Can Water Be Made Flammable Through RF Irradiation and Minerals?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Buckeye
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics Water
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of making water flammable through the application of RF (radio frequency) irradiation and the addition of minerals or salts. Participants explore the physics behind hydrogen production from water and the implications of energy efficiency in this process, with references to specific experiments and claims made in the past.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants recall a paper suggesting that adding a mineral to water and irradiating it with RF could produce hydrogen that is flammable.
  • One participant argues that while water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen using energy, the energy produced from burning them is equal to the energy consumed in the separation process, implying no net gain.
  • Another participant mentions that the claim may have been a revival of previous "crackpot speculation," noting that the researcher attributed the flammability to the salt in the water.
  • Several participants suggest that adding sodium or potassium to water could ignite it without the need for RF irradiation.
  • Questions are raised about the mechanism by which RF could ignite hydrogen and the energy efficiency of such a process, with a specific inquiry into the Kanzius experiments.
  • A participant proposes a method involving a cavity resonator and microwave transmitter to break down water molecules for ignition, suggesting it could be mass-produced economically.
  • Another participant reiterates the importance of thermodynamic laws in energy production, indicating that any process would still require more energy input than output.
  • One participant references a previous discussion that included patents and mentions the specific frequency used in the Kanzius experiments.
  • A later reply expresses skepticism about the continuation of the discussion, labeling it as crackpot speculation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of skepticism and curiosity regarding the claims made about water flammability through RF irradiation. There is no consensus on the validity of the proposed methods or the underlying physics, with some participants categorizing the discussion as speculative.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved questions about the energy efficiency of the proposed methods and the dependence on specific conditions or definitions related to the claims made. The discussion also reflects a tension between exploratory ideas and established thermodynamic principles.

Buckeye
Messages
164
Reaction score
2
I remember a paper where some mineral was added to water that was irradiated with some RF and as a result hydrogen was produced and could be set on fire.

What is the physics behind this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Water is hydrogen and oxygen, so if you add enough energy (the usual way is by electrolysis), you can split the hydrogen and oxygen, then burn them.

The catch, of course, is that the amount of energy generated by burning the hydrogen and oxygen is precisely equal to the amount of energy used up to separate them.

This specific method has been discussed several times, and unfortunately is currently the subject of crackpot speculation. Make no mistake: you can't get more energy from this process than you put into it.
 
I believe I recall the same article. It appeared to be a revamp of the old "crackpot speculation" to which Russ referred. What made it "news" at the time was that this researcher claimed it was the salt in the water that he was burning, and that this constituted eight "fuel" of sorts. This is separated his claim from the perpetual motion-type designs of his predecessors.

However, since I never heard anything more about it, I assumed that it was the same kind of nonsense as other "water burning" claims.
 
Instead of a mineral, just add Sodium or Potassium, no RF needed.
 
How can RF make water (hydrogen oxygen) ignite? And what is the energy efficiency of this process. Is there any published information regarding the Kanzius experiments?
 
Jeff Reid said:
Instead of a mineral, just add Sodium or Potassium, no RF needed.

Yup... nothing unclogs a sewer line better than flushing half a kilo of sodium wrapped up in paper. :biggrin:
 
Folks, the law of thermodynamics applies in ALL energy production.
I propose adding a cavity resonator containing a small microwave transmitter (say, a cordless or cell phone oscillator) and tuned crystal array) to en engine throttle body fuel injector. As the injector sprays mists of of saline, the cavity resonator will break down the valance bonds and the hydrogen will ignite. I bet the entire package could be mass produced for less than $100.
 
Bob-45 said:
Folks, the law of thermodynamics applies in ALL energy production.
I propose adding a cavity resonator containing a small microwave transmitter (say, a cordless or cell phone oscillator) and tuned crystal array) to en engine throttle body fuel injector. As the injector sprays mists of of saline, the cavity resonator will break down the valance bonds and the hydrogen will ignite. I bet the entire package could be mass produced for less than $100.
Or the hydrogen simply recombines with the oxygen, so there is no benefit, and one still has to put more energy in than one gets out.
 
I did a long post on this that includes links to patents. and a lot discussion. one of the things that came out in the discussion is that the the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance for Oxygen is 13.556.-- which is the frequency that Kanzius used.

[Link removed - Zz]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Not really sure why we allowed this discussion to continue...

Welcome to pf, chas, but pleas note, we don't do crackpot discussions here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K