New fuel sorce found.
09-15-2007, 11:59 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Jump
Posts: 276
This process could actually power a radio frequency generator by itself, theoretically. A battery would need to be used to start the process, however, once the process of burning hydrogen is started, the frequency generator could be powered by the burning hydrogen. It would not need to be powered by the electrical grid anymore than using the battery for a couple seconds to start it.
You could even operate the generator via solar power, theoretically.
You could even operate the generator via solar power, theoretically.
09-16-2007, 04:23 PM
#12
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,544
OK, folks, lets try this again:
"The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said."
The bonds in question ALREADY released a lot of energy when the H2O was formed in the first place (by burning H2 and O2). You cannot magically "weaken" the bonds to pull the H2 out so you can burn it again. The ONLY way to get the H2 out of the water is with an amount of energy equivalent to what it would produce by burning.
The guy may have come up with a way to use RF energy to break H2 out of water...by using 200% more electrical energy than you could get out of the liberated H2. There's nothing that says you couldn't do that, but why bother? We can already do the same thing with basic electrolysis, which is one method of producing industrial H2. The issues involving the use of H2 as a fuel are it's flammability, volatility, low density, and corrosiveness...producing H2 is not hard at all, it's storing and handling it.
But this guy did not come up with a way to get "free" energy out of salt water...unless he's claiming cold fusion
This is not debatable, and the chemistry involved is not in question, nor are the underlying nuclear physics. This is not quantum mechanics, and textbook chemistry is not BS...take a look at the world around you
"The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said."
The bonds in question ALREADY released a lot of energy when the H2O was formed in the first place (by burning H2 and O2). You cannot magically "weaken" the bonds to pull the H2 out so you can burn it again. The ONLY way to get the H2 out of the water is with an amount of energy equivalent to what it would produce by burning.
The guy may have come up with a way to use RF energy to break H2 out of water...by using 200% more electrical energy than you could get out of the liberated H2. There's nothing that says you couldn't do that, but why bother? We can already do the same thing with basic electrolysis, which is one method of producing industrial H2. The issues involving the use of H2 as a fuel are it's flammability, volatility, low density, and corrosiveness...producing H2 is not hard at all, it's storing and handling it.
But this guy did not come up with a way to get "free" energy out of salt water...unless he's claiming cold fusion
This is not debatable, and the chemistry involved is not in question, nor are the underlying nuclear physics. This is not quantum mechanics, and textbook chemistry is not BS...take a look at the world around you
09-16-2007, 04:23 PM
#13
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,544
This process could actually power a radio frequency generator by itself, theoretically. A battery would need to be used to start the process, however, once the process of burning hydrogen is started, the frequency generator could be powered by the burning hydrogen. It would not need to be powered by the electrical grid anymore than using the battery for a couple seconds to start it.
You could even operate the generator via solar power, theoretically.
You could even operate the generator via solar power, theoretically.
09-17-2007, 07:20 AM
#15
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
The first Law of Thermodynamics states that for a closed system, the total energy remains constant, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The proportions of heat and work in a system may be traded, in this case adding electromagnetic energy to a group of water molecules to decrease their entropy, but then the total energy of the system also includes the power station somewhere burning coal and doing the opposite to some coal molecules, that is increasing the entropy on that end. The first law explains tradeoffs by the law of conservation, the second law of thermodynamics covers the entropy aspect. There is no completely efficient trade at all because second law states that systems tend to increase entropy rather than decrease or stay constant. The real challenge is to make a machine that enjoys higher efficiency in the trade of work and heat. The old problem of how to produce a more efficient machine is the challenge here. None of this is missing from Rick's discussion, I just thought I would elaborate a little.
If this particular system can boost efficiency a little bit it may be worth pursuing. We do not know if it can or not without data, and development of such machines is always a longhaul. Chemistry may seem like shifting sands but it is more like the proverbial forest that breaks down into individual trees that breaks down into distinct tissues down to the molecules and so on. It is a useful way to understand the natural world. If you look more you see more and must explain more.
If this particular system can boost efficiency a little bit it may be worth pursuing. We do not know if it can or not without data, and development of such machines is always a longhaul. Chemistry may seem like shifting sands but it is more like the proverbial forest that breaks down into individual trees that breaks down into distinct tissues down to the molecules and so on. It is a useful way to understand the natural world. If you look more you see more and must explain more.
Last edited by Cubdriver; 09-17-2007 at 02:54 PM.
09-17-2007, 03:20 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 149
Yea you can use more energy to extract less energy from this process and I'm sure many years of research will find out some highly inefficient way of obtaining a bit of usable energy from this... if they dont put billions of dollars in research, the tree huggers will start violent protests and burn down DC... and CNN will be there to cover it. 
09-17-2007, 05:41 PM
#18
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
I quit chemistry after flunking my third year exams. Barely got a B on the ACS and changed majors. Still can't remember most of it but I do remember the thermo because it's an engineering topic with ties to chemistry, and both thermo and combustion are included in turbine design in aerospace school. You have to know enough to balance combustion equations. Thermo explains efficiency. Topics like these are fascinating but I would never claim to be an expert, just a fool who took a lot of science.
Last edited by Cubdriver; 09-17-2007 at 06:03 PM.
09-18-2007, 02:27 AM
#19
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 13
The same way they do it now . . . . . replace gas stations with salt water stations . . .I'll still be holding out for my personal jet pack.
09-18-2007, 10:41 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
OK, folks, lets try this again:
"The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said."
The bonds in question ALREADY released a lot of energy when the H2O was formed in the first place (by burning H2 and O2). You cannot magically "weaken" the bonds to pull the H2 out so you can burn it again. The ONLY way to get the H2 out of the water is with an amount of energy equivalent to what it would produce by burning.
The guy may have come up with a way to use RF energy to break H2 out of water...by using 200% more electrical energy than you could get out of the liberated H2. There's nothing that says you couldn't do that, but why bother? We can already do the same thing with basic electrolysis, which is one method of producing industrial H2. The issues involving the use of H2 as a fuel are it's flammability, volatility, low density, and corrosiveness...producing H2 is not hard at all, it's storing and handling it.
But this guy did not come up with a way to get "free" energy out of salt water...unless he's claiming cold fusion
This is not debatable, and the chemistry involved is not in question, nor are the underlying nuclear physics. This is not quantum mechanics, and textbook chemistry is not BS...take a look at the world around you
"The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said."
The bonds in question ALREADY released a lot of energy when the H2O was formed in the first place (by burning H2 and O2). You cannot magically "weaken" the bonds to pull the H2 out so you can burn it again. The ONLY way to get the H2 out of the water is with an amount of energy equivalent to what it would produce by burning.
The guy may have come up with a way to use RF energy to break H2 out of water...by using 200% more electrical energy than you could get out of the liberated H2. There's nothing that says you couldn't do that, but why bother? We can already do the same thing with basic electrolysis, which is one method of producing industrial H2. The issues involving the use of H2 as a fuel are it's flammability, volatility, low density, and corrosiveness...producing H2 is not hard at all, it's storing and handling it.
But this guy did not come up with a way to get "free" energy out of salt water...unless he's claiming cold fusion
This is not debatable, and the chemistry involved is not in question, nor are the underlying nuclear physics. This is not quantum mechanics, and textbook chemistry is not BS...take a look at the world around you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
