Burning Salt Water: The Future of Fuel?

[Chi Meson]

The original Amana microwave oven was called the the Amana Radar range.

http://www.smecc.org/micro1.jpg

We had one. No buttons, just two dials, and (get this) the door was hinged to open downward (not to the side) like an oven door.

After about ten years of use in the same location it was discovered that the plastic handles on a set of never-used steak knives that sat on the shelf just below the Radar Range had melted.

Yikes!

Edit: now notices the link with picture, so's you know about the door already...

 

[baywax]

We had one. No buttons, just two dials, and (get this) the door was hinged to open downward (not to the side) like an oven door.

After about ten years of use in the same location it was discovered that the plastic handles on a set of never-used steak knives that sat on the shelf just below the Radar Range had melted.

Yikes!

Edit: now notices the link with picture, so's you know about the door already...

Very interesting. This could easily jump to a thread about cell phones but, that might attract too many "loonies" who've had their cerebral cortexs "cooked".

Cancer causing cell phones myth debunked:

Researchers at the Danish Cancer Institute (who, remember, don't want you to get cancer) followed more than 420,000 cell phone users, nearly a tenth of the Danish population, and found that their cell phone habits did not increase their risk of any type of cancer. The results were published last week in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

http://www.livescience.com/health/061212_bad_phones.html

But, on topic, I'm trying to fathom the draw-back of using radio frequencies to burn salt water and using the combustion as a driver for vehicles. Would not an ordinary car battery suffice as the energy behind the radio frequencies? Or better yet... a not so ordinary car battery and not so ordinary radio frequency emitter. All that would be needed would be short bursts of the frequency... not unlike the sparks from a sparkplug.

 

[mrjeffy321]

Would not an ordinary car battery suffice as the energy behind the radio frequencies? Or better yet... a not so ordinary car battery and not so ordinary radio frequency emitter. All that would be needed would be short bursts of the frequency... not unlike the sparks from a sparkplug.

But the energy which goes into breaking up the water in order to release Hydrogen gas (H2) comes from the battery (via the radio waves), and the energy from the battery is continuously recharged by the alternator, which is in turn powered by the engine. So you are trying to run the engine off itself (chemical energy --> mechanical energy --> electrical energy --> EM energy --> chemical energy, and you are back to the start of the cycle).

 

[baywax]

But the energy which goes into breaking up the water in order to release Hydrogen gas (H2) comes from the battery (via the radio waves), and the energy from the battery is continuously recharged by the alternator, which is in turn powered by the engine. So you are trying to run the engine off itself (chemical energy --> mechanical energy --> electrical energy --> EM energy --> chemical energy, and you are back to the start of the cycle).

Doesn't the rotation of the vehicle's wheels figure into charging the battery?

 

[mrjeffy321]

Doesn't the rotation of the vehicle's wheels figure into charging the battery?

But that rotation is due to the engine...unless of course you start your car on top of a hill and roll down.
Your car battery also have some energy stored within it prior to starting your car up (assuming you don’t have a dead battery), but the battery will eventually die if you continually draw energy out of it and don’t put any (or as much) back in.
Using the battery to generate the radio waves to make the H2 to power the engine to power the alternator to charge the battery will fail in the long run, it is only a matter of time, and even more so when you are also trying to extract energy out of this process to power the car.

 

[edward]

We had one. No buttons, just two dials, and (get this) the door was hinged to open downward (not to the side) like an oven door.

After about ten years of use in the same location it was discovered that the plastic handles on a set of never-used steak knives that sat on the shelf just below the Radar Range had melted.

Yikes!

Edit: now notices the link with picture, so's you know about the door already...

Those suckers still leak if the door seal is damaged or the door is not aligned perfectly. The older models had a heavy duty metal latch and two interlock swithces in case one falied. Today we have a tacky plastic latch with a single built in interlock switch.

 

[edward]

Doesn't the rotation of the vehicle's wheels figure into charging the battery?

The electric motor in electric vehicles and most hybrids acts as a generator during slowing and braking. Owners are instructed to use a light touch on the hydraulic brakes.

 

[Chi Meson]

Using the battery to generate the radio waves to make the H2 to power the engine to power the alternator to charge the battery will fail in the long run, it is only a matter of time, and even more so when you are also trying to extract energy out of this process to power the car.

A good explanation, but I would say it would fail "in the short run." The energy of the battery would be more efficiently used to directly make an electric engine run. All those energy transitions that end with a generator..., the car wouldn't move. A generator is more efficient at turning the kinetic energy into electric potential than the efficiency of turning electric into kinetic by way of this...silliness.

