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

[Fern]

Hey science peeps, I got a question:

Is the discovery that RF can break molecular bonds this way something new?

TIA,

Fern

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Fern
Hey science peeps, I got a question:

Is the discovery that RF can break molecular bonds this way something new?

TIA,

Fern

Or more efficient than the electro method? Twenty quarters of energy going in to get ninteen back compared to getting fifteen back?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: 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.

This is entirely unrelated. Hydrogen annihilation is definitely possible. In order to do it you need to make anti-matter. In order to do that you need a huge particle accelerator. Even still you have to put the energy into the particles before you can get it back out. It's a losing situation. It's interesting because of the laser aspects, but it will never be a power source in this fashion.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Fern
Hey science peeps, I got a question:

Is the discovery that RF can break molecular bonds this way something new?

TIA,

Fern

Nope. I work with RF plasmas every week. We use RF on various gases (oxygen, nitrogen, CF4, etc) to break them up and then to ionize the individual atoms. Oh and the machine uses power from the wall and generates none.

 

[PottedMeat]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Fern
Hey science peeps, I got a question:

Is the discovery that RF can break molecular bonds this way something new?

TIA,

Fern

Nope. I work with RF plasmas every week. We use RF on various gases (oxygen, nitrogen, CF4, etc) to break them up and then to ionize the individual atoms. Oh and the machine uses power from the wall and generates none.

semiconductor mfg?

 

[trenchfoot]

if the oil companies cannot acquire an angle that yields more profit from this process than they can by simply pumping oil out of the ground they will either buy out the rights to it, stuff it in a lockbox and throw away the key ie - electric cable cars, etc. - or they will attempt to invalidate and obstruct its development with their own salaried or government embedded "scientists" and marketing tools -ie- gmo's, etc.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Fern
Hey science peeps, I got a question:

Is the discovery that RF can break molecular bonds this way something new?

Nope. I work with RF plasmas every week. We use RF on various gases (oxygen, nitrogen, CF4, etc) to break them up and then to ionize the individual atoms. Oh and the machine uses power from the wall and generates none.

Sounds like where I used to work making CNC machines with various cutting heads.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Hydrogen annihilation is definitely possible. In order to do it you need to make anti-matter.

In order to do that you need a huge particle accelerator.

Even still you have to put the energy into the particles before you can get it back out.

It's a losing situation.

It's interesting because of the laser aspects, but it will never be a power source in this fashion.

It may be possible without a particle accelator now, that's the point.

Why so pessimistic? You enjoy being stuck on oil?

Not only that, this kind of breakthrough can also lead to ships that can leave the solar system.

 

[manowar821]

Hey, the water powered car! 😛

Joking aside, this is only the beginning. I can't wait to see what it will be like in 1-2 years, when they've gotten more efficiency out of it.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I have never seen so many people with no working knowledge of chemistry and physics so comfortable expounding and extrapolating on an experiment that truly needs an understanding of both fields to comprehend what is going on.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I have never seen so many people with no working knowledge of chemistry and physics so comfortable expounding and extrapolating on an experiment that truly needs an understanding of both fields to comprehend what is going on.

Why so many supposed self professed "intelligent" people pooping on an experiment?

If Morse or Edison listened to you guys we wouldn't have a fraction of what we have today.

We would be pounding on rocks for communication.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: PottedMeat

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Fern
Hey science peeps, I got a question:

Is the discovery that RF can break molecular bonds this way something new?

TIA,

Fern

Nope. I work with RF plasmas every week. We use RF on various gases (oxygen, nitrogen, CF4, etc) to break them up and then to ionize the individual atoms. Oh and the machine uses power from the wall and generates none.

semiconductor mfg?

Research, but yeah 🙂

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I have never seen so many people with no working knowledge of chemistry and physics so comfortable expounding and extrapolating on an experiment that truly needs an understanding of both fields to comprehend what is going on.

Why so many supposed self professed "intelligent" people pooping on an experiment?

If Morse or Edison listened to you guys we wouldn't have a fraction of what we have today.

We would be pounding on rocks for communication.

Morse and Edison both worked within the realm of physics and none of their devices violated any of the known laws of physics. Plenty have people have tried to work outside the laws of physics (i.e. - perpetual motion devices) and not a single one has ever been successful. It just doesn't happen.

You are aruging for something outside of the laws of physics. This particular process will never be viable as an energy production device.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: PottedMeat

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Fern
Hey science peeps, I got a question:

Is the discovery that RF can break molecular bonds this way something new?

TIA,

Fern

Nope. I work with RF plasmas every week. We use RF on various gases (oxygen, nitrogen, CF4, etc) to break them up and then to ionize the individual atoms. Oh and the machine uses power from the wall and generates none.

semiconductor mfg?

Research, but yeah.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It may be possible without a particle accelator now, that's the point.

Why so pessimistic? You enjoy being stuck on oil?

Not only that, this kind of breakthrough can also lead to ships that can leave the solar system.

