Is Using Radiowaves to Heat Saltwater a Viable Energy Source?

[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?

 

[GCT]

I suspect that the sodium chloride has something to do with boiling point elevation , and as the water evaporates the solution becomes more concentrated with the sodium chloride which raises the boiling point higher , somehow this may make the process of evaporation more favorable with respect to the rate of combustion.

Water evaporates increasing the kinetics of its gaseous constituents and then ions of sodium and chloride may assist in cutting the hydrogen bonds when they become gaseous . I have yet to find the blueprint of the setup, so my assumptions may be way off without considering the context of the experiment.

Reactions require a certain activation energy for appreciable product formation and energy is obtained if the free energy of the product is lower than what was consumed. We have the heating up of the water and the combustion of hydrogen, we're dealing with intermolecular attractions in the former and intramolecular bonds in the latter , so the process may actually be useful. Heating the water , however , is an inefficient process and I'm certain that there some concerns that pertain to engineering here.