus should be on the hydrogen.

The Sun is very well behaved at a relative steady pressure threshold otherwise this planet would've been a crisper loooooong ago.

How can I throw anything together, I'm a moron remember?

Your statement of a positive acceleration curve makes no sense. You do realize you're talking about a jerk right? (I'm serious).

If you turn the RF off the reaction stops plain and simple. No RF = no breaking up of H2O and thus no fire.

Don't even start talking about the sun again. It's a completely different process. That's nuclear fusion, this is simple oxidation. They're not even in the same ballpark.

Stuck in the mud? Over what?

Here's an idea for you: Let's set up a water wheel which is connected to a conveyor belt which runs from the lake below the water wheel to the chute above the water wheel. If we start it off with a bucket of water, it'll go forever, and we can get it to mill our flour for us!

That's essentially what you're talking about.

That's the key.

You may start with ONE bucket but after the process gets started you can add many more buckets WITHOUT more required RF energy than started with.

Why are you guys going nuclear? Been hanging around WMD too much?

1950 - A Touch of Sun

This has nothing to do with nuclear fission, this is chemical fission.

Water will not seperate without continued input of power. You cannot add another bucket of water and expect it seperate and burn without running your RF generator. There is no physical process to start a "chain reaction"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the volume of the H2O vs. the energy needed to emit the RF be the determining factors in the process?

What if X amount of RF is capable of "shaking and baking" a very large amount of water? What if increasing the volume of H2O does not require more (stronger) RF? Wouldn't that produce an energy-positive situation?

After all, the key is finding a way to release the energy of the hydrogen with very little stimulating fuel - in this case the RF. The problem has always been the amount of fuel required to separate the hydrogen and re-ignite it, which is why coal and other fossil fuels have always been considered too inefficient.

So, if it takes less energy to emit the required amount of RF, than we get out of the burning hydrogen, we win... right?

It doesn't work that way though. A given volume requires a given amount of RF to break the bonds and it requires more energy to break those bonds than can be extracted from the subsequent reaction. Increase the volume, increase the RF proportionately.

There is no discount for volume purchases in this case.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It doesn't work that way though. A given volume requires a given amount of RF to break the bonds and it requires more energy to break those bonds than can be extracted from the subsequent reaction. Increase the volume, increase the RF proportionately.

There is no discount for volume purchases in this case.

I was hoping that increases in RF and H2O would not have to be directly proportional.

With that, I've reached the low limits of my chemistry knowledge, so game over for me... 😉

 

[jackschmittusa]

palehorse74

Think of it like this:

every time you break a water molecule, you have to pay a quarter

every time a molecule of water forms, you get a quarter back

if the RF energy is equivalent to $5, you get to break 20 water molecules....it doesn't matter whether you have a thimbleful or a bucketful of water molecules, you only paid to break 20

you now have the components to to make 20 water molecules......if you allow them to form (burning the hydrogen), you get back 25¢ for each one, which equals your original $5

Want to keep breaking water molecules? You have to keep putting the quarters in, there are no discounts or free plays.

The Rf generator is not 100% efficient, so it is like a change machine that rips you off. Every time you put a five dollar bill in it, it only gives you 18 quarters. When the quarters are returned from the water machine, they are sent to your bank account. So, to keep it running, you have to keep putting five dollar bills into the change machine, which still gives 18 quarters for it, and only 18 end up in your bank account each time.

 

[jackschmittusa]

dmcowen674

The article you referenced was about nothing but nuclear fission and fusion. Nothing in it had anything to do with ordinary chemical reactions.

Ordinary chemical reactions involve atoms linking or unlinking their orbiting electrons with other atoms. These are referred to as molecular bonds. They do not involve the nuclei of the atoms. This is the type of reaction we are talking about in our RF/water gizmo. No matter how many times you manipulate them, you still have hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

In fission, the nuclei of atoms are literally ripped apart, yielding new atoms of elements that you did not have to start with.