Anyway, if one had pure Hydrogen as a fuel, one would want to use a fuel cell which allows a more efficient conversion of chemical to electric energy. That wouldmake the energy conversions as follows: starting with te battery:

chemical => electric => radiant (microwaves) => chemical => electric (fuel cell) => rotational kinetic (motor) => linear kinetic

why bother with the extra weight and the loss of at least half of your usable energy to convert electric to electric energy during this process?

 

[baywax]

A good explanation, but I would say it would fail "in the short run." The energy of the battery would be more efficiently used to directly make an electric engine run. All those energy transitions that end with a generator..., the car wouldn't move. A generator is more efficient at turning the kinetic energy into electric potential than the efficiency of turning electric into kinetic by way of this...silliness.

Anyway, if one had pure Hydrogen as a fuel, one would want to use a fuel cell which allows a more efficient conversion of chemical to electric energy. That wouldmake the energy conversions as follows: starting with te battery:

chemical => electric => radiant (microwaves) => chemical => electric (fuel cell) => rotational kinetic (motor) => linear kinetic

why bother with the extra weight and the loss of at least half of your usable energy to convert electric to electric energy during this process?

Alrighty then, how about a Tesla-type condenser that collects free radiowaves then re-directs them to burn salt water?

 

[Chi Meson]

Alrighty then, how about a Tesla-type condenser that collects free radiowaves then re-directs them to burn salt water?

Good luck with that.

Let's say you are 10 miles away from the transmitter of a 55 kilowatt radio station; that's a powerful one, you know. If your car was one big receiver of radiowave energy, you could collect no more than one thousandth of a watt of power. One thousandth of a joule per second, from that radio wave. Collect all the free radiowaves at once, and you should see that you are not even going to approach a single joule of energy per second.

Tesla's genius notwithstanding, just mentioning his name does not make a fantasy practical.

And once again, salt water is not burning.

 

[Astronuc]

Speaking of burning hydrogen -

The deadline for submitting your abstract is just a few short weeks away! Act now so that you can join in the global hydrogen dialogue at the Materials Innovations in an Emerging Hydrogen Economy conference happening February 24-27, 2008, in Cocoa Beach, Florida.

Deadline: October 1, 2007

www.ceramics.org/hydrogen2008

Materials Innovations in an Emerging Hydrogen Economy is organized by The American Ceramic Society and ASM International and endorsed by the National Hydrogen Association and the Society for Advancement of Material and Process Engineering (SAMPE).

 

[baywax]

Good luck with that.

Let's say you are 10 miles away from the transmitter of a 55 kilowatt radio station; that's a powerful one, you know. If your car was one big receiver of radiowave energy, you could collect no more than one thousandth of a watt of power. One thousandth of a joule per second, from that radio wave. Collect all the free radiowaves at once, and you should see that you are not even going to approach a single joule of energy per second.

Tesla's genius notwithstanding, just mentioning his name does not make a fantasy practical.

And once again, salt water is not burning.

OK! I had no idea. But this has sparked my interest in crystal radios. What happened to them? I'd like to know more about how they work. Thank you.

 

[Chi Meson]

OK! I had no idea. But this has sparked my interest in crystal radios. What happened to them? I'd like to know more about how they work. Thank you.

The energy that produces the sound from crystal radios is from two sources: one is the energy in the radio waves themselves, the other is from the crystal. And here is where the whackos grab it and take off! The energy in the crystal is simply thermal energy (more correctly "internal energy" which is the molecular kinetic energy of the vibrating atoms and molecules. This energy can be absorbed as heat from the surrounding air. Some crystalline materials can turn their molecular vibrations into a tiny electric current (not too far ofa stretch, since the electrons are part of the molecule, and moving electrons is a current).

If you have constructed a crystal radio, you should notice that you can't crank the volume up. The sound is faint and of a limited range of frequencies, and so therefore, the sound itself is not very much energy at all.

Think of how loud a battery-powered radio can get. NOw think of how fast those same batteries might be able to make a normal car go. Not too fast, if at all.

Sound is surprisingly low energy. The "threshold of pain" is the loudest we can tolerate, and that is 1 watt per square meter, or 1 joule of energy per second per square meter.

For comparison:
A can of soda (pop) contains about a million joules of energy
a kilowatt-hour is 3,600,000 joules of energy
a barrel of oil contains about 6 billion joules of energy

 

[baywax]

The energy that produces the sound from crystal radios is from two sources: one is the energy in the radio waves themselves, the other is from the crystal. And here is where the whackos grab it and take off! The energy in the crystal is simply thermal energy (more correctly "internal energy" which is the molecular kinetic energy of the vibrating atoms and molecules. This energy can be absorbed as heat from the surrounding air. Some crystalline materials can turn their molecular vibrations into a tiny electric current (not too far ofa stretch, since the electrons are part of the molecule, and moving electrons is a current).