This temperature was 3000 degrees. The particle accelerator produces energies equivalent to many billions of degrees. There's no way.

I'm pessimistic because I know it won't work. And no I don't enjoy being stuck on oil, but it seems you do.

If you give research money to outfits which A. don't know what they're doing and B. don't have a hope in hell of succeeding, you're wasting those research dollars which could be put to something with potential. Money should be thrown at photovoltaics like crazy right now. Get their efficiency up, get them cheap to produce and start installing them. Then work on a way to get hydrogen cheaply and efficiently, then make the fuel cell affordable.

That will work. It will take time and it will take money, but it will work. Burning salt water at an energy loss will not.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It may be possible without a particle accelator now, that's the point.

Why so pessimistic? You enjoy being stuck on oil?

Not only that, this kind of breakthrough can also lead to ships that can leave the solar system.

This temperature was 3000 degrees. The particle accelerator produces energies equivalent to many billions of degrees. There's no way.

I'm pessimistic because I know it won't work. And no I don't enjoy being stuck on oil, but it seems you do.

If you give research money to outfits which A. don't know what they're doing and B. don't have a hope in hell of succeeding, you're wasting those research dollars which could be put to something with potential. Money should be thrown at photovoltaics like crazy right now. Get their efficiency up, get them cheap to produce and start installing them. Then work on a way to get hydrogen cheaply and efficiently, then make the fuel cell affordable.

That will work. It will take time and it will take money, but it will work. Burning salt water at an energy loss will not.

Research should be a continuing thing period not affected by political crap.

I absolutely agree that solar should be in super mass production and affordable for all.

Obviously the Government powers that be that are in the pocket of the oil, coal, natural gas Companies etc certainly do not want us off of those because it would affect their personal pockets.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Research should be a continuing thing period not affected by political crap.

I absolutely agree that solar should be in super mass production and affordable for all.

Obviously the Government powers that be that are in the pocket of the oil, coal, natural gas Companies etc certainly do not want us off of those because it would affect their personal pockets.

Say what you will about the government; it doesn't change the fact that this salt water thing is completely hopeless for power generation.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It may be possible without a particle accelator now, that's the point.

Why so pessimistic? You enjoy being stuck on oil?

Not only that, this kind of breakthrough can also lead to ships that can leave the solar system.

This temperature was 3000 degrees. The particle accelerator produces energies equivalent to many billions of degrees. There's no way.

I'm pessimistic because I know it won't work. And no I don't enjoy being stuck on oil, but it seems you do.

If you give research money to outfits which A. don't know what they're doing and B. don't have a hope in hell of succeeding, you're wasting those research dollars which could be put to something with potential. Money should be thrown at photovoltaics like crazy right now. Get their efficiency up, get them cheap to produce and start installing them. Then work on a way to get hydrogen cheaply and efficiently, then make the fuel cell affordable.

That will work. It will take time and it will take money, but it will work. Burning salt water at an energy loss will not.

Research should be a continuing thing period not affected by political crap.

I absolutely agree that solar should be in super mass production and affordable for all.

Obviously the Government powers that be that are in the pocket of the oil, coal, natural gas Companies etc certainly do not want us off of those because it would affect their personal pockets.

Blame the oil companies, blame the government, blame foreign nations, etc...

The real reason is much more simple than that: there is nothing that is simultaneously more powerful, plentiful and economical than hydrocarbon fuels. Period.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Blame the oil companies, blame the government, blame foreign nations, etc...

The real reason is much more simple than that: there is nothing that is simultaneously more powerful, plentiful and economical than hydrocarbon fuels. Period.

Yes, I really do not understand why people must always be going for the conspiracy theories. They think Bush is too dumb to tie his own shoes, but then turn around and think he is smart enough to orchestrate huge conspiracies and giant coverups. It just doesn't happen that way. Ya wanna know why solar costs a ton? I love how people are always acting like "hey I support solar and wind and renewables and anyone who doesn't is an ignorant jerk". Well unfortunately none of those people are actually scientists and engineers who have to build the stuff. They act like us engineers can just magically pull some invention out of our asses to violate the laws of physics. Or if we just tried hard instead of being focused on fossil fuels that we could magically turn water into fuel. Well the fact of the matter is that maybe people who don't have the first thing about how electrical power is generated shouldn't be lecturing the electrical engineers for not generating it the way they want it done. The fact of the matter is that EVERYONE in the entire world would love to see all our energy come from solar and wind and such, but its just is not physically possible to do that right now, the only argument is between the people who understand that fact and those who want to live in lala land.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Research should be a continuing thing period not affected by political crap.

I absolutely agree that solar should be in super mass production and affordable for all.

Obviously the Government powers that be that are in the pocket of the oil, coal, natural gas Companies etc certainly do not want us off of those because it would affect their personal pockets.

Say what you will about the government; it doesn't change the fact that this salt water thing is completely hopeless for power generation.

It's all up to this:

Heat transfer coefficient

If you don't get enough heat out of the burn to be power positive Vs the RF energy that starts the burn then it is moot.

