|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | Saltwater as Fuel! | Views: 940 | | Dec 12, 2007 10:03 pm | | Saltwater as Fuel! | # | 
Richard Weisenberger | | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8sgXUPp9XU
A retired Television Broadcast Engineer made this amazing discovery while looking for a cure for cancer. Private Reply to Richard Weisenberger | | Dec 13, 2007 2:22 am | | re: Saltwater as Fuel! | # | 
Ron Sam | | The Cancer RF cure is more believable.
Patents exist for the Cancer RF cure. Can't find patents on Saltwater as fuel.
http://tinyurl.com/yrlt5q
Comments from a Physics Technology forum
Isn't the energy needed to separate the molecules the same as the energy gained when you let them react?
Theoretically close to even. In practice, though, thermal and other losses at each step (hydrolysis, combustion, electricity generation, radio wave generation) will result in a large net energy deficit.
Salt water is not a fuel source, but it can make a great battery. RF may be able to charge a tank of salt water very quickly by converting it into hydrogen and oxygen. The problem with hydrogen has thus far been the difficulty in creating fuel cells. Electrolysis is usually very slow. If RF is proven to be some orders of magnitude faster at this, then we could have a solution to the charging problem. Electricity would still be created in nuclear power plants, coal-burning plants, or elsewhere, more efficiently in large quantities.
But then charging stations could simply RF-charge the salt water in your tank to give you fresh fuel, and off you go. Vehicles would continue to be internal combustion engines, and thus quite powerful, but would have nearly zero emissions.
Wiki
http://tinyurl.com/2pfzhx
Kanzius' experiment has been confirmed by Rustum Roy, a materials scientist at Pennsylvania State University, in a demonstration before the Material Science faculty, using Kanzius' RF tranceiver[14], which Kanzius had brought to the lab for the day.[8] On his website, Roy writes: "It is clear that Mr. Kanzius has demonstrated the ability to dissociate aqueous solutions of sodium chloride at normal sea water concentrations into hydrogen and oxygen."[14][8][12]
According to Roy, "The salt water isn't burning per se, despite appearances. The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies."[15] The temperature and flame color varies with water solutions and concentrations.[15]
Philip Ball, a consulting editor at Nature and author of "H2O: A Biography of Water" debunked the concept of water being burned as a fuel. Although he said that Kanzius' discovery itself needs to be verified through careful experiments, he categorically stated that "water is not a fuel" and "[w]ater does not burn". Ball also said that according to the Laws of thermodynamics, it was impossible to extract energy by producing hydrogen from water and then burning it, as this would be a basis for a perpetual motion machine. He was critical of lack of inquiry in the media reports about bogus science.[16] Ball writes "Here, however (for what it is worth) is the definitive verdict of thermodynamics: water is not a fuel."
My thought
I wonder what would happen if I put a container of saltwater in a microwave and plumb the gases from the container to outside of the microwave. Would I get a combustible gas?
RonPrivate Reply to Ron Sam | | Dec 13, 2007 7:44 am | | re: re: Saltwater as Fuel! | # | 
Walter Hartmann | | As the following question was not addressed I though I might lend a helping hand here.
--- Isn't the energy needed to separate the molecules the same as the energy gained when you let them react? ---
If this would be the case any catalyst manufacturer would never have gotten into business in the first place!
This is a common mix-up as it is true that if the path of separation and unification are the same that energy used respectively emitted are the same.
If a catalyst is introduced this is not applicable and as we all know catalysts work very well and we are all happy about their performance in each car.
This in itself is already proof enough that the phrasing, particularly of the English version, of the second law of thermodynamics is flawed. If it is transposed to commonly understandable English it actually states that: "given an unlimited source of low energy you can't get it out."
Looking at it this way it's obvious that can't be true as there are numerous mechanical machines doing exactly that.
Where such applications still get severely stuck is the same problem solar energy faces. Solar needs large collector area and environmental energy devices need large heat exchange surface. Both of which are expensive and with that the levelized energy cost go through the roof. Good work in the field is being done worldwide but as we can see here it is a battle with two fronts and they are hard to win.
... all the best
Walter
Private Reply to Walter Hartmann | | Dec 13, 2007 10:56 am | | re: re: re: Saltwater as Fuel! | # | 
Bob Green | | Fascinating video clip but I imagine that the amount of RF energy needed far outstrips the energy in that little flame. Also, RF generators are not very efficient.. 70% would be very good.. depending on frequency. I think he should stick to the cancer treatment as that may have some legs.
Regards - BobPrivate Reply to Bob Green | | Dec 13, 2007 1:05 pm | | re: re: re: re: Saltwater as Fuel! | # |
Walter Hartmann | | Hmmm - did I mention something about a 2 front battle :)
The assumption that the amount of energy needed far outstrips the energy in the flame is as valid as ...
The assumption that sodium chloride is a good catalyst in this case which results in the flame giving more energy than the amount of energy needed to split up the water molecule.
Additionally work in another field (windpipe & vortices) showed that resonance can lead to surprising energy savings which can be of importance in this case too.
Just assuming what we assumed for 500 years will not get any better results.
Questioning everything and doing some rock solid base research will.
... all the best,
Walter
Private Reply to Walter Hartmann | | Dec 13, 2007 1:45 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Saltwater as Fuel! | # |
Richard Weisenberger | | The flame definitely had the color you would expect from the sodium being disassociated from the chlorine in the salt. I believe hydrogen and oxygen burns with an almost invisible blue flame.
Also, doesn't sodium burn when exposed to water? This may add some extra energy in addition to the hydrogen and oxygen being disassociated from the water. Would chlorine possibly be another catalyst? The very idea that it works as well as it does is interesting in itself.Private Reply to Richard Weisenberger | | Dec 14, 2007 9:23 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Saltwater as Fuel! | # |
Ron Sam | | This was fun to watch.
This is NOT Saltwater ...
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/863731/water_can_burn/
** (below)
RF saltwater observations
Auto ignition temperature of Sodium (11) is ~ 250oF. Water boils at 212oF. How come the water doesn't boil out of the small test tube?
Metallic sodium is stored in kerosene and if it come in contact with water it explodes.
Ignition of sodium metal yield an orange-yellow flame> Could that mean bond breakage of Na instead of H2?
Wonder if rf energy at a specific frequencies allow the sodium to release a gas?
If rf energy source had controlled deliver, frequency and amplitude, then only the amount of sodium to yield the orange-yellow flame could occur, this may be an explanation.
If increased rf energy applied it may go unstable.
Ron
**
Tricked: Looks like an alcohol fueled flame, which is same color as water.
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Dec 14, 2007 11:27 pm | | Saltwater as Fuel! | # |
Walter Hartmann | | Good point!!!
The colour of the flame is a strong hint towards Na being involved in some way.
Sadly we don't hear a word on efficiency, which is not that hard to measure - or any other detail to reproduce the process.
The biggest problem around the whole thing is the problem of human nature. People find such phenomena then they realise the commercial potential and after that they can't see the forest (Nature) for the (money-) trees anymore. They go paranoid that they won't see the money they 'think' they own. Hence we never see a patent or - if we do, the inventor usually goes broke on maintaining it. So after a few years there is 'evidence' that the invention was not commercially viable. Where the truth is that it only failed because there was not enough money around to get it to the market, allowing the petro-chem-industry with the most vested interest to go back to business as normal.
It's not a catch22 - it's a catch484!
... all the best!
WalterPrivate Reply to Walter Hartmann | | |
| |
| |