In fusion, heat energy is used to accelerate atoms to incredible velocity so that when they run into each other, the nuclei combine to produce an element that you did not have before.

The Sun uses fusion, and it is about as different a reaction from the experiment in discussion as you could imagine.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It doesn't work that way though. A given volume requires a given amount of RF to break the bonds and it requires more energy to break those bonds than can be extracted from the subsequent reaction. Increase the volume, increase the RF proportionately.

There is no discount for volume purchases in this case.

I was hoping that increases in RF and H2O would not have to be directly proportional.

With that, I've reached the low limits of my chemistry knowledge, so game over for me... 😉

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
palehorse74

Think of it like this:

every time you break a water molecule, you have to pay a quarter

every time a molecule of water forms, you get a quarter back

if the RF energy is equivalent to $5, you get to break 20 water molecules....it doesn't matter whether you have a thimbleful or a bucketful of water molecules, you only paid to break 20

you now have the components to to make 20 water molecules......if you allow them to form (burning the hydrogen), you get back 25¢ for each one, which equals your original $5

Want to keep breaking water molecules? You have to keep putting the quarters in, there are no discounts or free plays.

The Rf generator is not 100% efficient, so it is like a change machine that rips you off. Every time you put a five dollar bill in it, it only gives you 18 quarters. When the quarters are returned from the water machine, they are sent to your bank account. So, to keep it running, you have to keep putting five dollar bills into the change machine, which still gives 18 quarters for it, and only 18 end up in your bank account each time.

It's more of an increase in H not RF.

Who says it has to be a one for one?

Introduction of another nuclei in the mix without additional RF needed causing more H breakdown than the original one for one.

If we didn't have mixing we wouldn't have salt.

Time to make Hydrogen gold.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the volume of the H2O vs. the energy needed to emit the RF be the determining factors in the process?

What if X amount of RF is capable of "shaking and baking" a very large amount of water? What if increasing the volume of H2O does not require more (stronger) RF? Wouldn't that produce an energy-positive situation?

After all, the key is finding a way to release the energy of the hydrogen with very little stimulating fuel - in this case the RF. The problem has always been the amount of fuel required to separate the hydrogen and re-ignite it, which is why coal and other fossil fuels have always been considered too inefficient.

So, if it takes less energy to emit the required amount of RF, than we get out of the burning hydrogen, we win... right?

OK, here's how it is.

1. It takes X amount of energy to separate one unit of H2O into H2 and O2. X is related to temperature differences and heats of formation of H2 and O2 (i.e. it is a thermodynamic constant that can never be changed - it's simply a property of these chemicals).

2. Recombining one unit of H2 and O2 into H2O always releases -X energy because it is the exact opposite process as 1 above.

3. Y is the energy loss (due to inefficiency) of the RF generator per unit generation of H2 and O2.

4. Since 1 requires an input of X+Y and 2 outputs only -X, the energy Y is always lost. Since Y is normalized per unit of production, scaling the process has no impact on the fact that Y is always a non-negative number due to the second law of thermodynamics. If you invented a perfect RF generator, then Y could approach zero, but it can never go below zero. Thus, X+Y-X=Y is the net energy loss of this process. Period.

You didn't introduce anything, not even salt.

Why are you ignoring the possibility that introducing another element could result in more hydrogen getting broken down?

 

[silverpig]

Wow. I just don't think I can be of any more use in this thread.

 

[Moonbeam]

I want to get this for my fireplace.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Wow. I just don't think I can be of any more use in this thread.

That's why we're still on oil.

 

[Moonbeam]

The way I figure it, the energy from the RF makes the bonds much easier to break because the vibrations are causing the atoms to be in more than one place at a time so that quantum effects, where atoms can already be in more than one place at a time are vastly multiplied. This means that the bonds multiply exponentially and the presence of all those bonds draws energy from the vacuum.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Wow. I just don't think I can be of any more use in this thread.