Can you prove there is not enough heat?

Hydrogen is pretty damn hot.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It's all up to this:

Heat transfer coefficient

If you don't get enough heat out of the burn to be power positive Vs the RF energy that starts the burn then it is moot.

Can you prove there is not enough heat?

Hydrogen is pretty damn hot.

OK, enough is enough. This is the first time I've ever violated my own ignore list, but the propagation of ignorance stops here.

I've taken at least seven courses in heat transfer in my numerous years in school. I feel confident when I tell you that the heat transfer coefficient as absolutely nothing to do with turning this process energy-positive. A heat transfer coefficient is used as a proportionality constant in a convective boundary condition when solving differential energy balances in heat transfer problems having the form q=h*(T-T_0), where q is the heat flux (heat transfer per unit area per unit time), h is the heat transfer coefficient, T is the temperature at the boundary, and T_0 is the temperature of the surroundings where you're sending the thermal energy. Wiki describes only one special case such that I can assume it was probably written by an undergrad who took one whole combined class on fluid flow and heat transfer. But, even if Wiki was completely correct, your assessment is still 100% wrong. Try reading this - then you might be on the right track towards understanding the first thing about this issue.

So, as I stated at the beginning, the heat transfer coefficient has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether this process is viable as a net energy producer. NOTHING. So stop trying to be an expert in every area when you clearly have no idea wtf you're talking about.

 

[Javaamaan]

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are still safe ... NO: perpetual motion / run cars on sea water / save the world miracles here ... everyone move along

I THINK what is happening here is the RF is inducing an electrical current in the water, (this effect is probably limited to certain frequencies) and this current is breaking the H-O bonds electrolytically ... Up bubbles the gas .. and yes .. it burns very hot ... but more energy is going in his amplifier than is being released by the flame

It is endlessly dismaying to see the media not only buy-into the "future fuel source" nonsense ... but actually promote it

It is also dismaying to see technically educated people think that this could be some breakthrough energy source ... or claim you can "burn" water (which is already burnt H)

Anyone can actually do something similar by cutting a grape in half and microwaving it

go to youtube and search for "microwave grape" and watch mighty fireballs erupt from a lowly grape !!

But if you eff up your wife?s new microwave doing that .. I take no responsibility

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
OK, enough is enough. This is the first time I've ever violated my own ignore list, but the propagation of ignorance stops here.

I've taken at least seven courses in heat transfer in my numerous years in school. I feel confident when I tell you that the heat transfer coefficient as absolutely nothing to do with turning this process energy-positive. A heat transfer coefficient is used as a proportionality constant in a convective boundary condition when solving differential energy balances in heat transfer problems having the form q=h*(T-T_0), where q is the heat flux (heat transfer per unit area per unit time), h is the heat transfer coefficient, T is the temperature at the boundary, and T_0 is the temperature of the surroundings where you're sending the thermal energy. Wiki describes only one special case such that I can assume it was probably written by an undergrad who took one whole combined class on fluid flow and heat transfer. But, even if Wiki was completely correct, your assessment is still 100% wrong. Try reading this - then you might be on the right track towards understanding the first thing about this issue.

So, as I stated at the beginning, the heat transfer coefficient has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether this process is viable as a net energy producer. NOTHING. So stop trying to be an expert in every area when you clearly have no idea wtf you're talking about.

Thank you.

It has nothing to do with heat transfer coefficients. All it has to do with is how much energy it takes to break a chemical bond, and how much do you get out of having one form.

In this you go from H2O + energy --> 2H + O --> H2O + energy

That energy is the same. The reason why internal combustion engines work is because the reaction is something like (I'll simplify it and use natural gas):

CH4 + 2 O2 + little energy --> C + 4H + 4O --> CO2 + 2 H2O + lots of energy

Notice how you end up with something different at the end. You start with methane and oxygen and end up with carbon dioxide and water. It is entirely possible to turn carbon dioxide and water into methane and oxygen, it just takes energy input to do so. If you can grant me that, then take it one step further. Start with methane and oxygen, and burn them to get carbon dioxide and water. Then put energy into the system to get back your methane and oxygen. If everything else is perfectly efficient, you'll end up exactly where you started with no gain in energy.

Notice how the final products are the same as the initial products. This is what that salt water thing does.

 

[BrownTown]

What I wonder with these perpetual motion scams is whether the people making them up are smart and are trying to pry money away from stupid people like dmcowen674, or if they are jsut stupid people themselves and don't even realize how wrong they are?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Javaamaan
Up bubbles the gas .. and yes .. it burns very hot ... but more energy is going in his amplifier than is being released by the flame

Interesting first post on AT.

Welcome to P&N

Perhaps someone threatened by this research? Big oil maybe?

Again why the focusing strictly on the energy being put into the amplifier?

You even admitted "Up bubbles the gas .. and yes .. it burns very hot".

You know for a fact the heat generated will always be energy negative?

Why?