If you have constructed a crystal radio, you should notice that you can't crank the volume up. The sound is faint and of a limited range of frequencies, and so therefore, the sound itself is not very much energy at all.

Think of how loud a battery-powered radio can get. NOw think of how fast those same batteries might be able to make a normal car go. Not too fast, if at all.

Sound is surprisingly low energy. The "threshold of pain" is the loudest we can tolerate, and that is 1 watt per square meter, or 1 joule of energy per second per square meter.

For comparison:
A can of soda (pop) contains about a million joules of energy
a kilowatt-hour is 3,600,000 joules of energy
a barrel of oil contains about 6 billion joules of energy

Thank you Chi Meson, you're a joule (or more like 6 trillion joules) ;-)

I have heard DOD was thinking of using sound as a destructive force as in ELF

I am reading whackos?

I haven't constructed a crystal radio. I had a rocket radio as a kid and listened to
fishing shows because that's all I could "catch". Would it matter if the crystal was
really big? Might there be more range of frequency and louder sound?

 

[Chi Meson]

I have heard DOD was thinking of using sound as a destructive force as in ELF

I am reading whackos?

Not so much as a destructive force, but as a source of pain, to disperse crowds. Very effective.

 

[rewebster]

It all appears to have started with this man.



It seems like the chlorine in the salt water might make some noxious fumes. Could it end up with some form of Hypochlorite??

what I can't believe is that they haven't tested (or include the results of the tests if they did test them) of what the 'unburnt' fumes are composed of---

 

[Aquafire]

It seems like the chlorine in the salt water might make some noxious fumes. Could it end up with some form of Hypochlorite??

Ah Edward,

For the briefest of moments...

I thought you had discovered a link between Noxious Fumes and Hypocrites ..

Aquafire

 

[Aquafire]

I've been constantly amazed in all these water energy claims how nobody ever mentions the fact that one needs energy to split the molecule and unless your process is 100% efficient you will lose energy. There is no way you will ever gain any. The same with perpetual motion machines. Unless the process is 100% efficient it can't be perpetual and even then if you extract energy from the system it will eventually stop. So whatever is used to set the thing off may as well be used as the source of energy generation.

Well Kurdt, to be fair, John Kanzius hasn't made any claims concerning this processs being 100% effiicient.

In consequence, your drawing a comparison between his discovery and such 'perpetual motion machines' is a bit uncharitable.

Fact of the matter is this.

We simply don't know what amounts of energy have been put into the system to cause this combustion. Has anyone seen any hard data ?

So, if we accept the relative inefficiency of his process; it nevertheless may potentially have merits when measured against existing forms of mechanical combustion.

Why ?

Because, until such time someone comes up with a perpetual motion machine engine to power our economy, we should be looking at all posible comers in this field.

In the end, scales of efficiency, market demand and hard science will sort the chaff from the wheat.

Respectfully..

Aquafire

 

[russ_watters]

Fact of the matter is this.

We simply don't know what amounts of energy have been put into the system to cause this combustion. Has anyone seen any hard data ?

So, if we accept the relative inefficiency of his process; it nevertheless may potentially have merits when measured against existing forms of mechanical combustion.

I think you misunderstand what is happening there: Water does not burn. At all. Ever. It is a waste product of combustion. So the only thing that could possibly be happening is that the water is being separated into hydrogen and oxygen and the hydrogen and oxygen is then burning. The chemical reaction for this is simple and well-understood by junior high school students (and is the same forwards and backwards). Then from the first law of thermodynamics, we know that the maximum amount of net energy this device is capable of producing is zero. Put another way, the amount of energy you get out of it will always be exactly equal to what you put into it. From an energy standpoint, it is a very complicated way of doing nothing at all.

That said, Ivan made a good point in the previous thread: if it provides a more efficient way of splitting hydrogen and oxygen for energy storage purposes, it would be worth looking into.

 

[Chi Meson]

Aquafire,

THe point that perhaps you were making is the same point that I was considering long ago: is there something else burning along with the hydrogen? From people who know more than I do on the subject of sea-water chemistry, the answer is "probably." But, the net amount of energy released in this burn is still less than the energy required to disassociate the molecules of (and in) the sea water.

It is not a source of energy, but it might be a more convenient, more useful step in a conversion process to store energy in a useful form. One could imagine, ultimately, solar energy being used to power the microwave generator to disassociate the water in order to store the hydrogen as a useful fuel. Perhaps ("perhaps") this would be more efficient than the solar => electric => hydrolysis-produced hydrogen. As was noted, a serious chemist PhD/professor (Rustum Roy) is excited by this process. I am certain, now, that the professor never referred to the salt water as the "fuel" or "source of energy."

 

[rewebster]

Well Kurdt, to be fair, John Kanzius hasn't made any claims concerning this processs being 100% efficient.

