Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: xNOVAx on September 11, 2007, 06:27:30 PM
-
If this is true, this is huge.. Peroid..
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570
Thoughts?:O
-
Thoughts? I think a review of the laws of thermodynamics is in order for all, including the reporter that neglected to ask how much energy is expended by the RF device that does the splitting.
It's just a roundabout way, I suspect, for splitting the O2 and H2 out of water and burning it.
900x as much energy input as output, maybe? 1000x? More?
-
Yeah that is true, but if by some off chance the RF device takes less energy than the burning hydrogen produces, we have our next fuel.. Long shot, but who knows..
-
If by some off chance electrolysis takes less energy to seperate O2 and H2 than it produces, then that would be big too.
Oh, but it doesn't.
-
A frequecy generator doesn't use that much power. If used plenty of them in my career for tuning radios and such, some that go all the way up into the high gigahertz range and they all plugged into a 110 outlet.
That's the nice thing about using a frequency to split the molecules. You don't need alot of power to do it, just the right frequency.
Also you'll notice that the guy who figured it out was using a frequecy generator designed for medical purposes. Most of that equipment is designed to run off of standard electrical power. Hell a CAT scan machine only requires a 220 outlet now a days.
The amount of power required to do this could probably be brought well under the amount of power released.
Imagine an engine that uses a freq gen instead of spark plugs to generate hydrogen for cumbustion. Once the engine is started the alternator would be able to power the freq gen.
I really think these guys may be on to something here. The principle they've discovered is way beyond electrolosis.
-
Voltage and amperage are completely different. The Cat Scan machine can run on a 220 volt service, however that is no indication of how much power it actually uses. Only that someone adapted it to 220 volt service.
Frequency generators might not require much power, but that doesn't mean the energy off of burning salt water will be strong. As Chairboy said, the input energy will ALWAYS be more then the output.
-
I saw in another forum someone speculating that the H+ atoms in the water from the desolved salts are being released and that's what is burning, not necessairly splitting the H-O bonds?
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=tech&Number=784231&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=
-
Others could probably explain this better than I can, but:
Think about what is happening here. The water is split into the fuel components- Hydrogen and Oxygen. The burning takes those two components and puts them back together again- H2O. There is no way you get more energy out than you put in.
Edit: that of course assumes the post above me is wrong. ;)
-
Er....what Majic?
I'm no chemist, or physisist......but does burning oxygen and hydrogen together produce water?
The idea that burning something to produce water doesn't sound right at all.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-8/48257/Swoop2.gif)
-
the thing about burning salt water is...
it isn't oil, and we have it in superabundance. im cautiously geeked about this.
-
Electrolysis
Electricity ==> Water ==> O and H
This thing
Electricity ==> RF generator ==> Water ==> O and H
Which do you think is more efficient?
-
Uhh yeah majic I'm pretty sure self-extinguishing airships are not gonna happen:
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/airship/hindenburg.jpg)
-
"Hydrogen combustion produces only water. When pure hydrogen is burned in pure oxygen, only pure water is produced. Granted, that’s an ideal scenario, which doesn’t occur outside of laboratories and the space shuttle. In any case, when a hydrogen engine burns, it actually cleans the ambient air, by completing combustion of the unburned hydrocarbons that surround us. Compared with the toxic compounds (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrogen sulfide) produced by petroleum fuels, the products of hydrogen burning are much safer."
From: http://hydrogennow.org/Facts/Safety.htm
It even has the same pretty picture you posted Vulcan. :)
Burning hydrogen and oxygen produces water vapor. Of course it won't put itself out any more than any other byproduct of combustion (which rise away with the heat) would.
-
Electrolysis
Electricity ==> Water ==> O and H
This thing
Electricity ==> RF generator ==> Water ==> O and H
Which do you think is more efficient? -Thrawn
I don't know. Wouldn't the answer depend on how much electricity is ultimately required for each reaction - combined with the actual output of usable energy - minus the energy cost of transferring that energy to the drive wheels for - each method?
This discovery may also be just waiting on further development of other technology in order to implement. Maybe the radio waves generated can be used again and again? Maybe the O2 can be burnt with the H as a multiplier?
Hopefully far better brains than mine will be on this.
-
Vulcan, Swoop, y'all might want to bone up on your science too.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Vulcan, Swoop, y'all might want to bone up on your science too.
Maybe majic does. Tell me chairboy whats the difference between water and water vapour?
-
You may find this useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
Burning H2/O2 produces water. Your 'self extinguishing airships' comment seems to suggest that you were calling that into question.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Maybe majic does. Tell me chairboy whats the difference between water and water vapour?
Did you really think I was saying that it would produce liquid water? In the middle of a fire? (I kinda took for granted that it would be obvious, but as I did say, maybe someone else is better suited to explain.)
-
I believe all this crap, burning salt water and hydrogen cars, is the Holy Grail, the Fountain of Youth or cold fusion of the 21st century.
While I believe a lot of useful inventions will result (e.g. Velcro from NASA wasn't it?) if the perfect system was achievable it probably would have already existed in nature and our meddling will not 'create' it.
Ice is an example of what I would consider a 'perfect system' to me. You freeze water to cool your drink. It floats but the water it cools sinks bringing up warm water to be cooled.
[edit]to clarify, this isn't to say that we may not drive hydrogen cars, rather we shall only reap the possible loss of pollution benefits since the expenditure of energy to create the hydrogen will probably be comparable to creating and using fossil fuels.
-
Think of it in terms of physical effort.
To break the bonds physically takes a lot of electricity, brute force so to speak.
No way your going to get more than you put in, as a matter of fact its pretty inefficient.
Now instead of smacking those bonds with brute force, You use a scalpel of sound waves to sever them. Power required could be little more than whats needed to run a stereo. Its all about the Frequency, NOT about the brute force.
Like shattering a glass with sound. If you have the right frequency for the glass, it doesn't even have to be loud. You simply resonate it till it breaks itself apart.
Same for H20, and its bonds, find the right frequency in the right chamber or sound reflective setting and it could shake itself apart. Freeing large amounts of H and O2 to be collected and burned.
This IS the answer for the future, and we will solve it, its just a question of time.
-
If they get it up and running in the next 100 years what will that do to the "man made global warming" alarmists computer models?
say... anyone notice how quiet those guys are these days?
lazs
-
Q:[/color]
Originally posted by Vulcan
Maybe majic does. Tell me chairboy whats the difference between water and water vapour?
A:[/color] 970 btu.
Do I get a cookie?:D
-
Yeah that is true, but if by some off chance the RF device takes less energy than the burning hydrogen produces, we have our next fuel.. Long shot, but who knows..
If splitting the water in to hydrogen and oxygen takes less energy than than burning the hydrogen and oxygen generates, they have invented perpetual motion, and violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Somehow, I doubt it.
There's always a chance this could be more efficient than normal electrolysis, though. A large improvement in the efficiency of electrolysis makes hydrogen cars more attractive.
This isn't even a new idea. There's a usenet discussion on Google groups about various methods of producing hydrogen and oxygen from water that mentions using RF (and how inefficient it is) that dates from 1996. I suspect it's something first discovered at least 100 years ago, and largely forgotten because it is practically useless.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
If splitting the water in to hydrogen and oxygen takes less energy than than burning the hydrogen and oxygen generates, they have invented perpetual motion, and violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
What I was thinking the whole time reading this thread...
the whole thing sounds like a Keanu Reeves movie.
-
Originally posted by JB73
the whole thing sounds like a Keanu Reeves movie.
[KEANU]Whoaaaaa....[/KEANU]
-
Burn salt water? :(
Then we won't need Mideast oil. :p
Then we set the oceans on fire. :eek:
(fret fret fret) :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Halo
Burn salt water? :(
Then we won't need Mideast oil. :p
Then we set the oceans on fire. :eek:
(fret fret fret) :rolleyes:
Think about it though, now we'll have a way to rid ourselves of all the water the melting ice caps are going to produce!!! Were saved!!!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by FBBone
Think about it though, now we'll have a way to rid ourselves of all the water the melting ice caps are going to produce!!! Were saved!!!
wow, i never thought of that, now we can save chocolate town.
(everybody sing) ohhh when the saints coome marching in.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
[KEANU]Whoaaaaa....[/KEANU]
must have never seen:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115857/
almost the same premise as this story in a movie starring Keanu and Rachael Weisz.