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

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 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.

again you didn't introduce anything else into the mix.

Simple addition of another bond exponentiates the hydrogen burn and thus the core temp you started with without adding additional RF energy.

Step away from the formulas and look at the bigger picture.

 

[BrownTown]

I'm sorry dmcowen674, I don't really know alot about you, could you please explain the experience you have on this subject in terms of education and working in industry? I know we have tons of professional engineers and engineering students here who are all making statements which are in contradiction with yours. What in your life has caused you to assume that the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect and can be broken so easily?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I'm sorry dmcowen674, I don't really know alot about you, could you please explain the experience you have on this subject in terms of education and working in industry? I know we have tons of professional engineers and engineering students here who are all making statements which are in contradiction with yours. What in your life has caused you to assume that the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect and can be broken so easily?

Where did I say it was easy?

Formulas are just that formulas.

Many new ones have been made.

If we just stopped, you wouldn't have a fraction of what we have now.

Maybe we should just go back to the Stone Age with that kind of non-thinking.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
again you didn't introduce anything else into the mix.

Simple addition of another bond exponentiates the hydrogen burn and thus the core temp you started with without adding additional RF energy.

Step away from the formulas and look at the bigger picture.

I notice that you conveniently side-stepped my post suggesting that you look at the first law of thermodynamics after demonstrating your ignorance beyond any reasonable doubt. Not surprising, as I believe that's how you ended up in my ignore list in the first place. You flaunt reality with your fantasy world in which "exponentiates" is actually a word and thermal energy is created from nothing. You talk about these formulas as if they are someone's opinion rather than scientific fact that has been established for more than a century. You seem to think that this would somehow turn in to a runaway reaction, which occurs in cases of uncontrolled exothermic reactions. Of course, what you don't realize is that the fact that this reaction requires RF energy as an input indicates that the initial step (generating H2 from water) tells me right away that the reaction is endothermic. The fact that heat is producing during the recombination tells me that the final reaction is exothermic. However, since the intermediate (hydrogen) is a product of an endothermic process, it is not creating any energy, nor can it. The final exotherm will always give back the same or less energy than you put into it, depending on the final fractional conversion of hydrogen back to water via oxidation. This is chemical engineering 101. So, my suggestion to you is to go back to school and learn something before trying to propagate your ignorance or throwing your savings into snake oil.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I, for one, vote that Dave should invest heavily into this process since he believes so firmly in its capabilities and potential. Let's see him put his money where his mouth is.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I, for one, vote that Dave should invest heavily into this process since he believes so firmly in its capabilities and potential. Let's see him put his money where his mouth is.

No no no. Then we will have to hear him whine about how the men in black helicopters came and offed the guy doing the work so he lost all his money (again).

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I, for one, vote that Dave should invest heavily into this process since he believes so firmly in its capabilities and potential. Let's see him put his money where his mouth is.

No no no. Then we will have to hear him whine about how the men in black helicopters came and offed the guy doing the work so he lost all his money (again).

Hehe 😀

 

[Javaamaan]

Originally posted by: 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?

Thanks for the welcome and I'm glad you found it interesting

No , I do not represent "big" oil ... or any other size for that matter

What is not to admit? ... what they show here is identical to hydrolysis, except it is wireless, and the H & O released burn very hot , nothing new here , you can buy a "water torch" that burns H & O from water that plugs into the 240 VAC outlet.

I know for a fact because the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics still apply here, as they always have ... you cannot get something for nothing ... and you cannot even break-even

IF his machine released more total energy than his transmitter consumed from the grid (of course it doesn't ) , THEN it would be a perpetual motion machine ... take a wild guess how many functional perpetual motion machines have been built

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Javaamaan

Originally posted by: 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?

Thanks for the welcome and I'm glad you found it interesting

No , I do not represent "big" oil ... or any other size for that matter

What is not to admit? ... what they show here is identical to hydrolysis, except it is wireless, and the H & O released burn very hot , nothing new here , you can buy a "water torch" that burns H & O from water that plugs into the 240 VAC outlet.

I know for a fact because the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics still apply here, as they always have ... you cannot get something for nothing ... and you cannot even break-even

IF his machine released more total energy than his transmitter consumed from the grid (of course it doesn't ) , THEN it would be a perpetual motion machine ... take a wild guess how many functional perpetual motion machines have been built

The Sun

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Javaamaan

Originally posted by: 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?

Thanks for the welcome and I'm glad you found it interesting

No , I do not represent "big" oil ... or any other size for that matter

What is not to admit? ... what they show here is identical to hydrolysis, except it is wireless, and the H & O released burn very hot , nothing new here , you can buy a "water torch" that burns H & O from water that plugs into the 240 VAC outlet.

