Maker Pro
Maker Pro

saltwater fuel

B

Ben Turner

Jan 1, 1970
0
There's a story circulating in the news about John Kanzius. Story is
claiming that he has a radio frequency generator that liberates oxygen and
hydrogen from saltwater.

Anyone know the frequency (frequencies?) involved? What about the
transmitter design? Anyone??
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ben said:
There's a story circulating in the news about John Kanzius. Story is
claiming that he has a radio frequency generator that liberates oxygen and
hydrogen from saltwater.

Anyone know the frequency (frequencies?) involved? What about the
transmitter design? Anyone??

The usual bollocks.

Graham
 
R

RW Salnick

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ben Turner brought forth on stone tablets:
There's a story circulating in the news about John Kanzius. Story is
claiming that he has a radio frequency generator that liberates oxygen and
hydrogen from saltwater.

Anyone know the frequency (frequencies?) involved? What about the
transmitter design? Anyone??

No doubt this is true. It has been possible for hundreds of years to
"liberate" hydrogen and oxygen from sea water. Why is this news?

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle
 
S

Sevenhundred Elves

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ben said:
There's a story circulating in the news about John Kanzius. Story is
claiming that he has a radio frequency generator that liberates oxygen and
hydrogen from saltwater.

Anyone know the frequency (frequencies?) involved? What about the
transmitter design? Anyone??

I have no idea whether that actually works or not, but even if it does,
no energy can be gained in the process. Why? Because breaking the
chemical bond between hydrogen and oxygen in a water molecule requires a
specific amount of energy input. It doesn't matter how that energy is
delivered, whether by electricity, heat, radiation, magnetism, what have
you. Breaking that bond always uses the same energy as what was released
when the bond was formed.

It is like when you move something up a mountain. No matter if you move
it slowly or quickly, by a winding road or a straight, whether you lift
it by a crane or pull it behind oxen doesn't matter, it always takes the
same expenditure of work to lift the same thing from one particular
height to another.

It is the same with chemical bonds. To split the bonds cost energy,
exactly the same amount of energy that is released when the bond is
formed. But that's just in theory. In practice it alway takes more
energy to split chemical bonds, because such reactions are not 100%
efficient. This radio frequency generator you mention will lose some
energy as heat, first in the creation of the radio waves, second in
causing heat movement in the water, energy that can not be recovered by
re-combining the oxygen and the hydrogen.

S.
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
RW said:
It has been possible for hundreds of years to
"liberate" hydrogen and oxygen from sea water.

Do tell more.

Graham
 
R

RW Salnick

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore brought forth on stone tablets:
RW Salnick wrote:

Water (including the water in sea water) is dihydrogen monoxide. If you
supply enough energy, the chemical bond between the hydrogen and the
oxygen can be broken, producing ("liberating") hydrogen and oxygen. In
theory, the amount of energy required is exactly equal to that of the
chemical bond strength. In practice, more than this is required.
Probably the most efficient method found over the centuries is the first
one found: electrolysis. But others are possible, including perhaps
even energy supplied by an RF field.

Nevertheless, regardless of the method used, the best case scenario is
that the amount of energy supplied has to be equivalent to the energy in
the chemical bonds that are to be broken. Methods differ only in the
amount of ADDITIONAL energy required due to inefficiencies and losses.

Now, guess how much energy is obtained when the hydrogen is burned?
When hydrogen and oxygen combine, the energy released is exactly the
same (by definition!) as the energy required to break the bonds in the
first place.

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle
 
R

RW Salnick

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] brought forth on stone tablets:
Hydrogen and oxygen in water are bound together like two magnets or a
weight and the Earth. It takes energy to draw them apart. You get
the energy back when they recombine. Its like pulling two magnets
apart and letting them slam together again. Or lifting a weight and
putting it on a shelf, and then letting it fall off the shelf again.

Now, electrolyzers apply this energy in the form of an electric field
to pull the two charged parts apart. They are about 85% efficient in
the best designs. That is it takes 1/0.85 = 1.176 units of energy in
the form of electricity to get 1.000 unit of energy out - when the
things recombine.

Now, long radio waves, short radio waves, microwaves, radiant heat,
light, UV light, X-rays are all examples of the same sort of thing.
They're all examples of electro-magnetic waves. Electro-magnetic
waves are waves of electric and magnetic potential that move through
space.

