Is Using Radiowaves to Heat Saltwater a Viable Energy Source?

[Aschere]

http://www.wpbf.com/news/13383827/detail.html

The gist is like this: radiowaves are used to heat up saltwater, making it up to 3000F. Speculation exists over the energy usefulness of this.

Whats the opinion here on it? I'm no chemist, so its all enxothermic to me.

 

[Garth]

Interesting.

I notice the power rating on the RF system goes up to the 1.4 KW mark.

First. I would dispute strongly that he is obtaining more heat power out than he is putting RF power into the experiment. (If he is then this must be another form of 'cold fusion'!)

Second. There are radio stations of much greater power that transmit over the sea. (While in the Navy in the Seychelles I saw the FEBA Christian missionary radio transmitter that had a series of transmitting aerials actually sitting in shallow water transmitting to Asia. The sea didn't catch fire!)

Garth

 

[russ_watters]

It takes more energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get back by burning it, no matter how you do it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yep, no such thing as free energy. He may have gotten interesting results suggesting something that we don't fully understand [or maybe not] but a careful accounting of the energy input will certainly show a net loss. I suspect that if the basic story is true, the effect is what interests engineers and not the idea of free energy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've decided to open this thread again but not to discuss free energy. Any such posts will be deleted. If there is any more information on the effect reported [and from better sources], please post it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's remarkable in any event because I've never heard of dissociating water into it's constituent elements by radio waves. I've only heard of this done by electrolysis or extreme heat.

The question I have is why are they focusing on salt water? Does fresh water work? If not, why?

 

[Chi Meson]

I noticed that the flame is the signature yellow of sodium (I didn't have my spectrometer out, so I'm not sure about that). Is it possible that the sodium of salt water is releasing energy in the process? I've only just seen this, so feel free to shoot it down, and no insults are necessary, I'm teaching my class and a student is watching.

 

[Stevedye56]

The bond enthalpy of NaCl (412.1 KJ/mol) is farely high, almost half of the strongest diatomic bond enthalpy CO (1076.5 KJ/mol). But at such a high temperature this wouldn't be a problem. If the Sodium was giving of energy, wouldn't you have chlorine gas released?

 

[zoobyshoe]

IIRC there are seven salts in sea water. There are more variables to consider here than just H20 and NaCl. After common sodium chloride I believe epsom salt is the next most prevalent. There's enough of it that it's viable to extract magnesium from salt water without it being too complex or costly.

 

[mrjeffy321]

It is an interesting demonstration he puts on.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the Yellow flame color is due to the Sodium ions present in the water. The Sodium [Chloride] does not really have to react itself to give impart the yellow color to the flame; you could just stick some salt into an ordinary flame (example, a non-luminous butane lighter’s flame) and turn the flame yellow, then you could pull out the colorant and it should still be NaCl and the flame color will return to normal.
The yellow color Sodium ions impart in flames will easily over power other colors due to other salts present.

Could it be that he is, very, locally heating the water up to a temperature so high that the decomposition reaction becomes spontaneous (2 H2O --> 2 H2 + O2) and then the H2 and O2 bubbles float away and get burnt. In the process of bubbling up, small droplets of NaCl solution get thrown up into the air and the water soon evaporates leaving small NaCl particles in the flame which act to give it the distinctive yellow color.
But if water is really decomposing and both H2 and O2 are produced, the I would have expected the combusting gasses on top of the test tube to behave much more explosively. If you ignite a mixture of H2 and O2 gas in the proper proportion, it explodes quite quickly with a load pop, it does not burn slowly like a candle wick,

 

[Chi Meson]

It is an interesting demonstration he puts on.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the Yellow flame color is due to the Sodium ions present in the water. The Sodium [Chloride] does not really have to react itself to give impart the yellow color to the flame; you could just stick some salt into an ordinary flame (example, a non-luminous butane lighter’s flame) and turn the flame yellow, then you could pull out the colorant and it should still be NaCl and the flame color will return to normal.
The yellow color Sodium ions impart in flames will easily over power other colors due to other salts present.

Could it be that he is, very, locally heating the water up to a temperature so high that the decomposition reaction becomes spontaneous (2 H2O --> 2 H2 + O2) and then the H2 and O2 bubbles float away and get burnt. In the process of bubbling up, small droplets of NaCl solution get thrown up into the air and the water soon evaporates leaving small NaCl particles in the flame which act to give it the distinctive yellow color.
But if water is really decomposing and both H2 and O2 are produced, the I would have expected the combusting gasses on top of the test tube to behave much more explosively. If you ignite a mixture of H2 and O2 gas in the proper proportion, it explodes quite quickly with a load pop, it does not burn slowly like a candle wick,

But in this process there is a continuous generation of O and H, not a large buildup, so it appears to be breaking down and then combusting at the same rate.