In consequence, your drawing a comparison between his discovery and such 'perpetual motion machines' is a bit uncharitable.

and how 'efficient' is an average motor vehicle, or the 'source to use' of the electrical power supply that most of us use compared to this process?

 

[Astronuc]

Any process is beneficial or advantageous provided it is more efficient, i.e. produces more mechanical energy for a given thermal/electrical energy consumed.

The objective in producing hydrogen, in this case, or other storable fuel is that it can be used for transportation. Using an inefficient process to produce hydrogen, but then to burn it at the source makes no sense whatsoever. If this was the only energy process, then one would be burning a few grams of hydrogen to make 1 gram hydrogen.

If the prime source of energy is solar power, then it might make sense, but then if there is a more efficient process, e.g. electrolysis, then it makes not sense to produce microwaves to disscociate water.

The problem of what to do with the side reactions - Cl₂, HCl, HOCl, NaOCl, . . . . - was not even addressed.

 

[Aquafire]

Any process is beneficial or advantageous provided it is more efficient, i.e. produces more mechanical energy for a given thermal/electrical energy produced.

Yes, and what matters in the long run is the economic cost; relative to whatever deliverable and usable energy is produced.

With the greatest respect to my fellow posters, I am not interested in arguing whether the salt water is a fuel, or whether it is hydrogen being burned, or something else.

What I am looking at it is the economics point of view.

If it turns out that the cost per joule of usable energy produced is far less than that of a similar joule of usable energy coming from a barrel of oil, then it has an economic benefit. Furthermore, if the cost to the environment (including costing in waste disposal etc) is far less than our current systems, then that makes it even more economically useful.

Beyond all the other matters, this is the lens through which I am wanting to examine the discovery.

Thanks

Aquafire

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It cannot compete with oil because the energy for that came from the sun long ago.

This is not a fuel source. At most it is using water as an energy carrier [which ultimately is true of oil as well, but we didn't supply the energy to make the oil]. The meaningful test is whether or not this is more efficient than other means of generating hydrogen, such as by using electrolysis. It's a no brainer to make hydrogen burn as it's produced.

 

[Chi Meson]

If it turns out that the cost per joule of usable energy produced is far less than that of a similar joule of usable energy coming from a barrel of oil, then it has an economic benefit. Furthermore, if the cost to the environment (including costing in waste disposal etc) is far less than our current systems, then that makes it even more economically useful.

That's is what we have been saying. And it is quite clear, by simply knowing that microwaves (~60% efficient in production) were used to cause a "candle" that has so far done no more than power a "Stirling" engine (~20% efficient, if that), that so far this method is not economically useful, yet.

It might be made so that it is less costly to environment, and I am hoping that it is; but it is doubtful that it will achieve a "far less costly" threshold. I'd be grateful for "a little bit less."

 

[Aquafire]

That's is what we have been saying. And it is quite clear, by simply knowing that microwaves (~60% efficient in production) were used to cause a "candle" that has so far done no more than power a "Stirling" engine (~20% efficient, if that), that so far this method is not economically useful, yet.

It might be made so that it is less costly to environment, and I am hoping that it is; but it is doubtful that it will achieve a "far less costly" threshold. I'd be grateful for "a little bit less."

Thankyou Chi Meson,

I appreciate your succintness and clarity.

If it in fact turns out to be flotsam on the ocean of discovery...so be it.

But until we have the statistics at hand, none of us can be absolutely sure.

I agree with Ivan in that from what he says, it is highly unlikey to be more afficient than electrolysis.

Still, until the facts and all the data is laid squarely on the table for all to see...we must keep an open mind...

...even whilst being healthfully skeptical.

Cheers

Aquafire

 

[russ_watters]

Beyond all the other matters, this is the lens through which I am wanting to examine the discovery.

Looking at it through rose-colored glasses will not turn it into a rose. You cannot examine the cost per unit energy of a process which produces no energy.

 

[rewebster]

well--even if you could get just O2 out of it---just THAT may be great for space exploration or extended moon/mars exploration

 

[Aquafire]

Looking at it through rose-colored glasses will not turn it into a rose.

Misquoting Shakespeare won't turn you into a poet either...


Aquafire

 

[russ_watters]

That isn't a Shakespeare quote/paraphrase.

see through rose-colored glasses Also, look through rose-colored glasses. Take an optimistic view of something, as in Kate enjoys just about every activity; she sees the world through rose-colored glasses, or If only Marvin wouldn’t be so critical, if he could look through colored glasses once in a while, he’d be much happier. The adjectives rosy and rose-colored been used in the sense of "hopeful" or “optimistic" since the 1700s; the current idiom dates from the 1850s...

http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/epub/ahdidioms.shtml

It has nothing to do with the quote you are thinking of: ""What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."