Now, for what you say to work the way you say it works, this would be
like pulling the hydrogen and oxygen apart in little pulses. Can this
even work? Can small pulses of energy add up into one big pull?
Well, if it did, it would be sort of like giving a child a push on a
swing. A series of little pushes done at just the right time, can
cause a swing to raise higher and higher - increasing its energy.
Does water work this way?

If you look at a water molecule, the individual atoms in it have
vibrational modes. Think of 3 balls (2 lighter ones, and one heavier
one), attached by springs (the chemical bonds). You can easily imagine
several modes of vibration of this structure... if enough energy is
supplied at one of the resonant frequencies of the structure, it is not
hard to imagine that the vibration will become severe enough to break
the bonds.

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle
 
S

Sevenhundred Elves

Jan 1, 1970
0
RW said:
[email protected] brought forth on stone tablets:

If you look at a water molecule, the individual atoms in it have
vibrational modes. Think of 3 balls (2 lighter ones, and one heavier
one), attached by springs (the chemical bonds). You can easily imagine
several modes of vibration of this structure... if enough energy is
supplied at one of the resonant frequencies of the structure, it is not
hard to imagine that the vibration will become severe enough to break
the bonds.

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle

Yes, that's true, but lots of the energy will be lost simply heating the
water and creating the microwaves. I think conventional electrolysis
must be more efficient.

S.
 
R

RW Salnick

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sevenhundred Elves brought forth on stone tablets:
RW Salnick wrote:




Yes, that's true, but lots of the energy will be lost simply heating the
water and creating the microwaves. I think conventional electrolysis
must be more efficient.

S.


Indeed.

bob
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
RW said:
If you look at a water molecule, the individual atoms in it have
vibrational modes. Think of 3 balls (2 lighter ones, and one heavier
one), attached by springs (the chemical bonds). You can easily imagine
several modes of vibration of this structure... if enough energy is
supplied at one of the resonant frequencies of the structure, it is not
hard to imagine that the vibration will become severe enough to break
the bonds.

On exactly what basis ?

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Is everyone forgetting that this is saltwater and not just plain
water? I'm no expert, but it seems like there's a factor there that
isn't being considered in the discussion of efficiency.

It makes no difference.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
I agree with you adamd..and the rest of you need to open your minds.
We use things everyday that scientists once thought impossible.

Not actually very many such things. This is pretty much a 'popular myth' in
fact.

How can you dismiss an idea before thoroughly researching it?

Because it's fundamentally ridiculous maybe ?

That's not good science. Good science is knowing that there are always
exceptions to the rule

Exceptions are astonishingly rare. I simply can't think of one in modern
history. Why don't you give us an example ?

and those exceptions become tomorrow's "Big Step Forward".

No. Good science does not require one to abandon such basic concepts as the
principle of conservation of energy and fundamental thermodynamics.

What you're preaching (and it seems to be all too popular these days) is
abondoning any form of science if its deemed inconvenient to a bunch of
uneducated loonies with some wacky ideas..

Burning water is about as ridiculous as it gets. It's 'burnt' already !

Graham
 
R

RW Salnick

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] brought forth on stone tablets:
I agree with you adamd..and the rest of you need to open your minds.
We use things everyday that scientists once thought impossible. How
can you dismiss an idea before thoroughly researching it? That's not
good science. Good science is knowing that there are always
exceptions to the rule and those exceptions become tomorrow's "Big
Step Forward".

Actually, I *have* researched it. And I have two degrees in Chemical
Engineering to go along with that.

Have *you* thoroughly researched it? Are you willing to accept an idea
without "thoroughly researching it"?

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle
 
Y

You

Jan 1, 1970
0
Paul F. Dietz said:
NaCl + 1/4 O2 + 1/2 H2O --> NaOH + 1/2 Cl2

Been a while since you did any Chemistry....

it should read....

4 NaCl + O2 + 2 H2O --> 4 NaOH + 2 Cl2 + H2

All chemical formulas are integer based.....
 
E

Eric Gisin

Jan 1, 1970
0
You said:
Been a while since you did any Chemistry....

Seems like you never did Math.
it should read....

4 NaCl + O2 + 2 H2O --> 4 NaOH + 2 Cl2 + H2

All chemical formulas are integer based.....

Nitpicker.
 
S

Steve Spence

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
STOP TOP POSTING !

It makes you look like a jerk. AND causes confusion.

Graham

The only jerk is you, and no one else is confused.
 
Top