I'm afraid I'm going to say HOOEY!

Maybe it's a more efficient manner of getting H2 though?

 

[russ_watters]

But in this process there is a continuous generation of O and H, not a large buildup, so it appears to be breaking down and then combusting at the same rate.

I'm afraid I'm going to say HOOEY!

Well, it is certainly going to combust at the same rate it breaks down at - it couldn't combust at any other rate!

Maybe it's a more efficient manner of getting H2 though?

I doubt it - radio waves (or whatever he's using) are hard to contain and focus so that you don't lose a lot of it. I missed where Garth saw the 1.4kW, but a flame like that can't be producing more than a couple hundred watts.

 

[NoTime]

There was an implication, from the cancer cure part of this, that metal nanoparticles are also included in the water.

 

[Chi Meson]

Well, it is certainly going to combust at the same rate it breaks down at - it couldn't combust at any other rate!

Well sure, my point was that this is why it doesn't characteristically "pop."

I doubt it - radio waves (or whatever he's using) are hard to contain and focus so that you don't lose a lot of it. I missed where Garth saw the 1.4kW, but a flame like that can't be producing more than a couple hundred watts.

Yeah, it sounds more like hooey the more I think about it. I was willing to consider it for a while, though. It's an interesting demo, an interesting phenomenon; but really, the guy thinks it's going to power a car?

This news story dates back to February, and there has been not much residual chatter afterward about it. I guess the guy has been talked to by now.

 

[mrjeffy321]

but really, the guy thinks it's going to power a car?

Whether it is a practical way of powering a car or not, that is usually a good way to get attention for yourself...call the news companies up and say you found a way to power an automobile using "water" and they will send a camera crew right over.

 

[russ_watters]

Well sure, my point was that this is why it doesn't characteristically "pop."

Because it isn't being collected and concentrated before being ignited. If the flame isn't there, it just comes out of the test tube and dissipates into the air. I've only done electrolysis once, in high school, but the test tube was inverted over a beaker of water and we collected it for a minute or two before igniting it.

This news story dates back to February, and there has been not much residual chatter afterward about it. I guess the guy has been talked to by now.

It was on a local news station's website here last week. Roughly the same story: http://www.nbc10.com/irresistible/13405989/detail.html

 

[mrjeffy321]

Because it isn't being collected and concentrated before being ignited. If the flame isn't there, it just comes out of the test tube and dissipates into the air. I've only done electrolysis once, in high school, but the test tube was inverted over a beaker of water and we collected it for a minute or two before igniting it.

I do electrolysis all the time.

In my experience, if you have a stream of Hydrogen gas bubbling up from a pool of water and you hold some type of ignition source (like an open flame) over the area where the H2 gas emerges, you will hear a series of small pops as the H2 mixed with the O2 in the air and ignites. In order to hear the pops, though, you usually need to have decently sized H2 bubbles, otherwise nothing really happens.
So I guess the H2 bubbles coming out of this guy's water a very tiny and the production rate is slow and continuous.

 

[Surrealist]

If you placed a bath of salt water in contact with a bath of distilled water, the chemical potential gradient would cause the salt to diffuse and establish stable equillibrium. Essentially, what you would have is a weak battery. In theory, it would be possible to extract work from this transport process. In practice, the amount of work extracted would be too small to care about.

 

[Stevedye56]

If you placed a bath of salt water in contact with a bath of distilled water, the chemical potential gradient would cause the salt to diffuse and establish stable equillibrium. Essentially, what you would have is a weak battery. In theory, it would be possible to extract work from this transport process. In practice, the amount of work extracted would be too small to care about.

Wouldn't this be Gibbs Free Energy?

 

[Surrealist]

Yes, Gibbs Free Energy is correct.

 

[psychosquirrel]

Could be possible??

If it works with Salt Water and the claims of the bonds of Hydrogen and Oxygen were being broken What about the Sodium and Chlorine making up the salt? I believe all chemical bonds were being broken and the catalyist that made the "violent flame" was from the sodium, not the hydrogen since Sodium is reactive when it comes into contact with moisture...

PsychoSquirrel

 

[mrjeffy321]

I believe all chemical bonds were being broken and the catalyist that made the "violent flame" was from the sodium, not the hydrogen since Sodium is reactive when it comes into contact with moisture...

PsychoSquirrel

I very, very much doubt there is any elemental Sodium being produced.
And even if there was, it would immediately react with the water and produce Hydrogen gas anyway.
Water is easier to reduce than Na+ ions, therefore H2 will form over Na.
The yellow flame color can be explained by the presence of Na+ ions from the salt dissolved in the water, no elemental Na is necessary.