I know for a fact because the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics still apply here, as they always have ... you cannot get something for nothing ... and you cannot even break-even

IF his machine released more total energy than his transmitter consumed from the grid (of course it doesn't ) , THEN it would be a perpetual motion machine ... take a wild guess how many functional perpetual motion machines have been built

The Sun

lol....I love how you blurt out a non sequitur when totally cornered by logic, reason, and science

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Javaamaan

Originally posted by: 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?

Thanks for the welcome and I'm glad you found it interesting

No , I do not represent "big" oil ... or any other size for that matter

What is not to admit? ... what they show here is identical to hydrolysis, except it is wireless, and the H & O released burn very hot , nothing new here , you can buy a "water torch" that burns H & O from water that plugs into the 240 VAC outlet.

I know for a fact because the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics still apply here, as they always have ... you cannot get something for nothing ... and you cannot even break-even

IF his machine released more total energy than his transmitter consumed from the grid (of course it doesn't ) , THEN it would be a perpetual motion machine ... take a wild guess how many functional perpetual motion machines have been built

The Sun

lol....I love how you blurt out a non sequitur when totally cornered by logic, reason, and science

Totally impossible we'll ever figure out how to mimic the Sun eh?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Javaamaan

Originally posted by: 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?

Thanks for the welcome and I'm glad you found it interesting

No , I do not represent "big" oil ... or any other size for that matter

What is not to admit? ... what they show here is identical to hydrolysis, except it is wireless, and the H & O released burn very hot , nothing new here , you can buy a "water torch" that burns H & O from water that plugs into the 240 VAC outlet.

I know for a fact because the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics still apply here, as they always have ... you cannot get something for nothing ... and you cannot even break-even

IF his machine released more total energy than his transmitter consumed from the grid (of course it doesn't ) , THEN it would be a perpetual motion machine ... take a wild guess how many functional perpetual motion machines have been built

The Sun

lol....I love how you blurt out a non sequitur when totally cornered by logic, reason, and science

Totally impossible we'll ever figure out how to mimic the Sun eh?

beyond the fact that the sun is not a perpetual motion machine it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand...and you know it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: K1052
beyond the fact that the sun is not a perpetual motion machine it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand...and you know it.

and neither is a "perpetual motion machine" that you brought up.

Back to freeing up Hydrogen for energy...

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Javaamaan

Originally posted by: 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?

Thanks for the welcome and I'm glad you found it interesting

No , I do not represent "big" oil ... or any other size for that matter

What is not to admit? ... what they show here is identical to hydrolysis, except it is wireless, and the H & O released burn very hot , nothing new here , you can buy a "water torch" that burns H & O from water that plugs into the 240 VAC outlet.

I know for a fact because the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics still apply here, as they always have ... you cannot get something for nothing ... and you cannot even break-even

IF his machine released more total energy than his transmitter consumed from the grid (of course it doesn't ) , THEN it would be a perpetual motion machine ... take a wild guess how many functional perpetual motion machines have been built

The Sun

:laugh:

 

[makken]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: K1052
beyond the fact that the sun is not a perpetual motion machine it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand...and you know it.

and neither is a "perpetual motion machine" that you brought up.

Back to freeing up Hydrogen for energy...

you're NOT freeing up hydrogen for energy. you are simply imparting hydrogen with energy from the RF wave, which you are then releasing via combustion. All of the energy that was released from the burning of hydrogen came from the RF wave.

It is thermodynamically impossible to extract more energy from the hydrogen than what was imparted onto it from the RF wave. this is why this could never be used as an energy SOURCE.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: K1052
beyond the fact that the sun is not a perpetual motion machine it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand...and you know it.

and neither is a "perpetual motion machine" that you brought up.

Back to freeing up Hydrogen for energy...

Actually it does even though I didn't bring it up, you're just unable to comprehend why (which given your track record isn't really much of a surprise).

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I'm sorry dmcowen674, I don't really know alot about you, could you please explain the experience you have on this subject in terms of education and working in industry? I know we have tons of professional engineers and engineering students here who are all making statements which are in contradiction with yours. What in your life has caused you to assume that the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect and can be broken so easily?

Where did I say it was easy?

Formulas are just that formulas.

Many new ones have been made.

If we just stopped, you wouldn't have a fraction of what we have now.

Maybe we should just go back to the Stone Age with that kind of non-thinking.

BrownTown,

Notice how he didn't answer your questions concerning his experience and education? Par for the course with Dave.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: makken

you're NOT freeing up hydrogen for energy. you are simply imparting hydrogen with energy from the RF wave, which you are then releasing via combustion.

All of the energy that was released from the burning of hydrogen came from the RF wave.

That's where I disagree with the Thermodynamic maniacs.

There is a mix being introduced which may yield more hydrogen for the burn.

For example when adding NOS to an ICE you get more power output than with just gas/air.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: makken

you're NOT freeing up hydrogen for energy. you are simply imparting hydrogen with energy from the RF wave, which you are then releasing via combustion.

All of the energy that was released from the burning of hydrogen came from the RF wave.

That's where I disagree with the Thermodynamic maniacs.

There is a mix being introduced which may yield more hydrogen for the burn.

For example when adding NOS to an ICE you get more power output than with just gas/air.

jesus christ

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
That's where I disagree with the Thermodynamic maniacs.

There is a mix being introduced which may yield more hydrogen for the burn.

For example when adding NOS to an ICE you get more power output than with just gas/air.

Yes, because you're adding in an additional compound with a higher energy of combustion. WTF does that have to do with turning water into hydrogen and back again? You think salt somehow magically contributes energy to the process by fusing with the hydrogen?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
That's where I disagree with the Thermodynamic maniacs.

There is a mix being introduced which may yield more hydrogen for the burn.

For example when adding NOS to an ICE you get more power output than with just gas/air.

Yes, because you're adding in an additional compound with a higher energy of combustion.

WTF does that have to do with turning water into hydrogen and back again? You think salt somehow magically contributes energy to the process by fusing with the hydrogen?

Why are you guys so focused on just the RF energy and just the hydrogen.

We're talking about essentially the same thing as a cylinder in an ICE but without the motor.

Add another component such as the previous mentioned NOS and yield a much bigger burn than just the freed hydrogen being freed by the RF.

I know you guys want to spin and dodge just to protect your precious oil economy.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Why are you guys so focused on just the RF energy and just the hydrogen.

We're talking about essentially the same thing as a cylinder in an ICE but without the motor.

Add another component such as the previous mentioned NOS and yield a much bigger burn than just the freed hydrogen being freed by the RF.

I know you guys want to spin and dodge just to protect your precious oil economy.

This should be good... What other source of energy is there?

 

[silverpig]

I dunno guys... this is borderline trolling for the fun of pissing us all off. Any other member and it'd be obvious.

 

[makken]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
That's where I disagree with the Thermodynamic maniacs.

There is a mix being introduced which may yield more hydrogen for the burn.

For example when adding NOS to an ICE you get more power output than with just gas/air.

Yes, because you're adding in an additional compound with a higher energy of combustion.

WTF does that have to do with turning water into hydrogen and back again? You think salt somehow magically contributes energy to the process by fusing with the hydrogen?

Why are you guys so focused on just the RF energy and just the hydrogen.

We're talking about essentially the same thing as a cylinder in an ICE but without the motor.

Add another component such as the previous mentioned NOS and yield a much bigger burn than just the freed hydrogen being freed by the RF.

I know you guys want to spin and dodge just to protect your precious oil economy.

What are you talking about??
NOS, or nitrous oxide has NOTHING in common with this system; do you even know what nitrous oxide does?

Nitrous Oxide is made up of Nitrogen and Oxygen (N2O). When this enters an ICE, it decomposes exothermically (correctly me if i'm wrong) to release nitrogen and oxygen (at a 66 to 33% ratio) -ie. you are just adding oxygen enriched air into your engine. The increased oxygen increases the amount of gasoline that can be combusted per power stroke.

Nitrous oxide alone DOES NOT SIGNFICALLY INCREASE YOUR ENGINE POWER OUTPUT. the extra combustion of gasoline and air does that. and that is NOT FREE energy you're getting. You are using more gasoline, which you pay for by having to refuel more often.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: makken

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
That's where I disagree with the Thermodynamic maniacs.

There is a mix being introduced which may yield more hydrogen for the burn.

For example when adding NOS to an ICE you get more power output than with just gas/air.

Yes, because you're adding in an additional compound with a higher energy of combustion.

WTF does that have to do with turning water into hydrogen and back again? You think salt somehow magically contributes energy to the process by fusing with the hydrogen?

Why are you guys so focused on just the RF energy and just the hydrogen.

We're talking about essentially the same thing as a cylinder in an ICE but without the motor.

Add another component such as the previous mentioned NOS and yield a much bigger burn than just the freed hydrogen being freed by the RF.

I know you guys want to spin and dodge just to protect your precious oil economy.

What are you talking about??
NOS, or nitrous oxide has NOTHING in common with this system; do you even know what nitrous oxide does?

Nitrous Oxide is made up of Nitrogen and Oxygen (N2O).

When this enters an ICE, it decomposes exothermically (correctly me if i'm wrong) to release nitrogen and oxygen (at a 66 to 33% ratio) -ie. you are just adding oxygen enriched air into your engine.

The increased oxygen increases the amount of gasoline that can be combusted per power stroke.

Nitrous oxide alone DOES NOT SIGNFICALLY INCREASE YOUR ENGINE POWER OUTPUT. the extra combustion of gasoline and air does that. and that is NOT FREE energy you're getting. You are using more gasoline, which you pay for by having to refuel more often.

Bingo, but in this case you have all the fuel you need for the decompression - an unlimited source of hydrogen.