Ignorance will be the driving force for technology in the near future. Therefore, Dave will be the richest man in the world. People like you and me who are bound by and understand the laws of nature will be relegated to the unemployment line.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: silverpig
Wow. I just don't think I can be of any more use in this thread.

Ignorance will be the driving force for technology in the near future. Therefore, Dave will be the richest man in the world. People like you and me who are bound by and understand the laws of nature will be relegated to the unemployment line.

Maybe we should try to figure out how to harness exploding head energy?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe we should try to figure out how to harness exploding head energy?

Well, according to Dave, all you have to do is add a little salt. This instantly allows whatever system you're working with to violate all laws of thermodynamics. Silly that no one ever thought to try that!

 

[BrownTown]

I really don't like making personal attacks, but reading these forums I cannot help but think that dmcowen674 is either a troll or jsut plain stupid. I mean seriously, I haven't seen a post from him that actually makes sense in any manor, is there a way to block me from having to read his posts on this forum or what?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe we should try to figure out how to harness exploding head energy?

Well, according to Dave, all you have to do is add a little salt.

This instantly allows whatever system you're working with to violate all laws of thermodynamics. Silly that no one ever thought to try that!

If no one even tried then this wouldn't be possible either:

9-12-2007 Fragile particles rarely seen in our Universe have been merged with ordinary electrons to make a new form of matter.

Di-positronium, as the new molecule is known, was predicted to exist in 1946 but has remained elusive to science.

Now, a US team has created thousands of the molecules by merging electrons with their antimatter equivalent: positrons.

The discovery, reported in the journal Nature, is a key step in the creation of ultra-powerful lasers known as gamma-ray annihilation lasers.

"The difference in the power available from a gamma-ray laser compared to a normal laser is the same as the difference between a nuclear explosion and a chemical explosion," said Dr David Cassidy of the University of California, Riverside, and one of the authors of the paper.

As a result, there is a huge interest in the technology from the military as well as energy researchers who believe the lasers could be used to kick-start nuclear fusion in a reactor.

Conventional thinking states that both antimatter and matter should have been created in equal quantities at the birth of the Universe.

The dominance of matter in our world is one of science's most enduring mysteries.

Antimatter only makes fleeting appearances in our Universe when high-energy particle collisions take place, such as when cosmic rays impact the Earth's atmosphere. They are also made in the lab in particle accelerators such as Europe's nuclear research facility, Cern.

These appearances are always short lived because antiparticles are destroyed when they collide with normal matter. The meeting leaves a trace, often as high energy x-rays or gamma-rays.

A burst of 20 million were then focused and blasted at a porous silica "sponge".

"It's like having a trickle of water filling up a bath and then you empty it out and you get a big flush," said Dr Cassidy.

As the positrons rushed into the voids they were able to capture electrons to form atoms. Where atoms met, they formed molecules.

"All we are really doing is implanting lot of positrons into the smallest spot we can, in the shortest time, and hoping that some of them can see each other," said Dr Cassidy.

By measuring the gamma-rays that signalled their annihilation, the team estimated that up to 100,000 of the molecules formed, albeit for just a quarter of a nanosecond (billionth of a second).
=====================================================
Hydrogen annihilation may be possible as well.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I really don't like making personal attacks, but reading these forums I cannot help but think that dmcowen674 is either a troll or jsut plain stupid. I mean seriously, I haven't seen a post from him that actually makes sense in any manor, is there a way to block me from having to read his posts on this forum or what?

Yes, see bottom of my sig

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: silverpig
Wow. I just don't think I can be of any more use in this thread.

Ignorance will be the driving force for technology in the near future. Therefore, Dave will be the richest man in the world. People like you and me who are bound by and understand the laws of nature will be relegated to the unemployment line.

Maybe we should try to figure out how to harness exploding head energy?

That is the oldest profession.