 

[psychosquirrel]

I very, very much doubt there is any elemental Sodium being produced.
And even if there was, it would immediately react with the water and produce Hydrogen gas anyway.
Water is easier to reduce than Na+ ions, therefore H2 will form over Na.
The yellow flame color can be explained by the presence of Na+ ions from the salt dissolved in the water, no elemental Na is necessary.

Ah ok so the sodium is being burned off quicker than it can be produced like you said the yellow flame. Makes sense, thanks for the explination.

PsychoSquirrel

 

[WØTDH]

Salt Water Energy?

Shades of Tesla; Nikoli would have loved this

Frequency range and power levels would be of great interest.
(I would not stick my hand in a 1.4kw microwave beam...pulsed or otherwise, if that was the power level)

In the video it did not indicate anything but salt added to the water.

 

[rewebster]

With all of the 'physicists' on the forum, doesn't anyone of you have the equipment to run a test to verify or at least duplicate this?

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, I'd very much enjoy setting up a lab to test crackpots' claims. I will, however, require a $10,000 retainer and $150/hr.

 

[rewebster]

Sure, I'd very much enjoy setting up a lab to test crackpots' claims. I will, however, require a $10,000 retainer and $150/hr.

hey--that sounds good (and cheap)


If fact, I just sent your requirements off to Exxon to see if they'd go for it!

 

[Gary Martin]

Yep, no such thing as free energy. He may have gotten interesting results suggesting something that we don't fully understand [or maybe not] but a careful accounting of the energy input will certainly show a net loss. I suspect that if the basic story is true, the effect is what interests engineers and not the idea of free energy.

When I saw this I was extremely critical so with the back ground of my life I was able to duplicate the procedure only I added a few things.
I did have to work on the frequency a bit to make the gas from salt water.
The one thing I noticed was his small tube of water,the idea behind any energy production is to get the most out of your process as possible.
I made a flat glass container the size of my frequency emitter and found that the depth all so played an important part.I had to change the depth four times before I reached a great gas emitting thresh hold.
To my surprise I developed much more energy than I put in.
I am now going to put every ounce of my time into this for it will surely change our energy needs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I saw this I was extremely critical so with the back ground of my life I was able to duplicate the procedure only I added a few things.
I did have to work on the frequency a bit to make the gas from salt water.
The one thing I noticed was his small tube of water,the idea behind any energy production is to get the most out of your process as possible.
I made a flat glass container the size of my frequency emitter and found that the depth all so played an important part.I had to change the depth four times before I reached a great gas emitting thresh hold.
To my surprise I developed much more energy than I put in.
I am now going to put every ounce of my time into this for it will surely change our energy needs.

What is your background? How are you measuring the energy input and output?

 

[Gary Martin]

I am 49 years old and for 29 years I have been an electrician,machinist and make my own solar panels that heat homes,garrages or what ever you want to heat when the sun is out.A friend of mine who is an engineer for a local business that developes frequency
generators for the military and buisnesess through out our country helped me with the
generator for my project.Of course after I told him why,he was all for helping me and wanted it for his home to if it worked.As for the input he had all the gauges to monitor the power going in.
The output reading was a lot more difficult.I had to buy a small piston steam engine and make the parts on my lathe so I could run a small generator.With the help of some freinds that work at a machine shop I was able to get all of my components rather fast.
They did say I owe them big if this all works.
I was easily able to monitor the power output from my generator.
I am not sure how this works with the idea that he probably ownes the patient but I do know when I am done I will have free electricity for my home.
I can see homes all over this country self suficient with this new energy.

 

[K.J.Healey]

What were your numbers? Any pictures of the setup?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am 49 years old and for 29 years I have been an electrician,machinist and make my own solar panels that heat homes,garrages or what ever you want to heat when the sun is out.A friend of mine who is an engineer for a local business that developes frequency
generators for the military and buisnesess through out our country helped me with the
generator for my project.Of course after I told him why,he was all for helping me and wanted it for his home to if it worked.As for the input he had all the gauges to monitor the power going in.
The output reading was a lot more difficult.I had to buy a small piston steam engine and make the parts on my lathe so I could run a small generator.With the help of some freinds that work at a machine shop I was able to get all of my components rather fast.
They did say I owe them big if this all works.
I was easily able to monitor the power output from my generator.
I am not sure how this works with the idea that he probably ownes the patient but I do know when I am done I will have free electricity for my home.
I can see homes all over this country self suficient with this new energy.

I suggest that you hook up the power output to the power input, and I'm sure that any idea of free power will go up in smoke.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No matter how quickly you switch from line to generated power, the system will lose power until the reaction stops.

I know these things; I'm psychic.

 

[russ_watters]

To my surprise I developed much more energy than I put in.

