Last edited by a moderator:
Burning seawater..
- Thread starter pax
- Start date
Rainbow Man
Veteran
I assume they're not claiming to get more neergy OUT of the system than they put in.
Because it seems to me to violate the laws of physics to process the exhaust of a burning chemical reaction into fuel without the processing requiring more power than what's derived from the combustion itself.
Btw. What knd of cancer can you treat with microwaves?
Peace.
PS: Seems to me these kind of fantastic "discoveries"/"inventions" are generally made by people that normally operate in a totally different field than the "discovery"/"invention" itself. One they generally don't have any knowledge of. Like in htis case in fact.
Because it seems to me to violate the laws of physics to process the exhaust of a burning chemical reaction into fuel without the processing requiring more power than what's derived from the combustion itself.
Btw. What knd of cancer can you treat with microwaves?
Peace.
PS: Seems to me these kind of fantastic "discoveries"/"inventions" are generally made by people that normally operate in a totally different field than the "discovery"/"invention" itself. One they generally don't have any knowledge of. Like in htis case in fact.
I think this is a revolutionary as ceramics as super conductive material. Even if this isnt sufficiently efficient who knows what further research into this can develop. How much energy does it take to generate a radio signal? Id be happy with 1% more energy out than in in this case hhe... I mean theres so much seawater out there...
If whatever compound in sea-water acts as a catalyst, you can theoretically get more energy out that YOU personally put in. Of course, we're not talking about doing 'round trip', in that we convert sea water, and then throw the results of the equation away.
Perhaps the same that's treated with other radiation treatments?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4gOS8aoFk
Looks like the only compound here is indeed salt... unless he's using tapwater...
Looks like the only compound here is indeed salt... unless he's using tapwater...
I assume they're not claiming to get more neergy OUT of the system than they put in.
Because it seems to me to violate the laws of physics to process the exhaust of a burning chemical reaction into fuel without the processing requiring more power than what's derived from the combustion itself.
Btw. What knd of cancer can you treat with microwaves?
Peace.
PS: Seems to me these kind of fantastic "discoveries"/"inventions" are generally made by people that normally operate in a totally different field than the "discovery"/"invention" itself. One they generally don't have any knowledge of. Like in htis case in fact.
Uhm, what about nuclear fission/fusion bombs?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Direct...es_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Water_Using_Radio_Waves
Dang 76% But this is worth pursuing still...
Dang 76% But this is worth pursuing still...
So, basically he (re)discovered this? I'm guessing some property of the grape and the microwave causing electricity to flow between the halves, ionizing the air under the glass, heating the grapeskin bridge, igniting the hydrogen and leaving us with a hint of ozone? I can't remember when I first heard about this trick, but it was ages and ages ago.
For what? As a novell way to waste electricity?
You get the same drawbacks as electric vehicles(batteries) combined with none of the benefits(weight, efficient engine, maximum torque at a standstill so it doesn't need an unnescessarily beefy engine to get going, regenerative breaking etc.).
The wiki page hints at one possiblity--as a replacement for the normal catalyst in a fuel cell: platinum. If it reduces costs, even at a loss of 24%, then it has a use as a way to transport energy with relatively low cost and loss.
Possibly, but please keep in mind that the page is full of innaccuracies and the very first link is to overunity silliness.
In particular:
"Now consider if they could eliminate platinum from fuel cells altogether while using salt water as a storage and fuel for hydrogen -- suddenly hydrogen fuel cell cars would be dramatically cheaper."
The energy comes from the huge-ass pile of batteries you have to tug along, not the water. Batteries are at best about 50 times less energy dense than petrol; that's the whole idea behind fuel cells, avoiding petrol and still having some range.
Wouldn't the energy comes from the energy stored in the fuel cells, which is why they would be there? No batteries at all.
Fuel cells don't store energy. They convert a fuel(usually hydrogen gas and atmospheric oxygen) into electricity.
The purpose of this is that hydrogen gas is more energy dense than batteries by quite a bit. But they are suggesting you bring along a tank of salt water instead and make your hydrogen. But salt water isn't the energy source for their process; you'll have to bring along all the energy you need in the form of giant bloody batteries to make the hydrogen.
1) huge battery + antenna and circuitry -> radio waves.
2) Radiowaves + salt water -> hydrogen gas
3) Hydrogen gas + fuel cell -> electricity.
4) Electric engine + electricity -> work.
What good did 1, 2 and 3 do besides waste energy?
Last edited by a moderator:
You're obviously assuming step 1 is where the energy of the system is coming from, and steps 2, 3 are simply drags on the system.
If, assuming that amount of energy to break apart the salt water is less than energy that comes out of the fuel cell, then its a win, as the basic 'storage' of your hydrogen is the water, rather than liquid hydrogen, as its more dense and easier to store.
No, the energy is the hydrogen in the salt water. The radio waves break it apart (and its not said that it takes more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen via