Have you seen this!?! Burning saltwater
Radio frequencies breaks apart the hydrogen and oxygen in salt water - watch it burn! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKtKSEQBeI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM The oil companies are going to be pissed!!! Oh man, I hope this isn't a hoax!
On Tuesday 11 September 2007 01:15:05 pm Jeremy Fowler wrote:
The oil companies are going to be pissed!!! Oh man, I hope this isn't a hoax!
There's no question that it's a real phenomenon. The big question, which has not been answered yet, is whether the system is net exodynamic or endodynamic - whether it produces more energy in the end than it takes to produce it. The energy required for the RF input (that according to most of the articles "breaks down" the salt water) is the question - does it take more energy to provide that RF than the "flame" produces - or than can be recovered from the flame. (Remember, a flame in itself isn't a very useful source of energy, and there are considerable losses converting it to electricity or other useful forms.) My guess is that what we have here is a magnetohydrodyamic plasma being induced by the radio waves, and that there may be other energies in the system that could be tapped. The data I have is by no means sufficient to make that conclusion, like I said it's a guess. The general scientific community is, as usual, skeptical, but they are willing to wait for the science.
On 9/11/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org> wrote:
The energy required for the RF input (that according to most of the articles "breaks down" the salt water) is the question - does it take more energy to provide that RF than the "flame" produces - or than can be recovered from the flame. (Remember, a flame in itself isn't a very useful source of energy, and there are considerable losses converting it to electricity or other useful forms.)
From what I've seen elsewhere it does take more energy to produce the RF than is released by the reaction. It seems to be basically super heating the water so that the hydrogen and oxygen split, then when the atoms leave the area being excited, they "burn" and come back together as water again, with a net loss of energy from waste heat.
Jon.
You can not get more energy out of a system than you put in to it. There are NO exceptions, Get over it. The best you can hope for is 100% efficiency, and that would still only be a hope. On 9/11/07, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/11/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org> wrote:
The energy required for the RF input (that according to most of the articles "breaks down" the salt water) is the question - does it take more energy to provide that RF than the "flame" produces - or than can be recovered from the flame. (Remember, a flame in itself isn't a very useful source of energy, and there are considerable losses converting it to electricity or other useful forms.)
From what I've seen elsewhere it does take more energy to produce the RF than is released by the reaction. It seems to be basically super heating the water so that the hydrogen and oxygen split, then when the atoms leave the area being excited, they "burn" and come back together as water again, with a net loss of energy from waste heat.
Jon. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
The key would be releasing stored energy in the form of chemical or molecular bonds. I once got more energy out of a system than I put in, if you consider that all I did was add water to Drano crystals. A chemical reaction occurred that created heat, lots of it (I used too much Drano in Chem lab than I was supposed to when making lye soap). The drain I poured that mixture down, in order to get rid of it before it did something bad, smoked for a bit. It never did back up again though. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Billy Crook Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:47 PM You can not get more energy out of a system than you put in to it. There are NO exceptions, Get over it. The best you can hope for is 100% efficiency, and that would still only be a hope. On 9/11/07, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/11/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org> wrote:
The energy required for the RF input (that according to most of the articles "breaks down" the salt water) is the question - does it take more energy to provide that RF than the "flame" produces - or than can be recovered from the flame. (Remember, a flame in itself isn't a very useful source of energy, and there are considerable losses converting it to electricity or other useful forms.)
From what I've seen elsewhere it does take more energy to produce the RF than is released by the reaction. It seems to be basically super heating the water so that the hydrogen and oxygen split, then when the atoms leave the area being excited, they "burn" and come back together as water again, with a net loss of energy from waste heat.
Jon.
On 9/11/07, Billy Crook <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote:
You can not get more energy out of a system than you put in to it. There are NO exceptions, Get over it. The best you can hope for is 100% efficiency, and that would still only be a hope.
Only a hope, because 100% efficiency isn't possible. There's always some loss. That isn't to say that the Kanzius (what's with pronouncing his name "Kansas", like the "i" isn't even there?) Process can't be more efficient than, say electrolysis at extracting H from water. It's been said before, but it bears repeating. Unless you're doing nuclear fusion, Hydrogen is not an energy SOURCE. It is a medium for storing or transmitting energy, which should not create any additional pollution to produce from some other energy source, nor to expend the stored energy. So once you've generated all that electricity, if demand drops (cooler temps so not as much AC needed), you can use excess power to extract Hydrogen from water. The inefficiency of converting the power to H might well be worth it, especially for nuke electricity, where the marginal cost of running the plant at maximum vs a lower level isn't all that much.
"It's been said before, but it bears repeating. Unless you're doing nuclear fusion, Hydrogen is not an energy SOURCE." Hey, in 1969 Cleveland had water doing some exothermic processes. http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642
1) No Hope. You can't achieve 100% efficiency. It's the law. 2) Nothing, repeat nothing can be done to release more energy that is put into it. You may not recognize the source of that energy, which may be locked in potential energy waiting to be released by the combination of the right chemical or by EM energy. 3) Endothermic reactions still obey the law of conservation of energy. It merely refers to the final temperature of the byproduct. Some reactions absorb heat, others give off heat and still others do neither. 4) The idea that we shouldn't use hydrogen as fuel because it takes more energy to extract it than it will deliver is silly. The only way to get fuel that takes less energy to produce than it takes to make is to pump it out of the ground, and I'm not entirely certain even that is true. Do you think it costs less to produce batteries than it does to produce an energy equivalent of Hydrogen? You have the cost of manufacture, the cost of the containers, the assembly, the production of the acid, not to mention all the manual and mechanical labor to assemble and package, etc. All that said, this technique may be useful for extracting Hydrogen. It needs to be determined if it takes less energy to do this than other methods of extracting Hydrogen. --- Billy Crook <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote:
You can not get more energy out of a system than you put in to it. There are NO exceptions, Get over it. The best you can hope for is 100% efficiency, and that would still only be a hope.
On 9/11/07, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/11/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org> wrote:
The energy required for the RF input (that according to most of the articles "breaks down" the salt water) is the question - does it take more energy to provide that RF than the "flame" produces - or than can be recovered from the flame. (Remember, a flame in itself isn't a very useful source of energy, and there are considerable losses converting it to electricity or other useful forms.)
From what I've seen elsewhere it does take more energy to produce the RF than is released by the reaction. It seems to be basically super heating the water so that the hydrogen and oxygen split, then when the atoms leave the area being excited, they "burn" and come back together as water again, with a net loss of energy from waste heat.
Jon. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
<voice movie="CoolHandLuke" character="Warden"> what we have here is a magnetohydrodynamic plasma being induced by the radio waves </voice>
participants (9)
-
Billy Crook -
David Nicol -
Jack -
James Sissel -
Jeremy Fowler -
Jon Pruente -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO -
Monty J. Harder