Just to make sure we're clear here, it doesn't just need to put out "much more energy than I put in", it needs to put out at least five times as much energy as you put into actually break even. With some very generous assumptions:

Microwave generator efficiency: 65%
Microwave capture: 100% (doubtful, but I'd need to see the setup...)
Microwave electrolysis efficiency: 100% (I have no idea, but regular electrolysis is nowhere near 100% efficient)
Hydrogen boiler efficiency: 90%
Steam engine efficiency: 35%
Electric generator efficiency: 90%

Overall efficiency: .65*.90*.35*.9= 18%

So in order to break even, you'll need to be able to produce at least five times as much hydrogen as is theoretically possible.

Your posts seem rather flip and non-descriptive to me and that makes me very skeptical. As suggested, it would be a simple matter to post a picture of your setup or spend a few more minutes to describe what you have done.

Extrordinary claims...

 

[ben_gal]

Interesting.

The sea didn't catch fire!)

Garth

Right, but the frequency must be 13.56MHz. which is, probably, some resonance frequency which "builts" the salt-water desintegration.

 

[TVP45]

If you follow the stories about this burning seawater (or the cancer cure variant) demo, note the reporter's name.

 

[WolfgangsBaby]

Still no one has debunked this in the laboratory??

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, the guy who originally did the experiment debunked it himself.

 

[TVP45]

Dr. Roy, the materials scientist from Penn State, has stated that, despite appearances, the water is not burning. Philip Ball of Nature puts it a little more plainly, "Water is not a fuel."

You can always check the tailpipe of your car and note that water comes out as a product of burning. Or visit any power plant and note the clouds (water vapor) formed by burning.

 

[Astronuc]

Dr. Roy, the materials scientist from Penn State, has stated that, despite appearances, the water is not burning. Philip Ball of Nature puts it a little more plainly, "Water is not a fuel."

You can always check the tailpipe of your car and note that water comes out as a product of burning. Or visit any power plant and note the clouds (water vapor) formed by burning.

Or in many cases, evaporative cooling from cooling towers.

 

[TVP45]

Or in many cases, evaporative cooling from cooling towers.

Yes, you do see clouds over the coolers, but I was referring to the flue gases.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes, you do see clouds over the coolers, but I was referring to the flue gases.

You and I know that, and most PFers would understand, but I was thinking of the public at large. It's not just any power plant, but one's the burn fossil fuel. Some nuclear plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot of water vapor. Some fossil plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot more water vapor than the flue gas. Some local power plants put out brown flue gas, and I've seen brown clouds drifting east from horizon to horizon.

 

[russ_watters]

It all depends on the plant. Coal plants produce very little water vapor - gas turbine plants produce twice as much water as carbon dioxide.

 

[TVP45]

You and I know that, and most PFers would understand, but I was thinking of the public at large. It's not just any power plant, but one's the burn fossil fuel. Some nuclear plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot of water vapor. Some fossil plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot more water vapor than the flue gas. Some local power plants put out brown flue gas, and I've seen brown clouds drifting east from horizon to horizon.

Good point. I wasn't even thinking of nuclear. Duh!

 

[TVP45]

It all depends on the plant. Coal plants produce very little water vapor - gas turbine plants produce twice as much water as carbon dioxide.

Quite so. Most of the water vapor in coal fired flue gas is due to secondary water injection.

 

[edallen]

Nmr?

I'm new to the "saltwater" discussion. 'Tis a puzzlement. Can't disagree with the generalities submitted so far, but a couplke of thoughts to stir the pot:
1. If the supposed new process is a method of extracting fuel rather than conversion of energy, then the process could conceptually have excess output.
2, The reported use (without numerical data or details) of a specific frequency brings to mind the setup for nuclear magnetic resonance NMR (used in MRI). I recall that HF range was used.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If the supposed new process is a method of extracting fuel rather than conversion of energy, then the process could conceptually have excess output.

That supposes that there is some mystery chemical in water that we don't know about. There is hydrogen and oxygen, and the energy required to release the hydrogen is well known: The energy that we get from burning hydrogen is the same amount of energy that it takes to get the hydrogen out because they are inverse chemical reactions.

It doesn't matter if we release the hydrogen through electrolysis, or through excitation due to microwaves, the energy requirement to break the molecular bonds is the same.

I would imagine that we know more about the water molecule than we do any other molecule, less H2.

 

[thomasxc]

i agree with ivan seeking.

 

[Constructe]

Unless he publishes more details all is speculation. Just because someone can make hydrogen and ignites it doesn't a scientific wonder happen. Perhaps he should take chemistry class if he thinks that's amazing. I would however be interested in what vibrates at what e/m frequency, including radio waves.

 

[Constructe]

LOL I found out if you put metal in a microwave it can start a fire. Can someone interview me?